Jump to content
Kate Shutterstock

New earnings structure for Contributors

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Kate Shutterstock said:

Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time.

SS could've avoided all of this in the first place by DEMANDING "quality work that is fresh, relevant..." in the first place, instead of allowing years' worth of dreck to bloat the database.  

And now SS wants to make long-time contributors here pay for the last few years of Shutterstock's mismanagement???

Yes, that's shameful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kate Shutterstock said:

We are moving to a percentage based earnings model for all licensing plans. The amount contributors earn from each download is a percentage of the price paid by the customer for that license. 

This means your commission will always be a percent of what the customer paid for their license. The flat rate commissions (like 25¢) are going away.

Terrible, just terrible.

Is there at least a minimum commission guarantee, in other words, a minimum return we will get on an image regardless of the pack/subscription/discount the buyer received?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side, Shutterstock will be able to get richer! Starting in January they will earn at least 15% more by making even more money on the backs of the contributors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

The problem is they KNOW it'll be OK.

iStock did exactly this with the same screaming and shouting but ultimately theyre doing just fine.  So SS wants to copy.

 

I stopped uploading to istock becasue of this. For me, now only AS and 123rf left for new uploads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, AREA 6 said:

I believe the best way for contributors to defend the value of their work across this industry is to band together and take definitive action. There really now is no reason to stay here. Not only is your work going to be sold for peanuts (subscription program), you will get a smaller piece of each peanut.  

1. On Sunday (last day of May), disable (but don't delete) your Shutterstock portfolio. You can do that in preferences.

2. Immediately email Pond and Adobe and let them know you've done that. Ostensibly, this may help prevent Pond and Adobe (who have a partnership) follow suit. If a sufficiently large number of contributors suddenly disappear from SS, the value of SS as a source of assets will fall, and the value of Pond 5 and Adobe will increase. Sales/revenue is the ONLY thing these people understand. Let's communicate clearly to them.  

 

  

 

 

I think is a good idea 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, THPStock said:

Terrible, just terrible.

Is there at least a minimum commission guarantee, in other words, a minimum return we will get on an image regardless of the pack/subscription/discount the buyer received?

yep. Minimum $0,001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again doing some more maths, even assuming level climbing the "new" subscription model means i could net if im lucky $0.10 per sub instead of $0.38

So roughly speaking i'll earn 75% LESS from subs.

Looking at my breakdown for images every year subs make up 70%of my overall earnings.

So a 75% discount on 70% of total earnings.....  As you can see, thats not going to make me party.

That alone is going to earn me *thousands* of dollars less per year.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad I'm not a full-time photographer like some of you. As a hobbyist I've been paid over $32,000 in the last 14 years, which is $32,000 more than I would have otherwise earned. It enabled me to purchase a lot of exotic equipment and have some fun in the bargain. Back when I joined in 2006 I was pretty sure that the microstock model could not be self-sustaining. My Law of Dilution says that the more things that exist the less each thing is valued.

Thanks for the good times, Shutterstock, and write if you get work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they're reducing sub sales from $0.38 to $0.06, they can go and foxtrot oscar. Adobe increase commissions and introduce bonus scheme, SS rob us and give the money to the corporate elite to line their pockets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, D. Pimborough said:

Really? Oh Really Shutterstock!

 

Get real you have just become a joke just like iStock

at least iStock was original.  Shutterstock is not just a follower to the bottom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olga_i said:

That's their problem too. There is no motivation to keep work on them. The level of images on shutterstock will be decreased and they will start to loose customers. I'm more than sure. Only if they not decided to close their business such way. Authors could start to sale images on their own.

People said that with IS.  Didnt happen.  SS know it wont happen.

There are more than enough prepared to submit for peanuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Again doing some more maths, even assuming level climbing the "new" subscription model means i could net if im lucky $0.10 per sub instead of $0.38

So roughly speaking i'll earn 75% LESS from subs.

Looking at my breakdown for images every year subs make up 70%of my overall earnings.

So a 75% discount on 70% of total earnings.....  As you can see, thats not going to make me party.

That alone is going to earn me *thousands* of dollars less per year.

 

 

 

 

yeah.  I would like SS to even show ONE example of higher earnings with the new Model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This announcement is the worst I've seen in 15+ years of stock.  Over the years I have had to make changes.  I have pulled my entire portfolio from other agencies when things like this happened.  I am running a business and I am prepared to do whatever it takes.  I know that if enough people pull their portfolios from an agency it will hurt sales.  But they need to know that ...

"As contributors we are making this adjustment in order to reflect changes in the market for creative content, help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward dedication and creativity with fair earnings."

There are many agencies I no longer contribute to.  And I have watched as those same agencies went out of business because the contributors left and and the word spread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jo Ann Snover said:

And you haven't said a word about subscription earnings. Does that mean you're switching to a percentage there too? Really? How many decimal places will you calculate my 30% of a subscription royalty to??
 

When the new earnings structure goes into effect, the payout for subscription plans will not be less than 10¢.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate Shutterstock said:

When the new earnings structure goes into effect, the payout for subscription plans will not be less than 10¢.

That directly contradicts what you said above about it being a percentage.

What is the MAXIMUM it could be?  Because 0.1 is a hell of a lot less than 0.38 currently....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AREA 6 said:

I believe the best way for contributors to defend the value of their work across this industry is to band together and take definitive action. There really now is no reason to stay here. Not only is your work going to be sold for peanuts (subscription program), you will get a smaller piece of each peanut.  

1. On Sunday (last day of May), disable (but don't delete) your Shutterstock portfolio. You can do that in preferences.

2. Immediately email Pond and Adobe and let them know you've done that. Ostensibly, this may help prevent Pond and Adobe (who have a partnership) follow suit. If a sufficiently large number of contributors suddenly disappear from SS, the value of SS as a source of assets will fall, and the value of Pond 5 and Adobe will increase. Sales/revenue is the ONLY thing these people understand. Let's communicate clearly to them.  

 

  

 

 

I think is a good idea 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...