Jump to content
Kate Shutterstock

New earnings structure for Contributors

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, zsooofija said:

  

Why would I think that? For me it's enough to look at 223 pages of comments (beside my own calculations) to understand what this change means for most of us. 
I am glad it works for you, there's no totalitarism here, beside SS moderators deleting uncomfortable comments. 

because you said my IF was opening a magic total untrue world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 minute ago, AsiaTravel said:

can you read??? I said my earning crashed... MOST of us, yeah it's exactly that I said in my post, it is not becouse that some minority of people are not that affected that they are trolls or paid by ss... not difficutl to understand

Of course I can read. Otherwise it would be really hard to have this conversation. I am sorry for your earnings. Looks like we are in the same boat then. I don't think I called you or anyone else a troll. I will ignore you now, so stop quoting me. Thanks&bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New figures after there were some On Demand DLs finally: RPD since new structure: 0,37 USD against formerly 0,70 USD (this year Jan-May). A drop of 47%.

BTW: RPD = Revenue / No of DLs
(because some people think that people posting their RPD can't calculate)

And finally a comparison of the last 4 DLs on SS against "the competition" - any questions?

last4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scorsby said:

If is a magical word. After the word 'if', anything becomes possible as long as you believe it's true. But it actually means isnt fact lol. 

So I said If you have a larger proportion of non subs vs subs, you will be less impacted, and you reply that what follow if is not fact. So you believe that everydody has the same distribution of returns???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Andreas Prott said:

And finally a comparison of the last 4 DLs on SS against "the competition" - any questions?

 

Yes I have a question, why do you calculate rpd without saying your level? You are level 4, correct? So this means that your sample is ~50 downloads by now? My question is, do you think it's responsible to your fellow contributors to come with 50 downloads and deploy statistics? A Level 6 contributor is 100x faster than your sales. What you make yearly, they see in a few days. Let's see if you can calculate this:

If a level 6 is reporting RPD $0.79 and you as level 4 report $0.39 - how much is the average RPD of these two contributors?

(A) Is it (0.79 + 0.39)/2 = 0.59 ?

OR

(B) [(100x0.79)+0.39]/101 = $0.786 ?

Please, read my conclusion in the previous page. If you want to keep growing in stock, just keep growing. The opportunities are unchanged. But it's just that Shutterstock decided to do the ladder a bit steeper for Level 4 and under. Those who slip, will slip.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 3:40 AM, Thomas Andreas said:

To all contributing members of Shutterstock and most especially the new members. 1/3 of the month is officially gone through and the first results for a few honest people that speak the truth and can calculate accurately their RPD are in. Results for some people, in terms of RPD, have been Positive, depending on the frequency of high EL's or SoD's.

My measurements:

My portfolio right now reports a +13% average RPD because of high EL's. Without those EL's and only by calculating Sub+OD's, I am seeing a tendency of the average RPD towards -4%, which is not too dramatic. I am ok with the fact, that both the minimum and maximum earning potential for subscription was removed.

While still early in the month, I admit that I was also getting high fluctuations even down to -29% (!) but when the numbers of downloads increased and rpd stabilized, the fluctuation even went up to +0% (meaning no gain no loss from the new system). But if you asked me to spot a "magnet", I would definitely say that the tendency of Sub+ODs (without EL's) for a Level 5 account is currently at -4%. So from my sample, I would say with certainty that an L6 image portfolio could definitely have a positive tendency, but only if the person that owns it, can use a calculator and knows what data they must process. I don't have data for video as it's not my primary field. Do not reply to me with data about video, I don't care. I am not a troll, but I only do images.

For people that may claim that my portfolio is "too small" to get accurate data, it is not. The reason for the size is because I do a very hard culling in my photos and I even delete low performing images. My purpose in stock photography is always to create top100 images or nothing at all. In 2018, my portfolio was measured by a stock performance metrics application to be at the top 9% performing contributors worldwide. Further more, top 100 of my images see many hundreds or thousands of publications. I work on a quality strategy and it has been successful so far and my just over 1000 portfolio is well deep in Level 5, while I see even up to 20k image portfolios still at Level 4. Stock photography is a measurable income for my life that pays my rent and I wouldn't act childish if Shutterstock decided that it's for the best to change the rates rules. I want this company to perform well, so that my sales with them do too. 

What I find as a "bad deal" here is only the January reset. I don't understand why Shutterstock should take from contributor earnings every January and de-stabilize my financial security with them. The new tier system can be fair with a little luck, but the January reset doesn't look so. I had been gathering this valuable retention since 2010 that I joined and I don't want to see it dropped every year to minuscule levels even for a few downloads. The level would be better calculated on a rolling 12 month performance.

Besides me, I know at least two more contributors that admitted in public with accurate stats that they were experiencing a + in their RPD. But most seem to be making the blaming of Shutterstock into their sport, or crusade, while at the same time they selectively present data as the modification of RPD. For example, people claim that they sell ONLY $0.10 and their income is -75% which is statistically impossible to happen. Or others, measure their RPD only in the subscription downloads, while the rest are clearly profitable and can balance it out.

My advice to contributing members:
Be careful of other contributors that spread panic! Many people right now try to misinform, all for their own personal interests. I will explain a few types of their interests:
(A) The people that can't calculate at all - You would be surprised. I asked in another forum for people to calculate their RPD and they kept insisting that their portfolio was 75% down just because $0.10 is ~25% of $0.38. They totally neglect the fact that maximum earnings are also increased and don't want to do any math at all to get to the bottom of what changed.
(B) The people that can selectively calculate for their personal interest. Being incompetent is one thing, but being vile is another. There are people that only calculate their sub DL's that are hit the most and insist on reporting of ~25% losses in their portfolio. They are straight attempting to misinform and fuel the "delete your account" protests. The truth is that they plan to keep their accounts though and benefit from the "strike".
(C) The people that this is not important to them. Many people came to stock photography as "passive incomers" and they are totally different than full time professional photographers. Their photography skills are low, untrained, and they only made the very basic imagery to keep playing lotto with the keywords. Massive portfolios of tens of thousands of images but no substance to them at all, complete or images of 0,1,2 sales. Because of that reason, they can afford to actually delete 2/3rds of their port in "protest" and have their income practically unchanged because deleting 0 produces the same result. The only thing I can say for them is, good, since Shutterstock will pay less in server space and may rethink to change the January reset.
(D) When anyone informs you of their RPD: Check their level. A level 5 is 10x Level 4 contributors. A level 6 is 10x Level 5 contributors. If a Level 2 comes in the forums and says that their rpd is 75% down, from their 1 weekly sale, there is nothing to trust in that statement. A level 6 contributor that I talked with gave an RPD of $0.79 without video and claimed "losses". In order for RPD to reach $0.79 a high number of OD and EL is needed. Therefore, that contributor is definitely in positive percentage of earnings. But in other posts he presents only his $0.10 subs as the reason to fuel the panic.

My honest advice to all contributors: Keep doing what you do best and the market is still big for all and your earnings will keep increasing. If your earnings are -1% less in the end of the month, work 1% more. Or contribute to more image banks if you want to. Shutterstock is not exclusive for anyone or towards anyone. It's an open market.

My honest advice to Shutterstock: Please rethink the January reset
 

 

Yup. Well put and constructive.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stockphotofan1 said:

 

Yup. Well put and constructive.

The red downvotes on your post that haters and trolls believe hurt feelings only go to show that there are haters and trolls out there that dislike it when you are honest and successful.

Cheers,

 

Justin

http://www.statisticool.com/main.htm

 

Hi Justin, I have been reading your reports. Your approaches are correct and everyone should read them. It's just that some people are angry right now, even if stock is not their full time job. I see in your portfolio that meat cooking is in your routine! Try some nice window light when you shoot your plates and your sales will improve ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thomas Andreas said:

Hi Justin, I have been reading your reports. Your approaches are correct and everyone should read them. It's just that some people are angry right now, even if stock is not their full time job. I see in your portfolio that meat cooking is in your routine! Try some nice window light when you shoot your plates and your sales will improve ;)

I have read the reports. But do you really think that less than 30 downloads alltogether in more than one week is enough for a reliable approach? It is not in my opinion.

This morning I read the numbers from a level 5 contributor: 250 downloads in 3 days, which in my opinion is much more representative/reliable, result in an RPD (including ODs, Enhanced and SODs) of 0.36.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stockphotofan1 said:

 

Yup. Well put and constructive.

The red downvotes on your post that haters and trolls believe hurt feelings only go to show that there are haters and trolls out there that dislike it when you are honest and successful.

Cheers,

 

Justin

http://www.statisticool.com/main.htm

 

According to the data you've published,

You had 29 downloads the first week of June, getting 71.18 USD.

You had 32 downloads two days ago, for a total of 71.75 USD.

This means, In 4 days you had 3 downloads, for the average of less of 0.20 USD each.

Having 3 downloads in 4 days (and for not so much money) I think you're not entitled to sell your calculations as the unique real truth.

I personally know tens of contributors, and checking together, we can say that more of 95 of our sales is SS, most of them for 0.10 USD, some lucky one get up to 0.17 USD on level 6, which will additionally be reduced next January when we will all happily be on the lowest level. These people sell thousands of files in a month, not 3 photos in 4 days. So please, stop to troll.

And if you tell your experience, show concrete data and don't sell it here as they were the truth. As a contributor, for the number of sales you had in the last 4 days, you're totally irrelevant.

I also guess that you sell your not edited phone photos as a hobby, but here there are thousands of people that invested their full life and survive with that job, so have respect for them.

If you do all this trolling for free, i admire you! Just don't tell people you're feeding your family with stock earnings, you're a teenager and earn 70 dollars a month with your camera content. 

Trolls are known for being weirdos with no social life, and trolling is the only thing that makes them feel powerful, otherwise their life is socially empty. They are people with no friends, and do not mind to hurt seriously anybody's feelings just to get attention. According to his profile photo and content, he may be a cheap troll. The muscled photo he put on his fake Facebook is what he would love to be, the fatty guy from the photo on SS he just removed is what he is: an unhappy man seeking attention instead of working on himself. After looking at your portfolio, I would suggest you to eat healthier, and to spend more of your time taking care of yourself, especially your nails, they look scary at least. Dear trolls, may you feel on your skin the pain you're causing online to honest people. 

Since I'm blocked to write new comments, I will also note that the insults made by AsiaTravel to other members have been canceled by the moderators after many reports, but without banning him, like they did with many other users for much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shutterstock's interaction with the studios is what interests me. Let's imagine the real motives of the 'damned capitalists'. But let's don't think about their banal greed and / or preparation of the SS for sale. Suppose they want this business to develop under their supervision.

So. In fact, a conditions were created under which it became unprofitable for the authors to work with Shutterstock. 
It is known that most contributors think in not 'stock style'. Many of us shoot / draw under impression of the tops. And many of us catch a trend when it is already at the end. That is, lot of authors are ineffective. And to babysit with them is unprofitable.

It is also known that studios are acting specifically for the creation of 'stock style' content. This is already a business for them. Studios track trends and make clear plans. They form the staff and distribute a functions. They provide a basic quality control and quickly lay off untalented or lazy employees.

So, where to go authors who did not have time to build up a large portfolio, and who are still full of energy and hope? The answer is obvious: their path leads to microstock studios. Just studios will be able to quickly gain 5-6 levels at the beginning of each year. Just the studios have a margin of safety in order to consistently pay the authors, due to the fact that they have large portfolios at once on several stock sites.

If my suspicion is true, then Shutterstock will send a special offer to the owners of studio portfolios in the near future. And this offer will contain higher interest rates and new warranties.

Let the Shutterstock bosses explain why they need all these hide and seek tricky games. Talk to us openly! Nothing personal, it's just business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stockphotofan1 said:

The red downvotes on your post that haters and trolls believe hurt feelings only go to show that there are haters and trolls out there that dislike it when you are honest and successful.

So why are you worried? Why are you wasting so much time on these nasty haters? If only honest and successful guys like you stay on SS, it will be great. It will be just what Shutterstock deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, stockphotofan1 said:

 

I'm glad I listen to the buyers and not to you. :) The point was that $.10 minimum payment is not a doom and gloom scenario for everyone as is being portrayed.

Have a great day.

earnings.jpg.5e9ff0445d48cd60e7dfec2f5ccaa28d.jpg

 

Justin

http://www.statisticool.com/main.htm

 

Frankly I am not sure why you even bother uploading with such "earnings" and then try to prove a point. Earn for a living with stock, and then see how the earnings dropped, for everyone. These numbers are random and absolutely not worth even taking seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a SS contributor since 2010 and I'm at Level 5.  My historical cumulative RPD since 2010 is $0.78, excluding June data. My YTD RPD through May 2020 was $0.80. My 2019 RPD was $0.82 and 2018 was $0.90. 

My June RPD is now $0.47.  A 40% reduction as a result of the commission structure change. The numbers don't lie - this is and will continue to be a huge impact on content creators!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, oleskalashnik said:

If my suspicion is true, then Shutterstock will send a special offer to the owners of studio portfolios in the near future. And this offer will contain higher interest rates and new warranties.

Let the Shutterstock bosses explain why they need all these hide and seek tricky games. Talk to us openly! Nothing personal, it's just business.

That's what Getty (not Istock) did early this year when the stopped selling RM, that was paying 30% vs 20% for RF. They change all RM photos as RF, but to keep a few (no idea how much) very successful contributors who were complaining, they gave them a special deal at 25% commissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 9:58 AM, otsphoto said:

Frankly I am not sure why you even bother uploading with such "earnings" and then try to prove a point. Earn for a living with stock, and then see how the earnings dropped, for everyone. These numbers are random and absolutely not worth even taking seriously. 

 

Not really. They are consistent with previous earnings for the most part, not "random". Not all of the contributors are professional photographers, you must realize, so my needs/goals are not yours and vice a versa.

Have a great day :)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 9:58 AM, Natwood said:

So why are you worried? Why are you wasting so much time on these nasty haters?

 

Because they brighten my day, obviously! Not any time at all, I type fast.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, otsphoto said:

Frankly I am not sure why you even bother uploading with such "earnings" and then try to prove a point. Earn for a living with stock, and then see how the earnings dropped, for everyone. These numbers are random and absolutely not worth even taking seriously. 

I think in a month we will keep seeing this "$77.31-$71.66" visual mantra as a proof of his honesty and success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thomas Andreas said:

Hi Justin, I have been reading your reports. Your approaches are correct and everyone should read them. It's just that some people are angry right now, even if stock is not their full time job. 

What you are doing is quite atrocious. You ignore a lot of cases with legitimate claims from level 4/5/6 contributors who say that they experience 40 to 60 reductions in earnings. Then you file them under 'just some angry people' implying that their emotional state prevents them from making correct deductions from the data they are observing with their own eyes.

Instead of saying that some people see slight reductions in income while other people have drastic ones, you throw majority of your fellow contributors under the bus.

 And in order to substantiate this point of view you side with a known troll no less. Nice.

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...