Quote from: cthoman on March 14, 2013, 16:42

Quote from: lisafx on March 14, 2013, 15:36

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2013, 12:57

Is 38 cents per download much different?  Maybe they will make up for the difference by getting more buyers.

I keep reading this same comment over and over about how .27 vs. .38 doesn't make much difference.  You're right, on one sale it doesn't.  But microstock is supposed to be about volume. 

I just calculated the difference for last month (Feb.) between what I earned in .38 subs on Shutterstock and what it would have been if each of those had been .27.  Total difference was over $300.  I think that's significant.   I definitely have uses for that extra $300+ and would miss it if it was gone.

That's assuming you are doing over 3000 sales a month. How many people are actually doing that at SS? 100? 500? 1000? But, like I said, I had this argument before, and most people see it as making a big difference. So, I guess I'm the odd man out. 

I can't believe Lisa does just 3000 subs sales at SS. If that is true, SS loses appeal to me.

For whatever reason I believe Lisa's port has never done quite as well at SS as elsewhere. In the past (say a couple of years ago), on the monthly earnings reports, when most independents were reporting their SS contribution to be around 25%+ for Lisa it was more like 18% if I remember correctly. Of course when you do particularly well at one agency, especially if it is a a high income generator like IS, then that tends to suppress the % numbers for the other agencies anyway.

Over the years I've studied sales patterns quite a lot and it seems that most contributors sell disproportionately better or worse than their peers at one or two agencies. It's just the way it is. I guess different agencies may attract buyers with different needs and interests.

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 14, 2013, 17:38

Quote from: aeonf on March 14, 2013, 17:29

^^^ "only" ?
That's over 1,000$ in subs alone, not many people do much better.

3k downloads means at least 2k $

Yes, because clear calculation that leads u to 1140$ is at least 2k.

right but I was adding ods, els, sods

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 14, 2013, 18:15

Quote from: Lizard on March 14, 2013, 18:05

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 14, 2013, 17:38

Quote from: aeonf on March 14, 2013, 17:29

^^^ "only" ?
That's over 1,000$ in subs alone, not many people do much better.

3k downloads means at least 2k $

Yes, because clear calculation that leads u to 1140$ is at least 2k.

right but I was adding ods, els, sods

Im not sure even with that someone doubles amount of subs sales only , at least Im not one of those 

I am at 67 cents this month (1 EL, 2 x 5.7$ SOD) so I don't believe Lisa or other top contributor is doing below that

I am at 67 cents this month (1 EL, 2 x 5.7$ SOD) so I don't believe Lisa or other top contributor is doing below that

And I'm at $0.79 per download!

Steve

Gostwyck is right that historically my port always did better at Istock than anywhere else.  Which is why the dive at Istock has hit my overall earnings so dramatically.  For me, SS has not picked up all the slack from Istock's losses.  A lot of those sales have gone to TS at .28. 

But SS has been my top earning site for about the past 6 months or so, if I remember correctly.   And Steve's calculator looks about right to me.  Roughly half my income there is from subs and the rest from OD, EL, etc.  Total income varies wildly by month though.

@Michey, when I mentioned volume, I meant volume of SALES, not images.   

Hm yes I just chec Im also somwere aroud half subs and half all other income...

But I just saw a 75$ sale in single & other downloads that I missed to see last month...

Where does a 75$ sale come from ?

I just sent a note to support asking if they have an opt out for subscriptions, and if not to delete my portfolio. Having walked away from iStock over the Google fiasco and them refusing to let us control where and how our images are licensed it makes it much easier to blow off Bigstock if they insist on switching to the dark side.

And when I logged on to send the message, I see my balance had gone up this evening by three new subs sale. Woo yay

Perhaps we should start a betting pool on when that noxious subs royalty chart will go into effect at Shutterstock...

I received a reply from support this morning saying (1) no opt out for subs and (2) did I really want to remove my files but leave my account open as they don't normally do that. She'd have to check and see if that was possible and would I write to confirm that was what I wanted.

I explained (again; I had made it clear why I asked in the first message - that I want to clear the last 7 days of sales so they don't keep the balance) why and said that if there was another procedure for me getting paid in full all the money I was owed, I was happy to do it a different way.

We'll see. The funny thing is that I went through this same two-step in 2008 when I went exclusive at IS. First they said they couldn't do it, and then they were able to after I fussed about leaving 7 days worth of royalties on the table.

Is this really so hard to comprehend? It wasn't my idea to withhold royalties for a period of time...

.

There's no incentive to carry on working hard with the big microstock sites.  Hopefully there will be other options this year.

Unfortunately it seems we are nearing that point.   

SS stil pays me enough to maintain a flicker of interest, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we get the announcement - in perfect CorporateSpeak - of the need to "bring ShutterStock's commission structure in line with" BigStock and the rest of the bargain basement outlets.   Accompanied by the wonderful news that all of us, even the small players, are now being sent over to BigStock, and how that will benefit us.   

 And that will be the end of it, for quite a while at least. 

I've redirected my efforts to selling wall art on FAA.  Please, don't laugh, it's cruel :-(.     I realize my prospects are microscopic, but if I can make at least an  occasional sale there, it will motivate me to do things in photography.

I received a reply from support this morning saying (1) no opt out for subs and (2) did I really want to remove my files but leave my account open as they don't normally do that. She'd have to check and see if that was possible and would I write to confirm that was what I wanted.

I explained (again; I had made it clear why I asked in the first message - that I want to clear the last 7 days of sales so they don't keep the balance) why and said that if there was another procedure for me getting paid in full all the money I was owed, I was happy to do it a different way.

We'll see. The funny thing is that I went through this same two-step in 2008 when I went exclusive at IS. First they said they couldn't do it, and then they were able to after I fussed about leaving 7 days worth of royalties on the table.

Is this really so hard to comprehend? It wasn't my idea to withhold royalties for a period of time...

That's funny (in a sad way). Let us know how this turns out. It was something I was wondering as well. You'd think the question would come up a lot.

Quote from: sharpshot on March 15, 2013, 10:08

I still can't get over the disappointment that Jon Oringer has allowed this to happen. 

As was expected the rules of the game changed when SS decided to go public. 


When I left Istock I decided not to lay all my eggs in the microstock basket.
I do RM, POD and Micro.
Last year I started with contract photography for companies - it's going well.

For me photography is more diversified now.

Microstock is not everything...

That's the right way.

Quote from: sharpshot on March 15, 2013, 10:08

I still can't get over the disappointment that Jon Oringer has allowed this to happen. 

As was expected the rules of the game changed when SS decided to go public. 

And this is just the start.