Jump to content

Rocky Grimes

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rocky Grimes

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I joined up but am not seeing the benefit, although it’s early. They are putting together some flashing stuff with no real detailed goals or a vision. It certainly sounds good to “ensure fair value and compensation” but the how isn’t clear. Currently the site just profiles a select few. What is the longer term benefit going to be?
  2. Lot of complaining but little action from many. Everyone needs to participate by disabling their accounts. BTW, their stock price is higher today than it was on June 1.
  3. Although Shutterstock has changed its business model to the detriment of the contributors I don’t agree with your skepticism or believe they are blatantly and illegally selling our photos behind our backs. My support here is that I disabled all of my contributions on Shutterstock as everyone should do if they support the effort here. Why are you still selling on Shutterstock? And, I ask you, for the second time, the same question you asked me; “So, how do you even know that Shutterstock is not selling your images without any pay to you?” Well? My answer is that they are not. What say you?
  4. How does anyone know that? I think it’s more likely to be delayed earnings. Unlikely SS is secretly selling my stuff and then paying me for those secret sales.
  5. Just had a photo sell for $3.75 yesterday, even though my portfolio has been disabled for 2 weeks. I'm doing better now per sale with a disabled account than I was prior to it.
  6. I disabled my account a couple weeks ago. What surprises me with this being such a slap-in-the-face is the number of contributors complaining but are still active selling on SS. Simply complaining without taking action does little. A bit reminiscent of the movie Animal House. "Thank you sir, may I have another."
  7. I had less than 300 photos on SS before disabling my account so wasn’t financially tied to it, it just kept me in new gear. I do wonder if, like many industries, once a competitor makes a move like this that other stock sites may look at doing the same thing. Would hate to think this is a tread.
  8. Shutterstock isn’t motivated to open a dialogue regarding this. If you want to give them a little push, posts need to be somewhere other than the SS forums. They’re probably making more money now due to our decreased earnings. Try letting the big SS investors know of our concern. That could be a wake up call. Not sure how recent this is: Shutterstock's stock is owned by a variety of retail and institutional investors. Top institutional shareholders include BlackRock Inc. (7.76%), ArrowMark Colorado Holdings LLC (6.41%), Van Berkom & Associates Inc. (4.85%), Bernzott Capital Advisors (2.59%), Rice Hall James & Associates LLC (1.90%) and Rice Hall James & Associates LLC (1.90%). Company insiders that own Shutterstock stock include Deirdre Mary Bigley, Jonathan Oringer, Martin Brodbeck and Thomas R Evans.
  9. Jonathan Oringer, Shutterstock Founder has sold shares on June 1, 3 & 5. Seems like he would have a good understanding of what’s to come with SS.
  10. I’m so disappointed with this move. I don’t have a lot of photos and don’t depend on this to live, it just keeps me in new equipment. I’ll give it to the end of the month and watch this earnings train wreck before pulling the plug.
×
×
  • Create New...