Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

  • 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

I'm very surprised by the behavior of the Shutterstock team. To inform the "partner" that his income will halve five days before the innovation... It is wonderful! And all it is in the guise of caring for "fair opportunities"? During quarantine? It's a perfect!
You take us for idiots, thinking that we do not know how to count and do not understand your manipulations with the subscription and its incomplete redemption. And zeroing in January is just the height of "fair opportunities". You have a very strange look at these things.
SS was a long time an example of how to do business for many of us. I think many are disappointed today. Very disappointed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, janar sinivali said:

So let me get this straight

Me as a subscriber won't pay less for my subscriptions.
Most contributors will start earning remarkably less.

 

Do you realise that most of your subscribers are marketing people who will spread the word quite quickly?

It seems most of the money will end up in the pockets of SS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is anybody supposed to make it out of level 1? Resetting every year means that for the first few months, a majority of the contributors will see their earnings tank. I haven't even reached level 2 of the current structure yet and now we have to reset every year?! I can see why many of the bigger contributors are frustrated; a lot of these people make their living off microstock, and their earnings will be absolutely tanked while your CEOs haul in millions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be sure to watch "the english game" on Netflix. This series describes the situation we're in. After the industrial revolution, they regularly cut wages from workers under various pretexts to earn more. it's just like what we're going through right now. who are the new cheap workers? we not? aren't we the new kind of slaves of the system?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many many ideas to improve Shutterstock to be better.

And for sure this earning schedule is not one of them

I thought you will send us good news about fighting images spam or making better algorithm for displaying contents .

I am sure you are smart enough to listen to your contributors and consider them partners of the success of Shutterstock otherwise you will lose a lot indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if the photographer only took a walk and then captured as many images as possible, that's fair because they only pressed the button massively but what about vector content creators? which every 1 vector takes hours or even days for quality, is really disappointing.
I hung my family life from microstock, then slowly they began to undermine our work without discussion, it was like a communist. The price we get is not comparable with our efforts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just reply to this topic by offering my disgust as well.

But since we're on the topic. What % of the total cost would you consider to be a fair payment from a stock agency? Say 100% is the full price a photo is sold at. What would you consider fair for the contributer to get out of that percentage wise? 40%? 60%? More/Less?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering how the he*l is this decision helping to reward performance and is creating fair opportunities?

Totally insane...

When istock made similar move years ago, the same hustle happened, and contributors moved from IS to shutterstock... and we all know that IS have lost a lot since then.

Now I think all contributors should start moving to Adobe, and stop adding new content to shutterstock...

And I just thought (& I might be wrong), we already have invested time and money to create the current valuable content on SS, and although the 15% is a total robbery, its better than nothing..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly post on the forums.  I have been here for about 5-6 years now.  The first 2 years were fantastic.  Sales were fantastic.  Then SS lowered their criteria to 1 out of 10 items to be accepted to sell on SS instead of 7 out of 10.  That is when sales started decreasing.  Sales decreased by half as more and more was being accepted.  Now this?  This is the exact reason I’ve stopped submitting to iS.  If SS starts selling photos for pennies on the dollar, screw it.  Going to disable my whole portfolio.  Photos and videos.  This is truly insulting.  In the time of Covid, SS is really kicking us when we’re down.  I do hope photogs and videographers have enough self respect to disable their ports.  SS, this is truly insulting.  I know others have been here longer and have bigger and better ports than I.  People, please disable your ports on June 1st.  Send SS a message.  Without us, SS is nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, show us in numbers (not persents) how much we will earn. I guess, you are just hiding numbers, knowing that the income will be reduced. The SS concept already meant that if you do not create new works, you do not have normal earnings. Do you really think that someone will believe in your good intentions to motivate us to download more? Work more and you will earn less?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of abandoning ship too. I also contribute photos to DT, Adobe and Alamy but to be honest, my sales are crap at those agencies. I used to do decently at AS but that changed some time ago. Photo sales are generally much better here. So with pulling my port at SS, I think my photo sales will really plummet. Though regardless, I'll be leaving on principle. I don't want to be associated with this greedy company. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would only be fair if it was based on life time sales. Contributor who have been working hard for years should be rewarded with a 40% on their sales because they are the ones who actually made shutterstock. This would only make your company make more money out of our hard work. I was thinking of expanding my profile with more content but now it's no longer worth it. I they are going to re-consider this after they see how many profiles are going to be deactivated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microstocks do not form artists but artists form microstocks. So we just should choose microstocks which pay fair percent. We can make them big.

I never considered 20-25% a fair percent. But 15% is just a kick in the teeth. I think SS contributors will stay here for several months to see how this new regime will look in action and then many of them will leave.

There is a British microstock, Alamy, which pays 40% for not exclusive images and 50% for exclusive. I'm going to focus on that microstock. I thinks it's underestimated by us, artists.

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

I'm thinking of abandoning ship too. I also contribute photos to DT, Adobe and Alamy but to be honest, my sales are crap at those agencies. I used to do decently at AS but that changed some time ago. Photo sales are generally much better here. So with pulling my port at SS, I think my photo sales will really plummet. 

I get the majority of my photo sales on SS too.  My AS port is 1/10th the size.  Disabling my port on SS will hurt as well as I like seeing people buy my photography and videos.  But this is insulting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, abu_zeina said:

although the 15% is a total robbery, its better than nothing..

Saying 15% is better than nothing is like saying you'd rather be punched in the face than kicked in the balls.  Neither is good from my perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK SS. For example, I sold 100 photos by subscription (0.38 cents) and only 1 demand. Now I would earn about $ 40. How much will I earn at level 5? About $ 13 Really?
I pay, models, studio, light. I barely have enough of the money that I earn now. Most likely, I will simply stop making professional content and will load low-rated content that I will get for free. This will be the problem of your servers. You shoot yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate Shutterstock said:

That's 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.

Do you really believe what you wrote? 

If you take a whole year's performance to set the starting level at each year we're still have to focus on getting good content so that we remain in that level all year long and keep the earnings level. You may probably heard about Sisyphus. This is it, Shutterstock actually placed a curse on us contributors, and to top it all you try to convince us that it's actually in our own benefit.

I already asked my account to be closed. It makes no sense to keep uploading stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Natwood said:

Microstocks do not form artist but artists form microstocks. So we just should choose microstocks which pay fair percent. We can made them big.

I never considered 20-25% a fair percent. But 15% is just a kick in the teeth. I think SS contributors will stay here for several months to see how this new regime will look in action and then many of them will leave.

There is a British microstock which pays 40% for not exclusive images and 50% for exclusive. I'm going to focus on that microstock.

Can you share this website with us? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Natwood said:

Microstocks do not form artist but artists form microstocks. So we just should choose microstocks which pay fair percent. We can made them big.

I never considered 20-25% a fair percent. But 15% is just a kick in the teeth. I think SS contributors will stay here for several months to see how this new regime will look in action and then many of them will leave.

There is a British microstock which pays 40% for not exclusive images and 50% for exclusive. I'm going to focus on that microstock.

Can you give us the name?

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...