New earnings structure for Contributors

[R Scott James]

Pure greed

[AsiaTravel]

3 minutes ago, Ivan Veselinovic said:

If we are lucky. With cart sales, from January, we'll earn 12$ for hd and 27$ for 4k at 15%, 16$ and 36$ at 20% and 20$ and 45$ at 25%, then finally after 250 sales we'll earn as much as we did, 24$ and 54$. That added up is a really huge loss of income, we'll loose about 1,500 with mixed hd and 4k sales to get back to 30% commission.    

Right, it's going to be very bad for video income. I will even restart to upload at Getty (not istock) where I get insulting fee of a few cents, but still get a few 50-150 usd licences per month

[Jesperson Productions]

Shutterstock will be taking 85% from everyone starting Jan. 01... every year. I'm offended.

Unless Shutterstock can show they will be using that incredible amount of new funds taken from contributors to provide a service to the contributor that proves higher sales, I'd say this is, if not, as close to criminal you can get.

No jokes here, this is our livelihood and it has been for me for over 10 years. Prove you're working for me, for the contributors, show similar to better results. If not, Shutterstock is setting a horrible example to the stock video world and I, along with all of your contributors who helped build this company with our work, will take this personally. The ball is in your court. Don't let us down.

[GregDPhotos]

45 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

 

I'm already making $2.70 for an SOD/ODD.  Starting June 1, that will go down to $1.23, a 54% pay cut.  Unless SS has a way to boost my monthly downloads by 54% to compensate, I see nothing but losses going forward.  Not going to give my work away so that SS can earn more while I earn less.  Not going to happen.

Shutterstock needs contributors more than contributors need Shutterstock.

I see that I missed something important... Those who have contributed more to SS (like you) will get more of a pay cut. Makes complete sense, right? 🙄

[Guenter Heinz]

4 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

Dies wird bis zum 1. Januar 2021 keine Auswirkungen auf mich haben, sodass ich genügend Zeit habe, um zu sehen, wie sich der Staub absetzt.

Ich hoffe, dass die SS in den nächsten 6 Monaten den Fehler ihrer Wege erkennt und diesen lächerlichen Plan ganz oder teilweise umkehrt. Es ist einfach dumm, jeden zu zwingen, jedes Jahr am 1. Januar bei Ground Zero zu beginnen und sich wieder auf eine Auszahlung von 30% zu begeben. Die Auszahlungsstufe sollte auf Ihren Verkäufen im Vorjahr basieren und nicht bei Null liegen. In meinem Fall werde ich den größten Teil des Januar, Februar und März brauchen, um 251 Videoverkäufe zu erzielen. Während dieser drei Monate werde ich 50% von dem verdienen, was ich hätte verdienen sollen, aber dann werde ich den Rest des Jahres bei "normalen" Auszahlungen sein. Wenn dieser Plan in diesem Jahr umgesetzt worden wäre, hätte ich ungefähr 4000 Dollar weniger verdient. Das ist wichtig, aber kein Nagel im Sarg. Ich werde mein Konto nicht löschen, obwohl ich hoffe, dass andere das tun. Das Fazit ist, dass ich nicht denke, dass dieser Plan so bleiben wird, wie er ist. Ich werde mir also Sorgen machen, wenn wir uns dem Ende des Jahres nähern und ich kann sehen, wie es sich entwickelt hat. In der Zwischenzeit läuft das Geschäft wie gewohnt.

But you forgot something in your calculation, the new apo for videos, you will only get 3 $ or less for one 4 k video!

So, you have really sell a lot for a good income now 🤮

[AsiaTravel]

5 minutes ago, shufu photoexperience said:

There was a world before shutterstock and still will be after... It's just universal rule for everyone... just like earth is spinning around itself and around the sun...

If shutterstock sinks down to bottom it will emerge someone else... and that someone else will appreciate the hand that feeds him... untill becomes greedy and start to bite that same hand like here and now... And then... from beginning again... new circle

So people are getting fooled all the time, but only intermittently?

Problem with the internet economy is that you need to invest huge amount of money in marketing to have a tiny chance to grab some market share from the established player while technically they have very little entry barrier. Google fail everything, but still number one in search and ad income, FB is still here, Booking.com still number one as they are only an intermediary. I don't see much positive in the future

[Mirko Kuzmanovic]

1 hour ago, Birute Vijeikiene said:

Yoo photos will disappear from Catalog Manager. So copy your keywords first.

Thank you so much!

[Sasha Radosavljevich]

does anybody remember?


triple facepalm

when double facepalm simply is not enough....

[Aliaksandr Tacheyeu]

Just deleted my portfolio. Good bye Shutterstock

[Wilm Ihlenfeld]

On 5/26/2020 at 10:37 PM, Kate Shutterstock said:

 

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. 

 

Hello, Kate, hello Shutterstock, are you still there?

 

Your capital calls you!!!

Your last statement was 31 pages ago - as far as I can see. It was a normal working day - also for you. It would be nice to finally read a few words from you again.

I have already asked for it, others too: We want a concrete, reliable, honest and transparent statement regarding our future income.

You have all done the math. You know the figures. Even if you only mention half of them in the e-mail to the contributors. We want the whole truth, and we don't want you to crawl into your shell. Finally deliver us correct overviews/tables/charts - instead of useless e-mails.

I think we all deserve that. Because without us, you don't exist.

 

Kind regards,

 

a contributor.

 

[Michael Warwick]

So I sold a photo for $29.85 today; not unusual. I have no idea what the earnings on that will be in June. I feel like I am here just at SS pleasure but they don't really need or want me.

SS use to show "followers" indicating the number of customers that had favored your portfolio. I know I have some customers who follow me when new images sell quickly. SS will lose that if I turn off my portfolio as I am not inclined to sell images for 10 cents. 

[Gtranquillity]

1 hour ago, Phil Lowe said:

It begins...

 

Not for images.

Yesterday an hour after the announcment it read

Over 325.465.275 royalty-free images with 1.229.872 new stock images added weekly

Today it reads

Over 326.148.632 royalty-free images with 1.251.997 new stock images added weekly.

[Phil Lowe]

Screw it.  Turning off my image port now.  It will take 72 hours to vacate anyway.  Remember: you have a voice in this.  Vote with your port.  Vote "No".

[Phil Lowe]

2 minutes ago, Gtranquillity said:

Not for images.

Yesterday an hour after the announcment it read

Over 325.465.275 royalty-free images with 1.229.872 new stock images added weekly

Today it reads

Over 326.148.632 royalty-free images with 1.251.997 new stock images added weekly.

Most people are waiting until Sunday to turn off their image ports.  Some are going to give the new system a month or two to see how it works.  But most people I've read here and on Facebook have indicated that they're done uploading here.  My guess is the second number will take a hit before the first one does, but by January 1st, there could be serious dents in both figures.  We'll have to wait and see.  

As for me, I just shut my image port down now.  No use in waiting until Sunday.  SS existed before I came along, and will probably keep going long after I'm gone.  But I'll be damned if they'll make one more penny off of my work.  I'm not going to work for sharecropper's wages.  Not going to happen.

[foodonwhite]

Apologies if someone has already posted this - Petition here and already at 1,330 signatures after 12 hours

 ...https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings

And a HUGE Twitter backlash going on - #boycottshutterstock seems to be trending!!

All the best to you all. Tough times just got even tougher thanks to Shutterstock.

[oleskalashnik]

3 hours ago, sahua d said:

I'm sorry but all of you just don't understand that we all live now in a post-pandemic world. All that we have as granted is gone now. This market will die soon (with or without Shutterstock).

This is not 'a post-pandemic world'. This is still pandemic world. And this means that online services, distance learning and distance work are only now becoming mainstream. Including microstock activity.

[Steven Tritton]

The contributor community hold an awful lot of power in this. Its not about having the resources and means to influence a far better outcome than the draconian rubbish being handed down to you on a rusted pitchfork, it is about collective resolve and action - of which some / many have already started and it's beginning to bear some results. 

[Tom Grundy]

SS, You have run the numbers, you know why you chose the levels you did, do you have the guts to explain your reasoning?

I presume very high volume sellers will make slightly more. High volume sellers will make about the same, low volume sellers will make less, and very low sellers will make a lot less. If you don't answer I will assume I am correct.

So here is the question. Assuming a long term contributor who is at the .38 sub level, how many sales a month or year do they have to be making for this to be a revenue neutral change?  Sure it makes a difference what the mix of sales types are - but you know what the averages are - what is the breakdown. Do you have the guts to tell us? 

How big of a seller do you have to be for SS to care about you?

Once this has been implemented do you have any plans to introduce new lower priced image sale methods?

[Phil Lowe]

Just now, eskystudio said:

That is assuming there is a way to turn off portolios for 2-3 days each month.

According to SS, it takes up to 72 hours to opt-in or opt-out of making your port(s) available for licensing.  Yes, it can be done, but you're looking at more than just a 3 day shut-off, as it takes up to 3 days to turn it off and then back on again.  A week would be the minimum length to do it, but everyone - or at least a vast majority of contributors - would have to do it, or it would have no impact.

IMHO.

[ArtIsThick]

Ok guys, delete account !!

[Phil Lowe]

2 minutes ago, Tom Grundy said:

Once this has been implemented do you have any plans to introduce new lower priced image sale methods?

They already have.  See their announcement on video subscriptions.  

Ooops. You wrote image sale, not video sale.  Sorry.

[skysense]

Maybe no need to turn it off, just stop uploading and see what happens. If it doesnt do any good, then we turn off our portfolios. A lot of people already left. 

[Design mix]

Saddest thing is that now the minimum amount per image is 10 cents. This is terrible news.

[Eh Petrel]

On 5/26/2020 at 6:34 PM, MotionEmo said:

What the heck is going on?

I started contributing from 2020 January. And, I was happy when I get about $20 per video sale.

And, after some time, they started video subscription method and contributors now sometimes earn just $1.80 per video sale.

All those were with 30% contributor percentage. 

Now, when it comes to 15%, think about it. It will be only half. So, we may experience $0.60 for video sales in future?

This is DISGUSTING! 

I'm thinking whether to stop contributing here. Seriously guys. 

Better to suicide than try living from these percentage earnings!

The future seems to have arrived early..what a joke this is 😕 

[Sadie P Photography]

It seems to me this is a way to get rid of all the small contributors, particularly the ones who upload low quality work, spam the site or use irrelevant keywords. This has been a huge problem for users and the fact that one third to half the content on SS is total junk is driving users away. I know myself it's a problem to search on SS and how irrelevant and bad quality a lot of the work is. Now that is a problem SS made themselves by their bad review process and by allowing basically anyone to have an account with no consequences for breaking the rules but still it must cost them a lot of money to herd all those wayward cats for not much profit. I can see how from a business sense it makes more sense to work with a few big contributors and content farms to deliver 80% of what their subscribers want with only 40% of the effort and cost to SS. This pricing structure makes all the small contributors leave and cleans up their catalog for them quite nicely. I bet they start deleting photos that have never been sold or favourited soon or wholesale deleting inactive accounts to get rid of the rest.

On the video side the new terms are SO unfavorable that I would bet that nice deals have been offered to large contributors or specialty contributors or those with high end gear, some of whom are noticeable absent from this conversation.