Phil Lowe

First of all, you don't know me, so don't presume to think what is or isn't easy for me. Second, the money I was making every month from this was going to help cover the cost of my $600/month health insurance and medical supplies, like insulin and needles. So no, not an "easy leave" for me. Finally, if people stay and allow themselves to be exploited and abused, that is their fault, not Shutterstock's. We can always trust a company like this to do what's best for it. But if you aren't willing to do what's best for you, whatever that is, then you have no one but yourself to blame

I left iStock over 1 cent royalties. I'm not going to accept 10 cent royalties from this place. As you can see, my ports are disabled and I have no plans on turning them back on.

Every year. June 1st is the "reset" to new levels under current downloads from January 1st of this year.

Pay cut for me June 1 (were I to stay) and another January 1 ad infinitum. That's not fear. That's a bad plan being shoved down our throats. Your mileage may vary.

Refusing to move a company's headquarters for a better business arrangement is one sure sign of a company not long for this world.

The problem - and this is something they won't tell us - is how many of those wonderful $9 sales we will get! This only incentivizes them to push the 750 subs even more! If most of your sales are subs from big subscription packages, you lose, and there's no reason SS would push the packages that make more for you when they will make more on those larger subscription packages now. They hold all the cards and we get left with whatever crumbs they want to toss our way.

And one more thing: most of us don't work out of posh offices in the Empire State Building, in the heart of Midtown Manhattan. You could start saving operating expenses by moving into a smaller city's warehouse district! And, while I'm all for CEOs making all they can, $4M a year in compensation to a CEO, for a company poor-mouthing it to its contributors is a bit insulting, don't you agree? SS wants it both ways: to argue that the pay cuts to contributors are needed to be competitive while doing nothing on their operating end to remain so! SS is asking people, like me, to bear the wei

Then you eliminate that purchasing option. Why is it OK to ask contributors to work on smaller margins - when we put in all the hard work - when Shutterstock won't? Shutterstock executives certainly have the right to mismanage the company as they see fit, but we don't have to accept it. Looking forward to seeing more sales on Adobe.

I never had a reason to use Twitter until now.

Yep. It's a wholly unrealistic expectation.

The problem is, no one is going to produce the content they want for the price they want to pay! Who's going to spend hours creating an awesome vector or shooting paid models for pennies on the dollar?!?! If the real reason for doing this is to compete with free sites, then they're already doomed, because there is no competition for free except more free. Sad to say it, but the SS business model specifically, and micro stock generally, is a dead-end gig. Just will add that the way they're doing this is the worst way possible. It will guarantee a significant decline in quality cont

My RPD is currently $1.13. For me, the new system will represent a significant pay cut both on June 6, and Jan. 1, as I sell several clips but lots of ODDS per month, but my downloads are not as high as those selling lots of subs. That's why I've turned off my ports. The new system is a lose-lose for people like me.

Own stock. You'll make more in dividends than you will in downloads under this new rip-off scheme.

Corporate-speak for "We hear you but we don't care what you think."

June 1 you will experience your new tier based on this year's downloads. January 1, 2021, you will be reset to level 1. Mazel tov! My new tagline when people go looking for my port(s): "I have stopped licensing my video and images for sale here in response to pay cuts Shutterstock foisted on contributors. Thank you for understanding."