Steve Cukrov

It's comforting to know that Shutterstock's complete lack of transparency won't result in us getting a dime - but at least .11.

Level 5 Subs 1.35 1.33 1.11 1.09 .78 .66 .51 .43 .35 .25

I also did my wifes much smaller all editorial port and she's already down $12 a 27% difference.

I've done some calculating for the last 6 years and with over 100k DL's my RPD is .81 (it varies month to month sometimes over $1 sometimes less) but that is the average. This months RPD is .79 - seems in the ball park. (level 5) But then I went into the details of this months sales and recalculated them as if I was still on the old schedule and my RPD would be .87 and I'd have about $20 more in my account. I see nothing promising about this scheme it's only to take money from us.

Is that Chucks lesser know brother?

@Kate Shutterstock Thanks for your patience is very condescending given everything that is going on. And I don't think the commissions are showing up in the correct columns. Otherwise that means the only sub sales I've had today were before noon when they were still .38. and that all I am getting since is low value SOD's.

SS has a history of rolling things out like this with bugs galore. Kate said in the Announcements Thread that it doesn't sound right that all sales are being listed under SOD's. If you go to your landing page under the lifetime earnings tab is shows your all time dollars and downloads - then look to the right there is a Graphic showing when you joined followed by number of video downloads Followed by a figure showing xxxxx images downloaded The difference is over 3500 on my page

The sale is recorded in June. I'm in California the sale came after it was June in NY. My guess is that sometime after the techs report to work in the morning they will flip the switch.

Same here. I wonder if there will be corrections down the road.

It's not June yet. It is based on NY time zone.

Shutterstock, or for that matter any other site that offers customers subscription packages, counts on and actually, knows that customers don't or won't use the full allotment of images every month. And if you do use up your allotment I bet they are on the phone to you and working out some other arrangement that doesn't cost them money. They make money by customers not downloading their total number of images. It is not in their interest to have anyone use up their 750 or 350 images a month, that's just dumb business. They've been doing this for 17 years now, I think if if they were losing money on subscription sales they wouldn't be offering subscription packages. Why do you think they keep tweaking the algorithm? It isn't to get us more downloads it's to make sure the customer finds the right photo faster without downloading that extra image or two just in case. You think Lightboxes were for our benefit. No, light boxes are for customers to place images in to show the end client without them having to download them to their computers resulting in fewer royalties they have to pay out. Same with collections and similar images, you think you found the right image, just pull up the collection or go to similar images and see the variations. There is no mystery here Shutterstock does not want you selling more subs, it costs them money. Subscription Customers not downloading is where the money is at.

This is possibly the the worst scheme to screw artists yet... and that's taking into consideration all the crap dished out by iStock/Getty.

For some reason they don't show up in Safari. If you swtich to Chrome or firefox the images are there. I find it interesting that a company that claims to be a "technology company" can't make their site work with a platform that many designers and contributors use daily.

Click on the link in your post it takes you right to Known Image Restrictions

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/image-descriptions