New earnings structure for Contributors

[Olena Ambrosova]

It's not a new earnings structure, it's a robbery!

[M-SUR]

I am choosing site that respects me.
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/

#boycottshutterstock

[Fernando Rodrigues]

"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. "

 

-The issue is, costumer pays less per photo but that loss in profitability is shared between shutterstock and contributors included on the downloads contained on the package. So if costumer downloads all picture we (contributor and shutterstock) lose both profit per picture, if costumer buys only half of the package only contributor lose profit per pic. So shutterstock sells pics cheaper to improve their sell rates but in the end earn much more than the 60-85%, because most contributors won't use more than 75% of the package.

This is a scam. A legal one, but its still a scam.

[Wilm Ihlenfeld]

9 minutes ago, Marianne Campolongo said:

I'm a shareholder as well as a contributor. And I'm selling my shares. This is an outrageous move on shutterstock's part. So glad we are all in this together.

I was so excited to buy ss stock way back when because it felt good to own part of an endeavor in which I was also a contributor. How times have changed! I don't want to support a company that treats its contributors so poorly, especially in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. Other companies are contributing to those in need, providing PPE for healthcare workers, feeding the hungry. And shutterstock, in midtown Manhattan, with devastating loss of life all around them, decides to claw away commissions from already struggling photographers while they sit on a big pile of cash. I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I don't see how this creates "fair opportunities for all [y]our contributors."

In fact, as the posts in this forum and others attest, all this move will do is encourage your best contributors and many others as well to either leave, or at the very least, stop contributing new work, which may not bode well for future growth, and may harm those shareholders on whose behalf you are presumably making this move. But even if the move bodes well for shareholders, it has convinced me that I don't want to be one. 

+1

[Alan Kidd]

This is worse than murder hornets.

[to227]

Level 1 - Up to 100 licenses a year...

weeps gently 😅 I've had - strap yourselves in - an overall lifetime amount of 98 downloads so far in my 3 or 4 yrs here on SS. Okay, I'm doing this as a hobby, but yet I'm out, this is a waste of time, energy and last but not least electricity.

[Alberto Garcia Guillen]

Sadly, I'll be deactivating my account on June 1st. I've trying to grow up a portfolio, but this is just completely nuts. I'll try my luck on Adobe Stock or Pond5.

[Maxx-Studio]

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...

[Fredrik Bourdette]

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!

[Gottography]

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. 

[futuristman]

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?

[arapix]

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.

[Rendix Alextian]

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

[B7 Photography]

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?

[Lorenzo Sala]

"help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward performance with greater earnings potential"

I'm sorry but it is not fair.

I think that at least 1 dollar minimum for each download may be considered respectful.  

This is a moral issue: creative work should be honored. 

 

[abu_zeina]

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..

 

[milshot]

Up to now this was the best Microstock website, now you are just the worst. Even Istock is going to be better 😑

[Josef Pittner]

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.

[Shakked Rashty]

Absolute pigs!

I will stop uploading and take my portfolio elsewhere...

I sincerely hope this move would cost hurt shutterstock beyond repair and give chance to their competitors who don’t steal money from the creators a chance to grow...

  

[Daria Ahafonova]

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?

[Patrick Cooper]

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. 

[LCohelan]

I understand the changes to a point....Over the last couple of years I have earned a grand total of $19.75!   So with this new reset does that just go away and the folks that downloaded my pictures and paid you keep them while I get nothing?  And then how often do you pay out?

[Carlos Haidamous]

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.

[Natwood]

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.

[AngeloDeVal]

4 hours ago, eskystudio said:

No bueno?

Amigo, this is NOT exprerssing your opinion, this is being very timid to say what you really think.

I do what I want and have the freedom to express how I want. Mind your business