Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I don't really understand what the problem with accounting is.

They agree with a customer on a package price of 20, 1000, 1800, 3200, 750 or 10000 US dollars for 25, 100, 150, 300, 50 or 5000 ODs (all just examples). And we get the share that we are entitled to according to our level.

Agree! But we know that does not happen. I hope to get a response from Alfonse Jefferies who is the chair of the newly formed Audit Committee. He is a new Board member from Kaiser where he is the CFO.

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

Posted Images

Having looked at the sales of recent months, I distributed the stocks according to the degree of profitability:
1. Adobe-stock
2. Depositphotos
3. Shutterstock
I understand that what SS has done is very beneficial for them, but in the long term, it threatens to reduce new uploads. And together with the sending system (I no upload send the EPS-10 to the SS, due to restrictions), plans for the future of the resource become incomprehensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder whether what SS has done will be beneficial to them in the long run. They may be getting the uploads from contributors but are they the quality uploads they used to get from the pro contributors and 'factories' with great shots and model releases completed?

I don't do people so it's not my consideration but if I did, I would certainly think twice before uploading anything 'expensive to produce' here when other sites pay more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Michael Warwick said:

Agree! But we know that does not happen. I hope to get a response from Alfonse Jefferies who is the chair of the newly formed Audit Committee. He is a new Board member from Kaiser where he is the CFO.

I heard back from SS and I was told that "special" discounted pricing is offered to select customers where they can buy images On Demand for Subscription prices and maybe even less. I still do not understand why these sales are categorized as On Demand when, more appropriately, they are Subscription sales if what I am being told is correct. So select customers are being given huge discounts and, I suspect, some select photographers are being given special payouts. I still do not know how they would do their accounting for these sales since the published On Demand sales is >10 times than the special discounted price. And we will probably never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Michael Warwick said:

I heard back from SS and I was told that "special" discounted pricing is offered to select customers where they can buy images On Demand for Subscription prices and maybe even less. I still do not understand why these sales are categorized as On Demand when, more appropriately, they are Subscription sales if what I am being told is correct. So select customers are being given huge discounts and, I suspect, some select photographers are being given special payouts. I still do not know how they would do their accounting for these sales since the published On Demand sales is >10 times than the special discounted price. And we will probably never know.

Thanks Michael, a job well done, it confirms what I have always thought. It may explain why the glitches are occurring at the moment in payments(the slot machines are not calibrated yet).

regards,

f.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Warwick said:

I heard back from SS and I was told that "special" discounted pricing is offered to select customers where they can buy images On Demand for Subscription prices and maybe even less. I still do not understand why these sales are categorized as On Demand when, more appropriately, they are Subscription sales if what I am being told is correct. So select customers are being given huge discounts and, I suspect, some select photographers are being given special payouts. I still do not know how they would do their accounting for these sales since the published On Demand sales is >10 times than the special discounted price. And we will probably never know.

Standard in any industry. Regular accounts pay standard prices. Big volume accounts get a preferred price for things. This goes for almost anything and everything in the world. The Big Box retail stores get prices less that some smaller store can sell for. Someone who buys 10,000 of something a year, gets a different price than someone who buys 10 of the same things. Volume Discount.

There is no evidence or documentation that special photographers are paid any different from any of us. Levels take care of that.

But the main point, an OD is priced different and isn't a SUB because that big buyer has a history of buying in large volume and therefore gets a volume price. That's how the accounting works, % paid is based on the price paid. Very simple.

And for the record... announce.gif 297 pages now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Warwick said:

I heard back from SS and I was told that "special" discounted pricing is offered to select customers where they can buy images On Demand for Subscription prices and maybe even less. I still do not understand why these sales are categorized as On Demand when, more appropriately, they are Subscription sales if what I am being told is correct. So select customers are being given huge discounts and, I suspect, some select photographers are being given special payouts. I still do not know how they would do their accounting for these sales since the published On Demand sales is >10 times than the special discounted price. And we will probably never know.

Again, I received further clarification from SS. Some customers are offered "Annual" subscription plans and are not bound by monthly purchase requirements but have an annual purchase requirement. So technically when they buy an image it is "on demand"  but the extraordinary discount of the annual plan puts the sale in a "subscription" pricing range. Apparently, the annual plans are not advertised online. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Michael Warwick said:

Again, I received further clarification from SS. Some customers are offered "Annual" subscription plans and are not bound by monthly purchase requirements but have an annual purchase requirement. So technically when they buy an image it is "on demand"  but the extraordinary discount of the annual plan puts the sale in a "subscription" pricing range. Apparently, the annual plans are not advertised online. 

You got it! 👍 Not advertised plans, at lower prices, that are only for high volume customers. We still get the percentage of each download for the level we are at. Based on what they actually pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'I heard back from SS and I was told that "special" discounted pricing is offered to select customers where they can buy images On Demand for Subscription prices and maybe even less. I still do not understand why these sales are categorized as On Demand when, more appropriately, they are Subscription sales if what I am being told is correct. So select customers are being given huge discounts and, I suspect, some select photographers are being given special payouts. I still do not know how they would do their accounting for these sales since the published On Demand sales is >10 times than the special discounted price. And we will probably never know'.

3 hours ago, Michael Warwick said:

Again, I received further clarification from SS. Some customers are offered "Annual" subscription plans and are not bound by monthly purchase requirements but have an annual purchase requirement. So technically when they buy an image it is "on demand"  but the extraordinary discount of the annual plan puts the sale in a "subscription" pricing range. Apparently, the annual plans are not advertised online. 

Thank you Michael for looking into this and reporting back. It was good to see someone on the forum taking these issues into the real world and trying to do something about it with no small effort to yourself.

There is no accountability to us contributors at all then.

We receive random (to us) sums of money and we can never confirm whether we are being given the correct share of whatever secret sum the buyer has paid.

This lack of transparency doesn't create a positive working relationship.  I would love to know:

1. why we have been paid what we have for each and every image sold and

2. what the selling price was so that we can each check that the payments to us are correct.

It looks to me as though that 'on demand' arrangement you describe above is new, as those sort of minimal cents O/Ds didn't exist in the recent past (as far as I remember).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Studio 2 said:

'I heard back from SS and I was told that "special" discounted pricing is offered to select customers where they can buy images On Demand for Subscription prices and maybe even less. I still do not understand why these sales are categorized as On Demand when, more appropriately, they are Subscription sales if what I am being told is correct. So select customers are being given huge discounts and, I suspect, some select photographers are being given special payouts. I still do not know how they would do their accounting for these sales since the published On Demand sales is >10 times than the special discounted price. And we will probably never know'.

Thank you Michael for looking into this and reporting back. It was good to see someone on the forum taking these issues into the real world and trying to do something about it with no small effort to yourself.

There is no accountability to us contributors at all then.

We receive random (to us) sums of money and we can never confirm whether we are being given the correct share of whatever secret sum the buyer has paid.

This lack of transparency doesn't create a positive working relationship.  I would love know:

1. why we have been paid what we have for each and every image sold and

2. what the selling price was so that we can each check that the payments to us are correct.

It looks to me as though that 'on demand' arrangement you describe above is new, as those sort of minimal cents O/Ds didn't exist in the recent past (as far as I remember).

First, your welcome. It has taken some time and perseverance but I finally received somewhat honest answers. And you are right, we will never know what the actual selling price is and if we are compensated correctly. And if those high volume customers do not buy their entire allotment of images by years end, we will not benefit from the money left on the table. Again, I think you are right that the annual on demand arrangement did not exist before the new payout structure. 

And, btw, all letters to the CEO, CFO and Audit Committee Chair have been returned "undeliverable". I would probably have to buy a share of stock to have my questions heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 1:28 PM, Michael Warwick said:

First, your welcome. It has taken some time and perseverance but I finally received somewhat honest answers. And you are right, we will never know what the actual selling price is and if we are compensated correctly. And if those high volume customers do not buy their entire allotment of images by years end, we will not benefit from the money left on the table. Again, I think you are right that the annual on demand arrangement did not exist before the new payout structure. 

And, btw, all letters to the CEO, CFO and Audit Committee Chair have been returned "undeliverable". I would probably have to buy a share of stock to have my questions heard.

Every OD in the past was always the same amounts? Mine weren't all the same. The OD have always been different and no agency except Alamy shows us the price paid. There is no transparency from any of these.

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

Every OD in the past was always the same amounts? Mine weren't all the same. The OD have always been different and no agency except Alamy shows us the price paid. There is no transparency from any of these.

I have had one OD in the 2 1/2 years that I looked back, that wasn't $2.70 and that's before the new system. Since then 2020 Low $1.74 High $3.75 but starting this month I had a 45c and a 10c? Yeah, something changed... this month!

Right, most agencies do not show us the actual amount paid or details. If anyone wants to know what someone paid, just do the math? 🤑 $.45 at 15% the buyer paid $3.00 for the image. Multiple the credit we get by 6.66 and then you know what the buyer paid. (I left it at 666 for a reason)

 

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

Every OD in the past was always the same amounts? Mine weren't all the same. The OD have always been different and no agency except Alamy shows us the price paid. There is no transparency from any of these.

There were "whole" ODs and "half" ODs. A "whole" OD (at the highest level) brought $2.85 and a "half" OD brought $1.24. Other allowances - except "half" and "whole" never existed under the old system. Look for yourself at your earnings in the past - you will see that this is true.

Attached is a screenshot from before the new revenue structure to show that what I say is true. All ODs were made up of the income I just mentioned - without a single exception.

 

Examples form the Screenshot:

8,18 = 2 x 2,85 + 2 x 1,24

4,09 = 1 x 2,85 + 1 x 1,24

6,57 = 1 x 2,85 + 3 x 1,24

9,79 = 3 x 2,85 + 1 x 1,24

and so on.

 

 

ODs.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

No more quality content from me !

I used to earn a little from my small portfolio enough for side expences etc and now its a complete dead earning source. i won't be uploading good quality 3d render images from now instead i'll be uploading them to your competitors.

I am talented enough and local buyers will consider me directly and staying here is like begging for money now, you are giving us the leftover ok then take it, ill only upload junk files i don't need.

Thankyou, have a nice one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 8:30 AM, Forum Moderation Team said:

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 contributors contained an error, and a corrected email is forthcoming. The Level breakdown above is the correct one (Level 2 starts after your 10th video download).

---

So I'm currently in level one. Instead of getting $0.25 per download, what am I going to get now?

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.

---

At the beginning of each year we move to LEVEL 1? So in the beginning of each year we will all be earning 15%? 

Correct. 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.

The adjustments are being made to align with changes we have been seeing in the global market for creative content. They also help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward performance with greater earnings potential.

----

What about subscriptions? Will those earnings be calculated as a percentage, too? Will I see earnings of less than a cent?!

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

---

If a customer buys a pack or sub, but doesn’t use it all, how are my earnings calculated?

When a customer buys a pack or subscription, your commission is calculated based on the price per asset assuming full usage of the pack or subscription. For example, if a customer buys a 10 images per month subscription at $49 per month, the price per image is $4.90. Your earnings percentage is based on $4.90 regardless of how many images the customer downloads from their allotment. 

---

How much do I earn if a customer downloads my content during a “free trial”?

When a customer downloads your image as part of a free trial, your commission is based on your earnings level, as with all other downloads. The price per asset we use to calculate your earning depends on the package or promotion the customer is using, but your commission will not be lower than 10¢.

Free Images of the Month are negotiated separately, and if your images are part of that promotion, you will be contacted by our team.

What the FUCK is this...????

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 9:48 AM, Michael Warwick said:

And now I sold an Enhanced Image for $0.61. SS is giving images away.

I have learned that SS offers a variety of customized plans to select customers even for Enhanced images. That is how I earned only 61 cents for an enhanced download. Many customers are apparently offered discounted plans separate from what is offered online. So a customer can buy an image for large volume usage at high resolution for very little money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at my own statistics and found that my income fell to the level of 2008-2009 (time when I started selling here). I also noted that lately, I have been uploading less content to the SS and more to the AS (the lower the income falls, the less I am interested in uploading here)
On some forums, the SS has already been buried and are thinking about where it is better to sell now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 10:48 AM, Michael Warwick said:

And now I sold an Enhanced Image for $0.61. SS is giving images away.

That is exactly the problem.   New compensation model is not so poorly structured (except for Jan 1 reset that is totally unfair & should have been 12 month rolling total).  Issue is that images and videos are dirt cheap to end consumer, so how can contributor compensation be high?

Microstock never learned to adopt properly to pouring of content, result of technology advancement that opened photography to masses.  Instead companies tried to stay competitive by slashing prices.  Getty went that way, now SS.  End result:  race to the bottom with 10 cent downloads (and $0.61 Enhanced).  AS is still reasonable because as large company with multiple products they don't depend on stock to stay profitable.  But for how long

Link to post
Share on other sites

today i have reached level 2 for footage without any sold footage because i have stopped licensing on january 28th here.

No i see two sold pictures today here even though i have stopped licensing, whats that, i think i will close my account totally here because this february i have earned more without shutterstock and it seems not very clear whats going on here without the greed nothing is clear here, it is a pitty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hjochen said:

no i have suggestion for shutterstock: set all my videos and pictures to the highest level and we will be the best friends again🤣

You get my vote! 👍

About your other question: "Shutterstock will terminate your account no later than ninety (90) days following its receipt of a written request from you. For the sake of clarity, before the termination of your account is made effective by Shutterstock, your Content will remain available for license by Shutterstock customers."

If you asked them to stop selling your work end of January, there's a possibility that you might get sales until the end of April. You agreed to the TOS... we all did, when we signed up to sell here.

https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en

Many agencies have this similar 90 days rule.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 3:41 PM, Mike Fouque said:

I fully understand your approach and will be tempted to do it too except that I have provided a lot of work since 2015 and it is necessary to believe that my files are interesting because I have obtained more than 7000 sales in 5 years. indeed today it is an insult to our work and in my case all of my income comes from microstock ... I know it sounds crazy but the cumulative amount of my sales between Adobe, Istock, Shutterstock allowed me to be able to m 'get out. now the situation is getting complicated because of SS. and that's why I want to defend my interests and those of other contributors.

Well, I've only gone and done it. Bye bye Shutterstock. It was fun while it lasted ...

Capture.JPG

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...