Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Photographynet.co.uk said:

Hi Mirko/Tony, It makes you wonder what thought (if any) Stan Pavlovsky gave to the long term business model when he made the decision.

Let’s face it, contributors broadly fall into three categories:

The hobbyists – don’t need to make a profit, do it for fun, are just happy to see their pictures used. Typically seen with cheap DSLR/lens tight to chest with both hands whilst clueless as to what to shoot. Love to tell everyone about the rule of thirds. Usually found at events walking around telling everyone they’re a pro on assignment from Shutterstock whilst taking photos in auto mode so bad most are rejected. No business acumen, could not turn it into a living wage if they tried, very low skill level (with a few talented exceptions).

The freelancers – semi-pro/pro one man bands. True creatives who love the job, create some great content using quality kit. Pretty comprehensive knowledge of photographic and or video technique and knows how to use the medium to tell a story. To identify these, ask them what their favourite lens is. If they reply without pause and sound like their actually having an affair with the lens, they’re a true freelancer. 70-200mm F2.8 if you’re interested!

The others – top end studios employing several photographers churning out volume and stunning quality day in day out. The type who get decent commissioned work. Very rare to see in real life. Usually only seen in print or video when they give interviews just to prove they’ve made it as video or photography Gods. If they’re using kit you can only dream of and flying in models from Russia, you’ve spotted one.

So for the most part:

Hobbyists produce garbage (mostly, again I recognise there are exceptions).

Few freelancers could constantly churn out the volume of sellable content to make 10 cents work as a livable income.  How many have already turned off, stopped uploading and are moving elsewhere? Stock is becoming less important to me. Funny how things come back around, one print sale beats my six months income from Shutterstock. 

The studio gods produce such quantity and quality they can ultimately operate as exclusive agencies in their own right. By nature, these are pretty successful business people. The industry wants their images and will pay so they will migrate to the better paying agencies and cut Shutterstock loose. Google ‘Yuri Arcurs’, the micro-stock millionaire who did just that some time back.

I can’t see a way back from this for Shutterstock which is why I did not hesitate to pull my portfolio (albeit small). I do not want my work seen as cheap content.

My prediction is a two tier stock industry.

  • Shutterstock (and the like forced into merger to survive) rebranded as Gutterstock. Relies solely on good will of hobbyists and caters for web editors/online marketing who only need low quality, low res images for the web. Thanks to Stan’s failures, they can’t afford the space in the Chrysler building and have to relocate to Detroit.
  • High end marketing needs are then met by the studios and shrewd freelancers for quality. This market served by the likes of Adobe and directly by the few who can successfully self-represent.

Thanks for your message. You make some good points.  My prediction long-term for Shutterstock is a short term profit followed by a long-term decline. You can already see the quality of new uploaded content is in majority low quality. 

And as you already mentioned, Shutterstock most likely will have to merge to survive. Getty would be my best bet and with his new price structure, they are equally poor.  Adobe will clearly take over. 

I really don't understand why Shutterstock would surrender their Top Position only to become a low quality supplier.... Oringer obviously knew that this is the wrong decision. Her left as CEO and sold his Shutterstock stocks. So, what is this behavior telling you? He has very little faith into Shutterstock's future! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In an email that is going out today, we are announcing that we will be updating the earnings structure that determines how much you get paid when customers license your work. We are making this adjust

This space will be updated to address frequently asked questions.  My email shows different counts for videos than are shown above. Which is correct? Apologies. The email to video contributo

Just when you think Shutterstock couldn't completely and utterly screw the contributors and more you've gone and done it. Effectively with a January reset everybody gets a cut of 20% or more of e

Posted Images

37 minutes ago, StockWithMe said:

You're producing crap, there you go your answer

 

12 hours ago, GregDPhotos said:

So based on my content, which category do you put me in? (https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/208565920/gregdphotos?load_type=author&prev_url=detail) Then I'll tell you what I am based on your other criteria.

 

StockWithMe. I can see your frustration with this situation as whole, but no need to talk like this.. Based on what I see in Greg's portfolio, he has not too many images in there. That is telling me he is in the beginning stage. This is a very great start. The images look probably better than what I had on my beginning. 

So Greg, keep up the great work! I would only suggest to offer your images to agencies that respect their contributors and treat them right. Upload your work to platforms like Adobe where they pay a fair price. I gave Shutterstock not even 1 new upload since the new pay structure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mirko Rosenau said:

 

 

StockWithMe. I can see your frustration with this situation as whole, but no need to talk like this.. Based on what I see in Greg's portfolio, he has not too many images in there. That is telling me he is in the beginning stage. This is a very great start. The images look probably better than what I had on my beginning. 

So Greg, keep up the great work! I would only suggest to offer your images to agencies that respect their contributors and treat them right. Upload your work to platforms like Adobe where they pay a fair price. I gave Shutterstock not even 1 new upload since the new pay structure. 

I appreciate your feedback. My SS portfolio was about twice the size (still really small) until I deactivated by 6/1... Wish I'd put more time into my Adobe portfolio before then. Though I suppose @StockWithMe would have preferred I stay on SS.

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

You're producing crap, there you go your answer

Thank you for your feedback. Interesting that you fell for the trap. The truth is that the small size of my portfolio is due to notably higher level work I do that is not connected with stock.

I would be more careful with judgment calls in the future if I were you. IMHO. Especially when it comes to contradicting reviewers at 2 agencies that are not SS or DT.

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

Thank you for your feedback. Interesting that you fell for the trap. The truth is that the small size of my portfolio is due to notably higher level work I do that is not connected with stock.

I would be more careful with judgment calls in the future if I were you. IMHO. Especially when it comes to contradicting reviewers at 2 agencies that are not SS or DT.

What kind of trap? What are you talking about? You didn't ask about the size of your portfolio but about the quality of your photos (which by the way is not a topic of this forum announcement). Or maybe you judge others talent and photo quality by the size of their portfolio then yea, great trap, you got me. 

And by seeing your photos that to me don't have much artistic and even technical value I stated my opinion. Yes it was a bit too harsh for which I am sorry but it was only fueled by my frustration with shutterstock and for which I am sorry. But I am sorry only if you are a beginning photographer, if not then I don't have anything to be sorry about. 

Now please let's get back to the topic of this forum announcement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, I've been lurking on the forum for a while and selling stock on SS since 2016, I have a modest portfolio of just over 700 video clips. SS just paid me $0.26 commission for a video clip, so I've opted out of all footage sales, I know my work is worth more than that, I regularly sell footage with other agencies! My question is, those who have opted out of sales, have you also deactivated your account with SS to release any remaining payout? If not, what is the rationale for hanging on with sales deactivated?

Thanks :)

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

What kind of trap? What are you talking about? You didn't ask about the size of your portfolio but about the quality of your photos (which by the way is not a topic of this forum announcement). Or maybe you judge others talent and photo quality by the size of their portfolio then yea, great trap, you got me. 

And by seeing your photos that to me don't have much artistic and even technical value I stated my opinion. Yes it was a bit too harsh for which I am sorry but it was only fueled by my frustration with shutterstock and for which I am sorry. But I am sorry only if you are a beginning photographer, if not then I don't have anything to be sorry about. 

Now please let's get back to the topic of this forum announcement. 

I would like to look at your portfolio if possible. Is this yours? - https://depositphotos.com/portfolio-4917139.html :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Svetlana Satsiuk said:

my statistics June 27 $ :huh:💀

I saw these figures only at the beginning of my work with the SS

this is a shock

Get used to it. Most likely this will get worst. Once clients notice the new level of quality content, not having the latest images, and so on..., the clients will shift to purchase from other platforms. It has already started and will be a slow but continuing trend.

 

If Shutterstock does not reverse they will quickly slip to a none important platform. Also, if Shutterstock wants to reverse course they need to hurry up. The damage has been already great for them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rocky Grimes said:

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.

So, how do you even know that Shutterstock is not selling your images without any pay to you? 

If Shutterstock cheats here, they are not trust worthy in general. This is a serious concern! 

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...