These suggestions/ideas make me think you don't understand the economics of microstock. Shutterstock would be far better off getting rid of everyone who's made $500 or more and keeping all the new photographers who just started. They don't because quality of the gallery would suffer but they make a lot more money on a new photographers sales then they do mine or someone else who's crossed $10k.
Really? Why? Let's say for sake of argument that SS sells 100,000 images per month at $1.00 each ($100,000 in revenue). Part of this success is the simple fact that those contributors who are $10k + submitters provide good images that the buyers want. Some come from new submitters. How is eliminating these $10k plus submitters going to change a thing if the bulk of sales come from them? Regardless of .36 cents vs. .38 cents? It just goes to show you that new contributors, in general, don't submit enough volume and quality to warrant weeding out $10k plus contributors. The issue is quality, quantity and consistency, which regulars seem to keep giving. It provides a form of reassurance to SS that they can keep buyers buying 100k images per month. But let's get real here. The actual "real value" of SS is for images downloads to not happen so that they keep more of the package price. A few cents here and there in payouts is nothing when compared to someone who buys a $200 package and buys 1 photo.
