Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

If you're serious about deleting your account and not looking back, as I am, I was told to email the request to:

Privacy@shutterstock.com

I requested final pay out and that my account to be deleted.  I'm not selling my photos for a 15% payout every January and work back up from scratch.  Frankly, if you value your work, this is offensive.  For what it is worth, I showed the proposed payout to my 11 year old daughter, her response...  "That's stupid, why would they do that?"  Based on the sound advice of my 5th grader, Shutterstock is in my rear view mirror. 

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

1 minute ago, abu_zeina said:

Phil, cool down

Deleting the content or stopping to license the content will not solve the matter...

First of all, I am cool.  Secondly, deactivating ports is the only real voice any of us have with Shutterstock's management.  At some point, you have to respect yourself and your work enough that you aren't willing to be used by these people anymore.  I have reached the limit of what I'm willing to take from SS for taking advantage of me.  This is where I draw the line.  I don't much care where you draw yours, just don't tell me where I can draw mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peter Douglas Clark said:

This is an insult.  Shutterstock already paid the least of any of the places I upload to, and now it will be lower.  I keep track of sales across all my agencies, and while I sell more on Shutterstock, the actual revenue has been among the lowest.  Clearly I will now only focus on other sites and largely ignore Shutterstock.

Adobestock rules so far... eventhouhg with its handicaps

 

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.

 

How is the fair reward for content that was in demand, performing well,  and licensed on December 31st worth less than the fair reward for content licensed on January 1st?  Answer me that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have almost 150K lifetime downloads. To say I start over from zero every January 1st is more than insulting. I may make a decent amount with Shutterstock, but if they don't reconsider this greedy and short-sighted decision, my portfolio comes down June 1st.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eskystudio said:

No need to cool down, I agee with Phil. You can't cool down when you are being robbed.

Right..

either you delete the valuable content, and move to another agency

or keep the content here, stop uploading here... instead, upload on new promising agency; Adobe Stock

that what have been discussed when istock made the same decision about 10 years ago... majority of contributors have kept their content on IS, and all new content were uploaded to SS...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

It's a carrot and stick approach to getting us to work harder.  The problem is, we all get nothing but stick for the first few months of every new year.  That's not the way to incentivize people to contribute more.

Unfortunately that's just not true. Not to be argumentative but in order to climb you have to sell. As you always did. But when you did you got a ... I'll be generous, a tolerable amount. Now you wont. And you will continue to wont until your images are sold. Now if that aspect of it were down to you flogging your wares out of the boot of your car, working harder could work. But the selling bit is down to them. And hows that been going for many people.

And instead of rising above the competition by offering quality they've taken the piss. Demanding A1 quality for beggars money and now they are selling our photos for the price of dirt. Well less than dirt. 

Quality photos for dirt. Instead of reinforcing the market with quality they've smashed the quality argument to peices and devalued all of it to the point of  no return. Race to the bottom has just broken in to a sprint. 

Meh... SS .... good luck with that. Stack it high, sell it cheap doesn't bring in more trade. Because we live in an increasingly ethical society so you'll just be absorbed when your bloated catalogues dwindle. And it will happen very very fast. Faster than you have counted on. 

When people look into this they search for articles on how to do it. Inevitably they'll end up on utube. And when that clip shows how much you pay for an image compared to others. You wont get a look in. 

Your editorial will dwindle first because it's quite a fresh product. And then your commercial will become stale. Contributors will experience slow sales and you will reduce reviewers to cost save so reviews will take a week or more. 

Anyhooooooo 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bill Chizek said:

 "That's stupid, why would they do that?"  Based on the sound advice of my 5th grader... 

totally agree. I wonder in what kind of state of mind they made such a decision, which is so depressing for contributors, and even lesive for their public image, in my opinion.

I wonder if this comes to the attention of the media (and it should, in my opinion, because of the large number of  Shutterstock customers in online and offline press)  that the company where they buy images is essentially rubbish-paying creators... So, they've damaged themselves already. The punishment is just embedded in the act they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why send out a survey to your "valuable" contributors on how to improve your overall experience for everybody and then 1 month later pull something like this out of the hat? We now know, you don't care about us. It's both demotivating and it hurts creativity when a company we supposed to share our art with are based on pure greed. Well done, and thank god we have Adobe stock who support and value their top contributors with FREE software plans. If i see a sale from Shutterstock under 30 cent im out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual. When your director wants to cut your salary to get that part to his self poket, he makes up new rules or reviews the old ones.  He cynically calls it "improvement" and says it's all for the employee's benefit. Yea, taking less money for same work its so good for us. 
It's a pity that the stock community has essentially nothing to answer. 
Yes, we're arguing loudly here, but the only step available to authors is to delete their images. Very few people can do that. 
I separately like the fact that authors' income is cut right during the global crisis. Just for you know who you're dealing with - pure, cynical evil. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sitthipong Pengjan said:

I would like you to reconsider the new earnings structure again, please. 

Taking in consideration what iStock did, I don't expect them to change nothing. They are already counting in lots of people leaving, a lot more taking the punch, and new people joining that won't be aware of this change at all. This is it, it's not something they threw without thinking, it's a take it or leave it thing. 

I leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know what is happening.

New CEO has probably some bonuses coming his way for either hitting some high profit margins or for selling the company. What this thing does is that Shuttertock will show a high profit growth in 2nd and to a much bigger extent in 3rd quarter, by basically stealing money from its contributors - which probably gonna trigger bonus clauses on CEO's contract directly or by pepping the company value up for a sale to a competitor, which would trigger some other bonus clauses.

Because there is simply NO way that Shutterstock will not go down the drain with the massive loss in contributor quality that is going to happen.

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...