Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.5k
  • 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

49 minutes ago, Wetzkaz Graphics said:

We can NOT de-activate our portfolio. Delete or do nothing.

MSG https://www.[do_not_advertise_other_microstock_groups]/shutterstock-com/how-to-disable-(not-delete)-your-portfolio-on-shutterstock/msg0/?topicseen#new
"Are you sure this actually disables your account? The png seems to imply that you're just not letting people use your images for anything defamatory, deceptive, pornographic, etc..."

Yes you can. I posted it before on this very thread, you can do three things: disable all images so they don't get shown to customers, you can deactivate the account or totally delete it. The first you do it yourself, the two later options you ask by mail and the difference is that while in both cases all your content is gone and you have to resubmit if you change your mind, you usually (that's the word SS uses) can reactivate the account easily but once you delete it all your personal data and your profile are forever gone and should you change your mind you have to create a new account.

Here's what SS says in this support page: https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/How-do-I-deactivatedelete-my-contributor-account?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3APortfolio_account&fs=Search&pn=1 

Opting out of sales will remove your content from online display, but keeps your account active and ensures that your earnings payment will be made when you reach the minimum payout level. Your referral earnings will also continue to accumulate. By opting out of sales rather than removing your portfolio, you will not need to re-submit your approved content if you decide to return to Shutterstock in the future. You can simply opt back in for your content to be displayed online again.
To opt out of sales, log into your account and navigate to the Account Settings page from the drop-down menu under your name in the top right corner of the page. Scroll down to the section How can we license your work? and select No for the sales options.
 
Edited by Patricio_Murphy
Add some info missing
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlphaNature said:

Nooooooooooooo, this is not looks like a real good petition. This looks like some sort of toddler whishings.
Making requests of a such bad quality will do nothing but showing us contributors in the dumb light

Don't even want to sign it

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, samoyloff said:

Oh yeah, you "wen" to ukraine whole 40 times. You must know much more about the country and expenses than the people who live there. Everything costs the same for a professional photographer / illustrator in the Eastern Europe, and in most cases, their equipment costs even more than on the West, because of the higher customs fees and such. But you "wen" to some cheap bar and bought a beer that was priced twice as less, so you made your well thought calculations, so you thought "oh, these pro photographers and illustrators should be able to work for less". And your "that's why most are doing stock, even at 500 dollar months is super convenient compared to many normal job" is simply just a freaking lie. Most people are not doing stock. And 500 a month is some minimum salary a young student would agree to work for, most will find better options. You're not an expert even though you "wen" to Ukrain 40 times. You don't even understand how things are to the East from you, so quit this crap.

I agree what is a problem is collassino of sales not level of royalty. 0 sales at 38 cent is the sane as 10 cent. come 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kathy Hutchins said:

Illustrative, according to Adobe email

 

"For now, our collection of documentary editorial images is by invitation-only and represents a relatively small group of artists and agencies. Over time, we may be expanding them to include a broader group of contributors.

 
You will need to provide model releases for every person whose face can be seen or who can be recognized in an image. Without model releases your images will not be accepted. 
 
However, Contributors with 1,000 sold files have the option to submit Illustrative Editorial content. If you meet this criteria, you can see a checkbox in the Uploaded Files tab to indicate the content you will submit is Illustrative Editorial. Over time we will make access available to a wider group of contributors. "

Model Release for editorial photo. Sounds really interesting. What about taking photos of a stadium full of crowd 😲

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone thinks well of generating a mass of slaves for post covid-19 time?

Money for medicines must be kept!

If this rules don't change, for me its became not interest upload something, so when will start this process I will start to stop production for SS.

Customer can find me in other agencies.
I hope all contributor together start to stop upload content until SS understand who give him content and who is the owner about them.
If all contributor stop to upload, for sure SS must change its opinion about us.

Best regads to all

and remember stop to upload when will start this new rules!  
The power its the mass!

 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of rewarding contributors that have been with you from the beginning for over 10years with over 100k in downloads and haven't had a raise in over 10 years except for adding the single category but lowering the enhanced pay from $28 years ago, I too find it repulsive that a company can treat the only ones that keep them in business as long as they have been with this kind of disregard to have them start over every year from "0" like a new employee. Who ever came up with this Idea should be fired. I thought we were finally going to get some good news. 

 

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

Don't you think these scenarios are waaaay too optimistic? If your scenario 3 is real, according to my math, I would earn THE DOUBLE of my current earnings with the new structure. I find it really hard to believe.

As I said "these number perfect... certainly not"   not being optimist so much as balancing the people who are jumping off cliffs.

This is modeling that shows that the weight of the sales are very low probability to the $0.10 range.  What is more likely is there will be annual parity or slight parity to improve for moderate to volume sales contributors.  Their model suggests the tier penalty hits the high volume submission low value submitters... their real problem IMO appears to be the cost of reviewing.  They need to reward high value contributors and penalize the low because we all loose money when they have to pay to review turds.  That is where the ability to create $ and share with contributors lies... but you still have to allow for entry for new potential valuable suppliers.  Yep a 20K per year sales person would loose revenue early in year but they will make it up later as the tier percentages should pay more than in the past.  

Oddest thing is it will make revenue unstable.

The one thing everyone can agree to is it was a PR Shi*Show as they should be clarifying the goal of the model as the broad range of people assume the worst.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Morrowind said:

Royalty details for contributors in Adobe Stock.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

considering my sale i'd say that 80 85% are from big pack...750 350...so they are the bulk in focolai and probably in ss....if this is the case it will be a giant lost in ss from june but still we must see from june subs sales....i don't expect nothing good....but the fact that adobe sells mostly big pack makes me thing the same happen in ss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Philip Rozenski said:

As I said "these number perfect... certainly not"   not being optimist so much as balancing the people who are jumping off cliffs.

This is modeling that shows that the weight of the sales are very low probability to the $0.10 range.  What is more likely is there will be annual parity or slight parity to improve for moderate to volume sales contributors.  Their model suggests the tier penalty hits the high volume submission low value submitters... their real problem IMO appears to be the cost of reviewing.  They need to reward high value contributors and penalize the low because we all loose money when they have to pay to review turds.  That is where the ability to create $ and share with contributors lies... but you still have to allow for entry for new potential valuable suppliers.  Yep a 20K per year sales person would loose revenue early in year but they will make it up later as the tier percentages should pay more than in the past.  

Oddest thing is it will make revenue unstable.

The one thing everyone can agree to is it was a PR Shi*Show as they should be clarifying the goal of the model as the broad range of people assume the worst.

 

for me your scenario is totally impossible sorry.. but we will see in june. for me the bulk will be 10 cent sales. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Philip Rozenski said:

As I said "these number perfect... certainly not"   not being optimist so much as balancing the people who are jumping off cliffs.

This is modeling that shows that the weight of the sales are very low probability to the $0.10 range.  What is more likely is there will be annual parity or slight parity to improve for moderate to volume sales contributors.  Their model suggests the tier penalty hits the high volume submission low value submitters... their real problem IMO appears to be the cost of reviewing.  They need to reward high value contributors and penalize the low because we all loose money when they have to pay to review turds.  That is where the ability to create $ and share with contributors lies... but you still have to allow for entry for new potential valuable suppliers.  Yep a 20K per year sales person would loose revenue early in year but they will make it up later as the tier percentages should pay more than in the past.  

Oddest thing is it will make revenue unstable.

The one thing everyone can agree to is it was a PR Shi*Show as they should be clarifying the goal of the model as the broad range of people assume the worst.

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

 

most sales in adobe are from 0,33 to 0,38 cent...so they come from big pack...3,3 dollar sale were not rare in past but now they are...0,99 cent are coming  but rarer than past...so the bulk in adobe is 750 350 pack...the same is in ss. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only industry I know where people keep getting less and less for their commitment and hard work.

Shutterstock will probably still getting many phone snapshots, without models or with few family members but big productions, studio shots with professional models and on location shots with many professional models involved will not be profitable anymore.

Many of these lifestyle photos today will become obsolete in 2-5 years, mostly because of technology and accessories. Look how stock photos looked like 10 years ago.

How can anyone expect for contributor to evolve, offer better photos, lighting, equipment, resolution (8k monitors will be standard soon, so anything less then 30ish megapixel will not look good if it will be over entire page).

We are also business man/woman here and without evolve and progress we are getting nowhere like any other business. Stagnation is demoralizing. 

 

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...