New earnings structure for Contributors

[stockername]

Hey guys! I'm level 6
And most of the sales are $0.10
So the level system is a fake from Shutterstock

Drop 40% with the same sales

[Andreas Prott]

7 hours ago, paula french said:

That was very misleading on DT - I sold more than normal in June - and DID NOT receive 10% extra - I emailed and basically was told I wasn't eligible for some reason - i don't why why!!     I told them that it was misleading contributors but they didn't really reply to that!

It only applies to newly sold sub plans from June 1. If a buyer downloads an image with an old plan you only get the old 0.35$. That was indeed communicated in a misleading way.

[luca pbl]

21 hours ago, paula french said:

That was very misleading on DT - I sold more than normal in June - and DID NOT receive 10% extra - I emailed and basically was told I wasn't eligible for some reason - i don't why why!!     I told them that it was misleading contributors but they didn't really reply to that!

 

As far as I understand, they pay 0.38 for subs subscribed after June 1st, for the previous 0.35. In fact, I have mixed sales, some 0.38 others 0.35

[Tony ALS]

Coincidence? Sales have dried up since I started deleting images which have sold.

[Michael W.Ishak]

Just started an account with SS few days ago and had my 1st sakes today.. can’t figure out why I have only 9 dollars out of 79 until I saw the table minutes ago.. what a joke! 🤮

[Kittyfly]

Hello! I have 2,585 Downloads but level 4. Why didn't I get level 5?
 

[Whiteaster]

On 7/30/2020 at 5:31 PM, Luigi Bertello said:

I am a contributor from Italy, I have always privileged to upload my photos first on SS than on other online archives, 
both in terms of sales and revenues. After this ingenious thought, my earnings have decreased by three times ... 
I do not cancel my existing portfolio, it would be wasted further time, but I do not intend to upload new (and good) contents. 
I will load them on those of the competitors, which seems to me already more fierce....(and cheered by the suicide of SS) 
I believe that SS will lose many pro-contributors and a market segment, in exchange for some gains at the beginning.
Garbage royalties means garbage content. I refuse to put quality content on here at these rates. 

Good competition to GI without us...

Thanks for letting us all know about your intentions.

Still, what's with the long spam text?

[Whiteaster]

On 7/31/2020 at 12:24 PM, Tony ALS said:

Coincidence? Sales have dried up since I started deleting images which have sold.

It's logic, not coincidence.

[Wilm Ihlenfeld]

My monthly statistics for July 2020 are ready.

shutterstock:

Although I haven't uploaded a single image since June 1st, 2020 and I had deleted an additional 10% of my images - and despite Corona I had 7% more downloads in July 2020 - compared to July 2019. This plus of downloads brought me a loss of income of minus 29% compared to July 2019, even though I would have to get 5% more commission through level 5, because now I get 35% - at the old highest level it was only 30%.

As shutterstock wrote: "...and reward performance with greater earnings potential".
So: I performed better than in 2019, because I had more downloads. But where are the "greater earnings", Kate? Where does the 29% loss of revenue come from?

In July 2020 I had
117 subs for $0.10
The average income for all subs together is $0.22. This is a minus of 42% for the subs - despite an improved ranking. Since there are hardly any ODs, Enhanced and SODs left, this simply cannot be compensated.

By the way, in July I earned 27% more at AS than at shutterstock. And this even though I didn't have any Enhanced or SOD on AS.

 

[Richard Laschon]

With this new scheme: more downloads, less money. 

[Tony Dunn]

On 5/26/2020 at 4:54 PM, SmallWorldProduction said:

The fact that you guys try to sell this as a good thing to us is incredibly funny😂 Why would someone get reseted every January?! How does that make any sense despite the fact that you Guys get more money at the beginning of the year?! We instead will get less money for the same amount of work we put into a piece of content. You could have at least put Video and Photo together but yet you continue to make our lifes harder even in times of a global pandemic.

Well said It seems like a ridiculous & brutal industry made worse by these tech people. Photography & design is a REAL no worker protection 'I'm alright jack you can starve' type of industry. That's why I got out of it back in the 90's. What won't help is other areas of this industry that isn't stock will probably be pleased because they hated the new digital stock industry because it is a threat to their lively hoods.

[Tony ALS]

7 hours ago, Whiteaster said:

It's logic, not coincidence.

Maybe, but then another $0.10 sale appeared so another image deleted🙄

[Loke Yek Mang]

yesterday, i have no chose have to buy the footage from SS. i bought the 10 video pack cost me USD669 +6% tax.

which is mean SS will get 668USD from the 10 contributor footage, and paid them 10cents for each contributor footage.

is that fair?

[Natwood]

On 7/19/2020 at 2:52 AM, Cappelletti_pictures said:

They won´t because they´re are not cutting customer prices down just our earnings. Customers are running out of images here and have been looking over at competition because the same images keep popping up in search queries for years in shutter.

I think SS were not sure whether earnings reduction for contributors would go smooth. They needed to check it out before lowering their prices for the customers. Now, when they've seen that everything went cool – the contributors keep selling their images on SS and the microstock keeps growing – they know that they have enough room for dropping prices. And they will do it, just wait and see. And when they do it, other microstocks will have no choice but to cut prices too and, of course, the contributors' earnings as well.

[miquelito]

Fucking greedy owners, no wonder Jon Oringer is a billionaire. I am deleting my account.

[Tony Dunn]

1 hour ago, miquelito said:

Fucking greedy owners, no wonder Jon Oringer is a billionaire. I am deleting my account.

agree totally.it is completely wrong in a so called democracy which they call The USA. Great thing is D Trump doesn't like these tech tycoons so he could break these tech companies up, 

[baypinar]

On 8/1/2020 at 9:16 PM, Tony ALS said:

Maybe, but then another $0.10 sale appeared so another image deleted🙄

So far, I deleted 14 images that are sold for 0.10. And meanwhile they sell elsewhere for 0.38, etc. 

[Milo J]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:24 AM, Tony ALS said:

Coincidence? Sales have dried up since I started deleting images which have sold.

You deleted those pictures that were selling, and now they don't sell anymore? Amazing coincidence.

[Milo J]

14 hours ago, Loke Yek Mang said:

yesterday, i have no chose have to buy the footage from SS. i bought the 10 video pack cost me USD669 +6% tax.

which is mean SS will get 668USD from the 10 contributor footage, and paid them 10cents for each contributor footage.

is that fair?

That would indeed be awful, but those $0.10 sales are image subs, not footage.

Under a 10-clip pack, the contributor would get between $9.90 and $19.80 per clip sold, depending on their level.

[Tony ALS]

5 minutes ago, Milo J said:

You deleted those pictures that were selling, and now they don't sell anymore? Amazing coincidence.

Don't think you're following the plot🤨. The time spent getting images onto shutterstock makes deleting the lot an annoying prospect so by deleting them gradually and having them available on other sites means at least I get something for my time but once sold they are no longer available here. By the end of this year what's left will all be deleted. Only uploading new content onto other sites and so far over 2,000 images with 1,600 not on shutterstock since March 2020. Hope you are successful with whatever you are doing Milo J but more importantly staying healthy. Best of luck.

[Milo J]

Personally, I don't subscribe to the notion that customers will go hunt around for certain images on other agencies. There's too much out there in pretty much every category. Also, different images sell well at different agencies. If you delete a pic that was selling well over here, that doesn't necessarily mean it will become a bestseller somewhere else.

I understand the frustration, and loss of motivation to upload new content here. But killing an existing port - I'm just not sure that will result in higher sales of those images elsewhere.

[Tony ALS]

9 hours ago, Milo J said:

Personally, I don't subscribe to the notion that customers will go hunt around for certain images on other agencies. There's too much out there in pretty much every category. Also, different images sell well at different agencies. If you delete a pic that was selling well over here, that doesn't necessarily mean it will become a bestseller somewhere else.

I understand the frustration, and loss of motivation to upload new content here. But killing an existing port - I'm just not sure that will result in higher sales of those images elsewhere.

As this isn't my living if they don't sell elsewhere it's not going to make any difference to me and at $0.10 per sale it might as well be nothing. It must be devastating to those who do live from stock and I would like to see Shutterstock wither and die and everybody to move elsewhere if it's possible for them to do so. AS seems to be working for some although the editorial barrier is a problem. I am new to all of this but having run my own business for 30 years it is appalling to change terms in the way it was done for contributors with almost no notice. i wouldn't attempt something similar with my clients, they would all run away! The timing given this health crises is of course making the whole situation even worse. At the end of this year switching off portfolios here might make SS sit up and take notice if enough do it. Even if there is a positive change for contributors the trust has been lost. Sad.

[mpessaris]

so after 2 months..i ve got more or less the same number of downloads, around 120, mostly subs obviously..so the math is easily done...without enhanced or on demand sales i'm screwed

and august won't sell much...

and sadly expecting them to change things is just stupid...changing things would mean they would have to apologise somehow and we all know that's not gonna happen

pfff

[Tony ALS]

53 minutes ago, mpessaris said:

so after 2 months..i ve got more or less the same number of downloads, around 120, mostly subs obviously..so the math is easily done...without enhanced or on demand sales i'm screwed

and august won't sell much...

and sadly expecting them to change things is just stupid...changing things would mean they would have to apologise somehow and we all know that's not gonna happen

pfff

I don't expect anything to improve either. New contributors might believe $0.10 is normal. As has been said here before, a race to the bottom.

[Gray Photo Online]

New approach after watching SS sales being overtaken by previously 3rd tier stock sites. When I sell an image on one of the other stock agencies, I delete it from SS. It seems to be effective. My sales elsewhere have picked up, so I'm making up the difference and not letting a good shot go for 10 cents. My sales are actually up for year to date and that's with having shut off the portfolio on SS for the entire month of July. SS isn't the only horse in the barn, it's just the lamest.