0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It'd be nice if they'd give us another rise for hitting, say, $50,000.
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2017, 13:17It'd be nice if they'd give us another rise for hitting, say, $50,000. and 20K, 30K, 40K, 60K, 70K.....
I remember reading somewhere for Shutterstock when you reach your first 100 downloads, your earning per download increase up to .33. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have now more than 1000 downloads but still gaining .25. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: encrenciel on April 03, 2017, 11:13I remember reading somewhere for Shutterstock when you reach your first 100 downloads, your earning per download increase up to .33. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have now more than 1000 downloads but still gaining .25. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYou need to read stuff when you sign upIt's $500 then you go up
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2017, 13:17It'd be nice if they'd give us another rise for hitting, say, $50,000. And penalize you in the search results even more, because you're 'so much more expensive' than the newbies?I suspect that a good position in the search results is more valuable than your base royalty per download.
Those that are persistently on the lower rates, especially with large portfolios tend to cost an agency more in support and from reviewing images than they actually earn.
Quote from: travelstock on April 03, 2017, 21:34 Those that are persistently on the lower rates, especially with large portfolios tend to cost an agency more in support and from reviewing images than they actually earn.Your logic is flawed. It doesn't matter what they cost in terms of support and reviewing, if they are on board, then apparently the agency wants to have them.What matters is the profit per download. The agency earns more when a file from a lower-ranked contributor is sold. Therefore there is financial motivation to give them some kind of a boost. This boost may vary with each implementation of the search algorithm. You can't just deny that the incentive to tweak the search results exists. And many new contributors are actually good and able to submit good files.
The vast majority of income comes from the top contributors. These are invariably on the highest rates. For those that are in the top at Shutterstock 5%, the highest rates amount to less than 2 months income from Shutterstock. Generally these contributors have very low review and administration costs associated with their accounts because they have successful portfolios that have already been reviewed. Administration costs measured per download for a $5000 payout are also much lower than someone that just scrapes in for $100.
"If they were concerned with administration costs, why did they practically abolish entrance exams?" Because they cost money?
Quote from: Pauws99 on April 04, 2017, 01:15"If they were concerned with administration costs, why did they practically abolish entrance exams?" Because they cost money?What costs more money? Reviewing 10 files from a contributor in an exam, than reviewing hundreds and thousands of potential c#%$ images from the same guy and thousands like him? (and storing them, using bandwidth, etc.)
You think the stricter review stopped a significant number of these people? they just kept submitting till they passed.
The system is so advantageous to the stock sites that they really don't need to take the risk of messing it up to try to squeeze more cash out of it. The belief in someone doing us down because our wonderful files don't sell as fast as we think they should really strikes me as coming out of the same place as the old complaint that "my image was perfect the reviewers rejected it because they are stupid" - which almost invariably turned out to be wrong.
Quote from: Pauws99 on April 04, 2017, 01:24 You think the stricter review stopped a significant number of these people? they just kept submitting till they passed.I don't believe that. I'll bet that 90% gave up after the first rejection and most of the rest gave up after the second. I referred a very good old-time professional to SS once, a guy with great photographic skills but not so good with the minute details that the reviews caught a lot of people with. He failed, of course, and didn't go back. In fact I don't believe that any of the people who used my referral link on SS and failed the test ever bothered to try a second time.
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 01:52The system is so advantageous to the stock sites that they really don't need to take the risk of messing it up to try to squeeze more cash out of it. The belief in someone doing us down because our wonderful files don't sell as fast as we think they should really strikes me as coming out of the same place as the old complaint that "my image was perfect the reviewers rejected it because they are stupid" - which almost invariably turned out to be wrong.In order for your theory to work, these guys must get at least SOME sales. If they don't get any sales, the system is not advantageous at all. If they are really so bad, they might use some help in the search results. You contradict yourself, to some extent.
Quote from: LDV81 on April 04, 2017, 02:04Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 01:52The system is so advantageous to the stock sites that they really don't need to take the risk of messing it up to try to squeeze more cash out of it. The belief in someone doing us down because our wonderful files don't sell as fast as we think they should really strikes me as coming out of the same place as the old complaint that "my image was perfect the reviewers rejected it because they are stupid" - which almost invariably turned out to be wrong.In order for your theory to work, these guys must get at least SOME sales. If they don't get any sales, the system is not advantageous at all. If they are really so bad, they might use some help in the search results. You contradict yourself, to some extent.Well, we all know that some odd stuff sells, and so does some stuff that's not very good. I've got examples of my own of both, but if someone wants something and that is all that a search produces then they will probably take it anyway. The sites demand quality that is stellar, a web-site buyer doesn't need something that will look flawless covering the side of the Burj al Khalifa in Dubai. So it's possible to make sales with dodgy stuff but it's hard to make enough to get to a payout in a reasonable time - and if it takes 1,000 people 10 years to get to a $50 payout, then the site is on average sitting on $250,000 of their cash (if my arithmetic is right).
I doubt if there's any legal requirement for companies to keep in cash all the money needed to make future payments to contributors, just as you don't have to keep in hand all the money needed to pay suppliers of other goods - you just need to come up with it when the bill falls due.
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 06:10I doubt if there's any legal requirement for companies to keep in cash all the money needed to make future payments to contributors, just as you don't have to keep in hand all the money needed to pay suppliers of other goods - you just need to come up with it when the bill falls due.Sorry but the money has to be kept and not used or invested and it's a liability. I'm pretty sure you and the rest here who think it's advantage are wrong. That's why many sites have lowered the payout to get the money owed off the books. Ask an accountant about owed commissions or escrow funds. SS or IS or anybody does not profit from what they hold, and they can't count it as an asset or invest that money.
Author
Topic: Why am I still in the .25 group? (Read 7129 times)
