Quote from: xst on April 26, 2012, 18:32
numbers: Pay attention to contributors commissions change vs. Agency commissions change.

Basically for level 1 and 2 they shared some, although agency raise was much bigger.

For level 3 and 4 (especially L and XL) they took almost all price increase to themselves

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I would say this doesn't account for level jumps though. My level 1 images became level 2 images and my level 3 and above images tripled in quantity. I think some of the people that were most hurt by this were their successful contributors with lots of level 5 images. Strange that successful contributors have been targets lately by many agencies.

Quote from: velocicarpo on April 26, 2012, 17:18
20% royalty (level 0) is a insult.

It's a lot better than 12% at FT or 14% at iS.

Quote from: stockmarketer on April 26, 2012, 17:46
Even if we take the explanation at face value, and as a whole contributors might see 15% greater revenue overall, here's my biggest problem...

Many of us have given up or greatly slowed uploading due to the ridiculous, poorly implemented crackdown on "similars."  But we have older files that sell very well.  Since new files will be given preference, and we have few of them, we'll be shoved aside for the new stuff, and we're likely to bear the biggest brunt of this change.

Many of the sites are already utilizing search engines to take cream off the top. When sites openly do both, it is time to look at other options.

Quote from: cthoman on April 26, 2012, 19:38

Quote from: xst on April 26, 2012, 18:32
numbers: Pay attention to contributors commissions change vs. Agency commissions change.

Basically for level 1 and 2 they shared some, although agency raise was much bigger.

For level 3 and 4 (especially L and XL) they took almost all price increase to themselves

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I would say this doesn't account for level jumps though. My level 1 images became level 2 images and my level 3 and above images tripled in quantity. I think some of the people that were most hurt by this were their successful contributors with lots of level 5 images. Strange that successful contributors have been targets lately by many agencies.

Please pay attention,
That table takes account all this

Thanks for the chart XST, it is very informative.

I suppose I should be more bothered about the cut in the commission rate but I am glad that, unlike other agencies, it shouldn't lead to a loss in earnings = unless the higher prices deter buyers, of course.

I hope they will put most of the extra cash they are going to get into promoting the site and bringing in more sales. That is, after all, a large part of what we are paying them for.

Quote from: xst on April 26, 2012, 18:32
numbers: Pay attention to contributors commissions change vs. Agency commissions change.

Basically for level 1 and 2 they shared some, although agency raise was much bigger.

For level 3 and 4 (especially L and XL) they took almost all price increase to themselves

So I have no level 1 images (haven't uploaded at all this month) tons of level 0 and the rest are 2-5.  On the chart on the thread the pricing is the same from last year to this year but funny they don't show our commission from last year and the change for this year.

Wonder why? 

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 26, 2012, 19:41

Quote from: velocicarpo on April 26, 2012, 17:18
20% royalty (level 0) is a insult.

It's a lot better than 12% at FT or 14% at iS.

Just because others make bigger mistakes doesn`t justify anything

Quote from: velocicarpo on April 26, 2012, 21:01

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 26, 2012, 19:41

Quote from: velocicarpo on April 26, 2012, 17:18
20% royalty (level 0) is a insult.

It's a lot better than 12% at FT or 14% at iS.

Just because others make bigger mistakes doesn`t justify anything

sure but FT paying $$ instead of EUR is a very nice one too.. it just keeps getting better.. DT plan is incredible, they want to make more money and hardcore stuff, will see how it goes..

Not so bad!  so you lose a bit in one end and gain more in the other. Thats what business is all about, isnt it. Compromizes.

For some reason I can't see that chart any more.

It is worth bearing in mind that the 20% royalty level depends on the image, not on the contributor, unlike most sites where you are on a fixed rate. Your actual percentage will depend on the ratio of different image levels that you sell and will move around from day to day but will be well above 20% overall for established contributors.

Quote from: wut on April 26, 2012, 17:35
All this broad daylight robberies will make SS look better and as a consequence, stronger.

I thought I'd read that SS has raised prices to buyers, but kept the cents to contributors the same?

Quote from: lagereek on April 26, 2012, 21:36
Not so bad!  so you lose a bit in one end and gain more in the other. Thats what business is all about, isnt it. Compromizes.

There's no compromise, it's the same old raise prices cut commissions trick.  It doesn't give me any hope for the future.  What happens next year?  The same again?  We end up with tiny commission percentages and less sales.  Shutterstock get even more buyers that don't like paying the higher prices.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 26, 2012, 22:21

Quote from: wut on April 26, 2012, 17:35
All this broad daylight robberies will make SS look better and as a consequence, stronger.

I thought I'd read that SS has raised prices to buyers, but kept the cents to contributors the same?

I must have missed that, if it in fact happened. Can you post a link to that thread (I doubt there was an announcement etc)?

Shutterstock has been at $249 a month for subscriptions since 2008 (I went to look at the wayback machine for March each year as that was typically when price increases happened). Before that it was $199 a month. The way it typically worked was that SS would increase the prices for buyers and then a month or two later (after it figured out how buyers responded) it would raise contributor earnings.

They haven't raised subscription prices, although they have added on demand and single sales.

I think the complaining has been about the lack of a raise, not about taking a raise themselves and passing on only a little to contributors. The closest they came to that was when the introduced extended licenses. Initially you had to buy a large-ish quantity and the contributor payout was set on that basis. Then they later added the ability to buy a smaller quantity of extended licenses - at a higher price - but contributors got a flat amount regardless. In the beginning I think it was $20 per extended license.

Perhaps I missed something during the time I was exclusive, but I don't think SS has ever pulled the kind of crap that all the other agencies have (of passing on only a small portion of a buyer price increase and suggesting we should be happy because we're getting more money than before).

Quote from: jsnover on April 26, 2012, 23:44I don't think SS has ever pulled the kind of crap that all the other agencies have (of passing on only a small portion of a buyer price increase and suggesting we should be happy because we're getting more money than before).

Or that we should be happy because money doesn't make us happy

My calculations were wrong.
My apologies to DT.

There is no lowering of our share
for example if you had image of level 1. It got 30%. Now this image become Level 2.
You are getting 30% for level 2 under new system.

The only share cut is for images that haven't sold for 24 months. and images with over 25 downloads

^^aren't the L5 commission changes negative (there's no - in the % change)

Quote from: jsnover on April 26, 2012, 23:44
I think the complaining has been about the lack of a raise, not about taking a raise themselves and passing on only a little to contributors. The closest they came to that was when the introduced extended licenses. Initially you had to buy a large-ish quantity and the contributor payout was set on that basis. Then they later added the ability to buy a smaller quantity of extended licenses - at a higher price - but contributors got a flat amount regardless. In the beginning I think it was $20 per extended license.

Yeah, I think that was it.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 27, 2012, 01:19

Quote from: jsnover on April 26, 2012, 23:44
I think the complaining has been about the lack of a raise, not about taking a raise themselves and passing on only a little to contributors. The closest they came to that was when the introduced extended licenses. Initially you had to buy a large-ish quantity and the contributor payout was set on that basis. Then they later added the ability to buy a smaller quantity of extended licenses - at a higher price - but contributors got a flat amount regardless. In the beginning I think it was $20 per extended license.

Yeah, I think that was it.

Me too . No raises, but no cuts either. It doesn't make them the good guys, but competition's actions are making them (look good/the good guys)...SS is the best of what we've got (indies).

Quote from: velocicarpo on April 26, 2012, 17:18
20% royalty (level 0) is a insult.

At least it is one you can avoid - by deleting any image with no sales after two years...

DT is a middle tier site for me and time will tell if this new price structure works. Change is not always bad.

Quote from: wut on April 27, 2012, 01:47

Quote from: ShadySue on April 27, 2012, 01:19

Quote from: jsnover on April 26, 2012, 23:44
I think the complaining has been about the lack of a raise, not about taking a raise themselves and passing on only a little to contributors. The closest they came to that was when the introduced extended licenses. Initially you had to buy a large-ish quantity and the contributor payout was set on that basis. Then they later added the ability to buy a smaller quantity of extended licenses - at a higher price - but contributors got a flat amount regardless. In the beginning I think it was $20 per extended license.

Yeah, I think that was it.

Me too . No raises, but no cuts either. It doesn't make them the good guys, but competition's actions are making them (look good/the good guys)...SS is the best of what we've got (indies).

When royalties do not keep up with annual inflation, it is a calculated cut. No raise since 2008 ='s a 10% pay cut.

Quote from: gbalex on April 27, 2012, 07:32

Quote from: wut on April 27, 2012, 01:47

Quote from: ShadySue on April 27, 2012, 01:19

Quote from: jsnover on April 26, 2012, 23:44
I think the complaining has been about the lack of a raise, not about taking a raise themselves and passing on only a little to contributors. The closest they came to that was when the introduced extended licenses. Initially you had to buy a large-ish quantity and the contributor payout was set on that basis. Then they later added the ability to buy a smaller quantity of extended licenses - at a higher price - but contributors got a flat amount regardless. In the beginning I think it was $20 per extended license.

Yeah, I think that was it.

Me too . No raises, but no cuts either. It doesn't make them the good guys, but competition's actions are making them (look good/the good guys)...SS is the best of what we've got (indies).

When royalties do not keep up with annual inflation, it is a calculated cut. No raise since 2008 ='s a 10% pay cut.

+1

Very true re. SS and no pay rises

Quote from: Metsafile on April 27, 2012, 05:40
DT is a middle tier site for me and time will tell if this new price structure works. Change is not always bad.

I have yet to see a commission cut that has worked out well for me.  It also takes away any long term ambitions I might have with microstock.  Until sites state they have stopped lowering commission percentages, I'm working on other things.