Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.2k
  • 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 is just a joke. 10 years with SS and now I'll be getting 20% commission on my footage clips??? No lifetime sales tier, just what you sold last year/this year.... To get to the curr

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

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😕 

D81E9050-07AB-454F-8933-67CB8827125B.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that New earnings structure for Contributors from SS will negatively impact on pro cameras and even software sales in the nearest  future as well. If you have no motivation to publish your photos for money you don't have motivation to own an expensive camera to take everyday photos and spend your valuable time to edit them for your own needs or for social networks where creativity is usually minimal.

Contributors have to establish their own photo bank  as an open join-stock company to get independence.

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

For those who can't afford to turn off their potfolios completely. How about going on a 2-3 day strike every month by ddisabling protfolios for a short period of time. If we do it collectively it won't cost us a lot. But it will be a sensible loss to Shutterstock. That's nother way fight back, I agree with Steve Tritton in the post above - only collectively we can have an influence.

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

I'm not sure how this could possibly affect SS. They currently have (as an example) 18.123 PAGES of strawberries. Even if thousands of contributors turn off their portfolio's for several days, they won't all have strawberry images so there are still tons of strawberry images to choose from so buyers will just buy those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Yes,right i was check it yesterday and today,too

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sadie P Photography said:

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.

Actually, I think just the opposite.  By resetting everyone - even the image mills - to level 1 every year, and by paying so much less per image sub, the only people who will be willing to take such low pay are people who are not professionals, who have not invested in higher end gear, and who do not possess the photographic skills to produce the kind of imagery SS tells us they want (see first page).  

In short, this will become less attractive to professionals and image mills, and more attractive to hobbyists.  But, overall, I think the rate reset every year is basically going to disincentivize uploading altogether.  It takes time, money, resources, and gear to make good photos, and while SS claims that's what they want, they don't want to pay for them.  As I've written before, they want filet mignon on a Happy Meal budget.  I'm not going to waste scores or hundreds of dollars producing solid photography to make dimes back in returns.  It doesn't make sense.  The only people that will are the kind of people still at iStock happy to make 1 and 2 cent commissions.  That's not me.  And, for what it's worth, I  think a lot of people here feel the same way.

IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sadie P Photography said:

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. 

That was their own-making when they changed the entry test to having approved only ONE image.

Even though what you mention might be an argument, it doesn't remove the fact that the new structure bites everyone's earnings at least for few months. What's more if you continue here, you will become a fanatic trying to chase ideas that sell to get to higher levels faster. That also cripples your independence, your joy, etc and all that for much less money (if you are lucky). 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlphaNature said:

You, by your position, dissuade people from protest.

Go peddle your crap somewhere else.  I'm entitled to voice my feelings as much as anyone else.  People can choose to ignore or agree, makes no difference to me.  You should go after the people who are saying they will close their account, but we all know they won't.  They are the hypocrites who deserve your scorn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guenter Heinz said:

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 🤮

I didn't know you have a crystal ball.  What other predictions would you care to make?  Any stock tips?  It must be amazing to know what the future holds.

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

I do lnow you. You have nothing but scorn to your fellow contributors, 0 desire  to help and overall your posts shows that that we are dealing with quite unpleasant inividual.

No need ot know you personally and in fact no reason to get to know you at all. What I've seen in this forum is quite enough to form an educated opinion about your character.

This has me laughing out loud.  Really ironic coming from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BobNoah said:

This evil system was copied from 123RF. They are a low-tier earning agency for most contributors at least. 

My dad always taught me to imitate the best ideas not the worse ones. I don't know who taught SS

Here is an image

 

Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 8.36.30 PM.png

Glad I never signed up with them.  Thank you for validating my concerns.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We gathered 1,500 in a petition. I don’t know how many files we have, but Shutterstock’s database is big enough to survive without our materials, and it won’t make much sense except to lose the necessary income in quarantine time.

We could arrange a headache for Shatterstock in other ways, but all this is illegal and not right. Each of us has a choice to agree or leave, we cannot dictate our conditions. Shutterstock does not belong to us, but belongs to shareholders. The only thing we want is to be heard. We want the leadership to say something like: “We know the N-number OF DISAGREEING AUTHORS SIGNED A PETITION, we received feedback, but alas, we are forced to continue our plan. And those authors who are not agreed, please to leave our site.” This should be heard by the chairman and directors and shareholders.

I will turn off my materials only for a week.

But to be heard, I urge everyone to call, write feedback, write e-mail to all managers every day for a week. In no case will we paralyze their work. Each contributor, on all possible 15-20 contacts, calls and writes to report our protest. In order not to load servers, let each contributors call and send a letter from 11:00-12:00 and 15:00-16:00 of his time zone. Who at what time is convenient. We use the official contacts provided and therefore do not commit anything illegal. If they cannot answer everyone this is their negligence.

We will not believe that we receive a response personally from the chairmen or directors, perhaps a bot or an ordinary employee is responsible. To be convincing, one of the leaders should answer us through some official media and we will ask for exactly the same official answer that will be heard by all possible interested persons from this business. I mean this should be heard by both the client and the shareholders. The response should be the expression "N-number OF DISAGREEING AUTHORS SIGNED A PETITION, but ...."

At the end of the week, let everyone decide for himself. 

This is my suggestion personally.

P.S. We all need to get together in a union for further reaction on any other events and joint actions. We don’t have to be friends or brothers/sisters. We are all on the same boat, this is for our common good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ve never posted anything here and hate to chime in on my first time on a negative note. But now I´m here, I feel this is the right time to ask shutterstock management to reconsider this proposition, it sounds completely unfair and seams to be what a company that wants to end it´s business would do.

I´ve always tried to have faith in shutterstock, but was always was afraid this was a scam and before I joined about a couple of years back I actually looked up scam and shutterstock but couldn't´t find anything at the time but if anyone else does look it up after this, they will most certainly find a very big red flag. I used to be on istock and found forums were full of bad and unsupportive folk, I got a bad vibe and left before things got bad. I´m glad I wasn't´t there when it all went south.

I´ve had a bad feeling about things for about a couple of months not because of covid but it felt as though someone had switched something off and as if customers left for other stock agencies which some how are doing better than ever now while shutterstock sales have dropped dramatically, well at least in this case.

Thanks to all and hope that this is a misunderstanding and that things will be cleared. I in the mean time I cannot submit my best and will pursue other agencies that do honor initial terms of sale with all of my work.I cannot continue to upload and if situation is not corrected or I start seeing 10 cts for my work I will be removing my port as well as others.

Best!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What dark times where even this company is stooping so low as to screw the contributors....How can we react as a collective body? 

I suggest we all stop uploading to shutterstock and concentrate on those agencies that actually value us as contributors. I for one will be doing so and I urgently suggest everyone here to do the same. This disrespect by shutterstock is disgusting.

We the contributors are their lifeblood, without us they are nothing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I submitted a request to terminate my account and final payout, I won't participate in a boycott.  I say this because Shutterstock simply doesn't care about any of this.  If they did, there wouldn't be 74 pages at the time of this post from outraged photographers.  This is about the money going in their pockets, not yours.  On May 27, 2020 Shutterstock posted on Twitter saying, "We understand your frustration. We want to reward all of our contributors crafting content that is currently in-demand by our customers."  Is this "reward" in any way reflected by the new earnings structure?  It boils down to this, are you cool with Shutterstock making more money every year while your "reward" will be entry level earnings come January?  If you are, then by all means, have at it.  Shutterstock won't suddenly empathize about the impact of their new earnings structure on you.  Don't be fooled, they KNEW this decision would be met by backlash, they owned it and were ok with your new "reward."  Why?  Because they can.  This is about money, greed, and people with no moral compass whatsoever.  I'm not waiting to see what their next move is because the "reward" will likely be worse.  The new earnings structure means you won't make decent money for most of the year and only a semi-decent "reward" for a few months till January, maybe.  We all have a choice, there are plenty of stock photo sellers out there, if you decide to remain with Shutterstock remember one thing, it won't be for money or because you feel valued!  You're officially going to sell your photos for peanuts, plain and simple.  Lastly, Shutterstock may have been a good company at one time; however, they are now an unethical business model that does not value the work of photographers. Boycott if you'd like but this has become a company I want no part of.  For these reasons I'm done and never coming back, I'll get my "reward" elsewhere.  

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 09.46.01.jpg

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

Yesterday I submitted a request to terminate my account and final payout, I won't participate in a boycott.  I say this because Shutterstock simply doesn't care about any of this.  If they did, there wouldn't be 74 pages at the time of this post from outraged photographers.  This is about the money going in their pockets, not yours.  On May 27, 2020 Shutterstock posted on Twitter saying, "We understand your frustration. We want to reward all of our contributors crafting content that is currently in-demand by our customers."  Is this "reward" in any way reflected by the new earnings structure?  It boils down to this, are you cool with Shutterstock making more money every year while your "reward" will be entry level earnings come January?  If you are, then by all means, have at it.  Shutterstock won't suddenly empathize about the impact of their new earnings structure on you.  Don't be fooled, they KNEW this decision would be met by backlash, they owned it and were ok with your new "reward."  Why?  Because they can.  This is about money, greed, and people with no moral compass whatsoever.  I'm not waiting to see what their next move is because the "reward" will likely be worse.  The new earnings structure means you won't make decent money for most of the year and only a semi-decent "reward" for a few months till January, maybe.  We all have a choice, there are plenty of stock photo sellers out there, if you decide to remain with Shutterstock remember one thing, it won't be for money or because you feel valued!  You're officially going to sell your photos for peanuts, plain and simple.  Lastly, Shutterstock may have been a good company at one time; however, they are now an unethical business model that does not value the work of photographers. Boycott if you'd like but this has become a company I want no part of.  For these reasons I'm done and never coming back, I'll get my "reward" elsewhere.  

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 09.46.01.jpg

That's absolute BS, because they only pay for content customers buy, so when they paid us they were rewarding contributors that crafted content in demand. To me that's one of the things that upsets me the most. If they come and tell me "from now on we decided we will pay you less just because it's the model of business we like and because we're in a position in which we can do it" I would be less upset than now, getting the speech in which they're taking money out of me and telling me it's in my best interest. It's a joke, and a bad one indeed.

I disabled my port in the hope that someone's neurons will make synapsis and take back the Jan 1 thing. Then, only then, I perhaps decide to stay in. Otherwise, in the near future I'll follow suit and terminate my account. It's the right thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is how SS respond when we express our displeasure at the impending changes:

 

Hi Christopher,

We are Deeply saddened on the fact that there is a Deduction or a slight cut down in the earnings that Shutterstock used to offer earlier.


The reason of Decline in earnings has been the uncertain pandemic which has caused a huge effect on all the businesses including ours. 
 
The world wide conditions are worst & the moment.We believe that with the passage of time things are expected to improve and once it would happen then we would try to raise the earning opportunities with Shutterstock.

We need your support during this harsh time around 
 
I would recommend going through the following link  How do I get paid for my work? , and I hope it will be helpful to you.   


If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thanks,
P****t
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team

 

"slight cutdown" now that is a joke, as a contributor who mainly uploads video I am facing a massive decrease in earnings due to $1.50 wix sales, sub $4 video subscription packages and now 15% royalties. It would appear they wish to eliminate video submissions. And then the CEO goes spouting how well the company is doing during covid. So which is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sadie P Photography said:

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.

 

No man, these guys only want to make money for themselves, they gave up figuring out what sells or what does not sell and realized that in the end, the customer decides. If your work is not top notch or not key worded properly they send you to the bottom of the pile in the search engine, it´s that simple. No need to blame your fellow contributors, they just got greedy and scared at the same time.

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...