MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Level 6 Congrats, you climbed to a higher level as an image contrib  (Read 5953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

H2O

« on: November 17, 2020, 08:19 »
+4
Just received a email titled:- Congrats, you climbed to a higher level as an image contributor!

I haven't uploaded since their criminal behaviour started.

It makes no difference in my earnings, I will, as soon as I can shut my Port down.


« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2020, 08:36 »
+7
Congratulations! As a super Level 6 contributor, you will now earn a whopping 10 cents per image!

They should include that in the email.  >:(

« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2020, 08:37 »
+15
and from January 1st you'll be back to level 1  ::)

What a frikkin joke shitterstock are  >:(

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2020, 08:39 »
+5
While moving up a level might not have a massive impact on your earnings (although it will to some extant... that is how the levels work after all!) if you're getting over 25,000 downloads in a year, then I can pretty much guarantee that it will make a difference in your earnings if you're planning to close your account!

« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2020, 13:30 »
+9
And back to Level 1 on 12/31/2020 11:59 and 59 seconds  :-[

« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2020, 15:48 »
+7
Just received a email titled:- Congrats, you climbed to a higher level as an image contributor!

I haven't uploaded since their criminal behaviour started.

It makes no difference in my earnings, I will, as soon as I can shut my Port down.

don't worry about this: in 2 months you'll be back at the worst level existing, as every one else in SS.

« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2020, 16:27 »
+3
Yes, Shitterstock contributors, you can celebrate New Year's Day with gleeful rounds of HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe not.

« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2020, 14:32 »
+3
Well just 1 download needed to make it from level 4 to level 5 ~ so with only 1 month and 9 days left I'll be on 35% or 10 cents per image download. ::)


Then get sent back down the snake to level 1 15% on January 1st. >:(

« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2020, 15:08 »
+17
Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2020, 15:16 »
0
.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 15:46 by Clair Voyant »

« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2020, 18:24 »
+4
Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

Amen. Well said.

« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2020, 03:36 »
+16
Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

I don't need you or anyone to remind me. I spent the last two years caring for my elderly 80 year old mother who had cancer and died recently of lymphoma.

Stock was the only option besides doing commision photography which collapsed during this pandemic.  It allowed me to spend time looking out for her while earning a crumb.

I needed money no matter what.  Anyway Mama is gone now and I try to rebuild whats left of a shattered life.

So thank you I know its my fault  ::)

H2O

« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2020, 08:08 »
+10
Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

I don't need you or anyone to remind me. I spent the last two years caring for my elderly 80 year old mother who had cancer and died recently of lymphoma.

Stock was the only option besides doing commision photography which collapsed during this pandemic.  It allowed me to spend time looking out for her while earning a crumb.

I needed money no matter what.  Anyway Mama is gone now and I try to rebuild whats left of a shattered life.

So thank you I know its my fault  ::)

I sympathise with you, I myself am in a similar position to yourself, in that the micro stock income allowed me to look after my Mother, and as I originally posted, as soon as I can I will shut my Port down.

I feel utterly let down by the rapacious disrespect from Shutterstock that I as a contributor with years of uploading, key-wording and the sheer volume of time I have put in, to be shafted by their greed.

In my opinion Shutterstock started to go down hill when they bought in external shareholders, the writing was on the wall, these people, as the press always calls them investors is a misnomer, as most of the time they are not investing, if it was investing then they would be building or creating something with there cash, it is just a way to farm a business, they are often more like the characters in a Martin Scorsese film like Goodfellers, after they have sucked the life blood out of a business they burn the place down to collect the insurance.

The reality is the whole business model is flawed and I believe certain business should not be allowed to have external shareholders.

The micro stock business being one of them, after all they are really an Agent for a Artists work, which should be at the very least a 50-50 split on the income, I dont see any aligning of shareholders to this business model.

This whole sector of the gig economy as the press calls it, is in need of reform, this part of the Capitalist system has grown into a monster that has basically ended up scamming all the contributors who have put in years of hard work to build the business.

This Pavlovsky bloke that  Oringer bought in to do his dirty work is just a criminal in a suit and if he ever came to the UK, I would be the first to clock him one.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2020, 02:00 by leaf »

« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2020, 15:25 »
+22
It is categorically not contributors fault that Shutterstock's behavior over the last several years, culminating with the June 1 royalty cut, has been short-sighted, greedy and unethical.

Shutterstock - particularly Jon Oringer and Stan Pavlovsky - has to shoulder the blame for this debacle.

It is naive at best to suggest that contributors had a "choice" in this matter, any more than Getty photographers had a choice when Getty decided to move RM files to RF over their objections, or Pump Audio contributors (Getty acquired them) had a choice when Getty cut their royalties.

People need to eat. When all the options stink, taking the least stinky isn't something I'd blame people for.

I am tempted to blame anyone who took a special deal to continue to support the sleazes, but even they probably have salaries and rents to pay.

If someone who went back to Shutterstock acted surprised at the January royalty cuts back to level 1, I'd suggest they should refer to the lovely Maya Angelou quote "When someone shows you who they are, believe them, the first time."

I understood that speaking out about Shutterstock's bad behavior might cost me my account, which it did, but I had the freedom to lose that income (and I'm aware I'm very lucky in that regard). Not everyone is in that situation.

Save all our ire for the scuzzbuckets running agencies.

« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2020, 17:23 »
+4

...
...
The reality is the whole business model is flawed and I believe certain business should not be allowed to have external shareholders.

The micro stock business being one of them, after all they are really an Agent for a Artists work, which should be at the very least a 50-50 split on the income, I dont see any aligning of shareholders to this business model.

This whole sector of the gig economy as the press calls it, is in need of reform, this part of the Capitalist system has grown into a monster that has basically ended up scamming all the contributors who have put in years of hard work to build the business.
...

unfortunately the model isn't flawed - it's a predictable outgrowth of the laissez-faire capitalism championed by the right,  channeling of profits and tax cuts to the 1% while destroying the power of unions and the ability to organize and destroying regulations, the EPA, clean air & water acts, et al that protected workers, public health and the environment.  trump's nihilistic approach to government just exposed the process that has been underway for 40 years

a similar era of free rein capitalism triumphed in the late 19th century until exposed by muckraking journalists leading to progressive legislation

"Progressive reformers successfully influenced the passage of much substantive legislation, including several amendments to the US Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment established a federal income tax, the Seventeenth Amendment allowed for the direct election of Senators, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited sales of alcohol, and the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.
Legislation aimed at strengthening protections for workers and consumers included the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which created the Food and Drug Administration to guarantee the safety and purity of all food products and pharmaceuticals, and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which sought to curb business practices aimed at stifling competition
."  https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-world-power/age-of-empire/a/the-progressive-era
 

« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2020, 21:00 »
+4
Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

Shutterstock, microstock ... It's not my fault, it's my choice. I don't feel guilty of anything.
:)

Moving from level 5 to 6 on SS a few weeks ago, I didn't notice any significant difference in total earnings.

And, if you are at level 5 now, you should be back to this level sometime in February.

« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2020, 16:31 »
+5
Oringer and the other guy are very greedy, capable of selling their souls to the devil for money. Their greed is going to end up undermining what is called microstock. Sad for those whose primary source of income is the microstock. You have to think about a plan A, B, C, D ... Because the days of microstock are numbered, as many have said around here. :( :( :(
« Last Edit: November 24, 2020, 16:41 by alexandersr »


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2020, 14:22 »
+2
Oringer and the other guy are very greedy, capable of selling their souls to the devil for money. Their greed is going to end up undermining what is called microstock. Sad for those whose primary source of income is the microstock. You have to think about a plan A, B, C, D ... Because the days of microstock are numbered, as many have said around here. :( :( :(

I guess everyone is still celebrating the deal years ago, Getty taking us all to15%? While at least SS offers some levels? Did everyone forget that or the percentage of a cent connect credits? This month:  0.07$ iStockphoto ILLUSTRATION. Dreamstime, yeah there's a great place, 35 cents, but I only get about six downloads a year. Pond 5 doesn't sell photos, or if they do, that's rare. 123RF no reviews, no pay, the site is hacked and buggier than the rain forest. Deposit licenses your image to themselves, as a minimal pay sub, and resells for higher prices. Bigstock is just as bad as SS and their 25 subs aren't very pretty and limited.

Look at the broader market and competition. Don't forget how many people supplied the terrible low paying, low life agencies, that had the same method of attracting buyers, "We sell for less". Hardly anyone stood up then and said any of the same things you do now, to attack ShutterStock? That seems odd. I guess blame is easy when you ignore the whole system and broader Microstock market that's crashing around us.

But it seems almost everyone here is blaming ShutterStock and calling them names for creating a new commission system, to compete in the market against the rest of the predatory agencies. They didn't start this, they are just adjusting to the competition who stole from us in the first place.

Someone who's shouting out with anger at SS please defend the 15% flat rate at IS? Announced for 2017 and the wonderful minimum, which was at the same time, 2 cents. Their subscription package that directly competes with Shutterstocks main offering (until the new SS system) of 750 monthly downloads is paying 17 cents per download. While SS was paying us 38 cents and losing money on those commissions.

Never more.  SS now beats that for low with .10 to .19 for level 4 or .10 to .22 for level 5. But don't get lost. The minimum from IS is 2 cents!

Adobe is the only site with any respect for artists.

« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2020, 03:26 »
+1
Again Shutterstock is not paying 15%. They just say they are.

You just said in another thread that subs have "nothing to do with the percentages", I have addressed that over there. See my other post and please stop spreading misinformation about a pay structure you clearly don't understand.

« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2020, 07:42 »
+4
Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

Exactly! Just some people still can't understand that.

« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2020, 07:50 »
+5
But it seems almost everyone here is blaming ShutterStock and calling them names for creating a new commission system, to compete in the market against the rest of the predatory agencies. They didn't start this, they are just adjusting to the competition who stole from us in the first place.

So instead of blaming Shitterstock we should admire them? Not me.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2020, 08:20 »
+1
But it seems almost everyone here is blaming ShutterStock and calling them names for creating a new commission system, to compete in the market against the rest of the predatory agencies. They didn't start this, they are just adjusting to the competition who stole from us in the first place.

So instead of blaming Shitterstock we should admire them? Not me.

Nope, but you should be reasonable and stop blaming them for everything or stop ignoring that IS is paying us a flat 15% with no levels and offering a minimum of 2 cents. Where's all the anger, hate and never ending messages for that?

Again Shutterstock is not paying 15%. They just say they are.

You just said in another thread that subs have "nothing to do with the percentages", I have addressed that over there. See my other post and please stop spreading misinformation about a pay structure you clearly don't understand.

Thanks for bring this together in one place, that makes more sense than two threads on the same issues.

I clearly don't understand I guess? Subs are not paid at 15% for the minimum. Which just for the facts, we are paid over the 15%.  If the commission is less than 10c, we get a crappy 10 cents. (unrelated to the level percentage)

When the earnings are more than 10c, we get the percentage for that level. All others: OD, SO, EL we get a minimum of 15% for level 1 and more for each level.

What don't I understand? What's the misinformation in that.

Can you explain, any sale, where they aren't paying 15% or more?

« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2020, 09:04 »
+3
...
What don't I understand? What's the misinformation in that...
My point is that they aren't paying anything like the true percentage of what a buyer pays. That would be honest and it is how other agencies calculate it (see Canva etc.). Their email said they were. That is what I mean.

We know that buyers use a tiny fraction of their large subscription packages where most of our downloads come from.

The restrictions are basically there just to prevent abuse (like a buyer downloading the whole collection). We know that because they made a lot of their profits just on these margins. If a buyer used their full allowance (or near it) they wouldnt be making any money when they were paying us 38c and turns out they were actually managing to bag 80% (check out the stock holders meeting where Jon said 20% to contributors was the sweet spot/ minimum to keep us producing).

So a real world example, as a level 6 contributor (topic of this thread) when a buyer buys an image as part of a 750 image billed monthly pack Shutterstock pay me:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 40%= 10c/dl

Lets imagine the same buyer uses 50% of their downloads (I strongly believe this is extremely generous on my part given what I said about SS previous profits) what 40% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 40%= .21c/dl

So in this example they are in fact paying out 19(ish)% to level six contributors when they claim 40%.

EDIT: made a boo boo in my quick calculation, not much difference, still pay less than 50% of what they claim in this scenario
« Last Edit: November 28, 2020, 03:48 by Justanotherphotographer »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2020, 09:53 »
+1
...
What don't I understand? What's the misinformation in that...
My point is that they aren't paying anything like the true percentage of what a buyer pays. That would be honest and it is how other agencies calculate it (see Canva etc.). Their email said they were. That is what I mean.

We know that buyers use a tiny fraction of their large subscription packages where most of our downloads come from.

The restrictions are basically there just to prevent abuse (like a buyer downloading the whole collection). We know that because they made a lot of their profits just on these margins. If a buyer used their full allowance (or near it) they wouldnt be making any money when they were paying us 38c and turns out they were actually managing to bag 80% (check out the stock holders meeting where Jon said 20% to contributors was the sweet spot/ minimum to keep us producing).

So a real world example, as a level 6 contributor (topic of this thread) when a buyer buys an image as part of a 750 image billed monthly pack Shutterstock pay me:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 40%= 10c/dl

Lets imagine the same buyer uses 50% of their downloads (I strongly believe this is extremely generous on my part given what I said about SS previous profits) what 40% would actually be:

$199/325 images= .61c per image 40%= .25c/dl

So in this example they are in fact paying out 16(ish)% to level six contributors when they claim 40%. So less than half what they claim.

Nice hypothetical based on reasonable assumptions. But you are imagining and making up numbers, not using factual, absolute data. I mean what if someone uses their whole package? Is SS supposed to lose money on every download, because it's all about me?

Show us where in real numbers, your claim, SS is paying under the promised rate.

Again Shutterstock is not paying 15%. They just say they are.

You just said in another thread that subs have "nothing to do with the percentages", I have addressed that over there. See my other post and please stop spreading misinformation about a pay structure you clearly don't understand.

10c subs, and what they pay us for those, have nothing to do with percentages, because they are paying us OVER the promised percentage. That's not misinformation. In any case they are paying us the minimum, which is over the promised percentage at any level not the actual percentage.

Now show me in real numbers where SS isn't paying us the promised percentages? If not, then there's the misinformation.

Shutterstock is not paying 15%.

Show me?

« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2020, 10:35 »
+3
Ok, I give up.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2020, 13:29 »
+2
Ok, I give up.

I figured that was the answer, because there's no point in trying to explain or defend your false claim and misinformation if you have to use real numbers and real math?

Shutterstock is not paying 15%.

What are they paying?

« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2020, 13:44 »
+7
Congrats!  I have been level 6 for sometime but I removed around 6K files as soon as they started their cretinous behaviour! had enough. Whats left is the garbage they deserve!


« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2020, 03:57 »
+5
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy  PaYiNg!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:("

I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.

I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).

Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario). 

You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.

Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)

If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl

Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.


« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2020, 07:27 »
+5
Justanotherphotographer has a point. Being paid 15% for the images you create, keyword and upload is already absurd. In reality the actual number is even lower.

But I guess SS have figured out that there are enough people taking pictures just for fun, and not looking at photography as a source of income.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2020, 08:45 »
+1
Justanotherphotographer has a point. Being paid 15% for the images you create, keyword and upload is already absurd. In reality the actual number is even lower.

But I guess SS have figured out that there are enough people taking pictures just for fun, and not looking at photography as a source of income.

Yes he does, based on the assumption, that people don't use their full allotment. He's right. (so are you) How many people don't use their full amount? Does anyone here know.

He's also right that when they use their full pack or over some tipping point number, we get higher than the promised percentage. But as long as they are below that, we get less. Relatively speaking for those large sub packs, everything in the pink zone, we never get, exactly the promised percentage. Either above or below.

I understand the math and his math, I just don't understand the claim that SS doesn't pay us the promised percentages. They do for OD, S&O and EL. Everyone will agree to that. Then on subs, if the buyers full value price, x our percentage is over 10c then they pay us the percentage. If the price x our percentage is under 10c they pay us a high percentage. In some cases, much higher percentage.

The argument that we aren't getting paid the real percentage is based on, what if a buyer doesn't use all their download allotment.

So someone here needs to show how many buyers, with subs are using their full pack every month, where we are getting up to 300%, how many are right around the number where we are getting the promised percentage and how many are well under, in which case we don't get the promised percentage.

It's not as simple as attacking SS for not paying us the promised percentage? For the big sales they are, for subs that is truth or fiction based on a variable that we don't know. We'd need to know, in each case, how many images did the buyer download?

33 days 03 h 20 m 46 s until 2021 Reset Day EDT NY

ps hopefully not many people are actually getting 15% on SS like they are locked in at, forever on IS? If someone is only getting 100DLs a year, they should consider finding some other hobby.


« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2020, 14:01 »
+2
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2020, 15:25 »
+2
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. And every year on January 1st (!!!) you die, lose all your progress, and have to start from scratch.

What are these guys smoking?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2020, 16:08 »
0
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. And every year on January 1st (!!!) you die, lose all your progress, and have to start from scratch.

What are these guys smoking?

LOL there's another interesting analysis.

Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Really, now there's negative bias against Ukraine and Philippine people and SS is somehow, sending sales to them, instead of us? Talk about false claims and generalizations. Of course my usual question would be... how do you know this, do you have any proof or evidence? Or do you just want to blame SS and attack people from those two countries. 90% wow, those places must be rich with Microstock tycoons.

You managed to miss the point of the facts, we do get the promised commission for any sales that aren't subs, which non-sub sales are always larger amounts.  The subs are the question and debate here, and percentages based on the full sale price, not the potential unused downloads, which SS banks and we get no credit. Which somehow turned into SS Doesn't Pay us the Promised Commission. They do. It's just not a favorable way of calculating what we get from subs... because it's based on what the buyer pays for the full package, whether they use them or not.

By the way, some people seem to miss my goal of being objective and fair in discussions of SS and the new commission system. Nowhere do I defend it or claim to be happy with making less. I'm level 4 and my subs RPD for Nov. is right now at 12 cents. Which is easily 66% less than what I got before the new system.

I get 30%, which is higher than I used to make, on all sales that are not subs. No I don't look forward to January 1st at all.

« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2020, 17:18 »
0
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

not all that scarce-- ymmv, but for last yr my rpd has been about $.70  due to those sales

« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2020, 17:22 »
+6
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. ...


of course it's not an art form - same for all other agencies.  if you thinks it is you're in the wrong business. as several of us noted, it's a commodity and priced accordingly

« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2020, 03:02 »
+1
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. ...


of course it's not an art form - same for all other agencies.  if you thinks it is you're in the wrong business. as several of us noted, it's a commodity and priced accordingly

A good picture, microstock or not, tells a story. This is Photography, this is Art. What you're talking about are textures. Useful, high quality textures.

I support every Photographer who is deleting their SS port.

« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2020, 08:48 »
+3
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)


« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2020, 12:56 »
+1
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)
I live in Venezuela a third world country  and i swear you with $ 35 usd, you can't fill a shopping cart market with food and others essentials for home, maybe in another third world countries, but in Venezuela not! I think sometimes, it's more profitable begging money on the street than microstock incomes. In the past ( 3 years ago, 2017) with $ 100 you could make a lot in Venezuela, but now you can't.  :( :( :( :( :(
« Last Edit: November 29, 2020, 13:07 by alexandersr »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2020, 16:41 »
0
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)

Interesting views and I learned something new today:

Cost of living in Ukraine
 Single person estimated monthly costs: $820 (23,381₴)
 Ukraine is the cheapest country in Eastern Europe (13 out of 13)
Ukraine is the 4th cheapest country in the World

Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)

Cost of living in Iceland
Single person estimated monthly costs: $3,040 (404,164 kr)
(also estimated)

USA
Single person estimated monthly costs: $2,611
Cost of living in United States is more expensive than in 77% of countries in the World (18 out of 74)

No judgements, just some numbers. Well maybe one observation. Iceland isn't a cheap place to live! But I hear it's nice and beautiful as well.  ;D

« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2020, 18:56 »
+1
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!


Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)


Interesting views and I learned something new today:

Cost of living in Ukraine
 Single person estimated monthly costs: $820 (23,381₴)
 Ukraine is the cheapest country in Eastern Europe (13 out of 13)
Ukraine is the 4th cheapest country in the World

Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)

Cost of living in Iceland
Single person estimated monthly costs: $3,040 (404,164 kr)
(also estimated)

USA
Single person estimated monthly costs: $2,611
Cost of living in United States is more expensive than in 77% of countries in the World (18 out of 74)

No judgements, just some numbers. Well maybe one observation. Iceland isn't a cheap place to live! But I hear it's nice and beautiful as well.  ;D


Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)  Could you show me where did you find that information? it is very few!  Not rent cost included , no leisure, no medicines . Maybe that person only eat and live with his/her parents ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Look at this!
https://inmueble.mercadolibre.com.ve/MLV-569612537-alquiler-de-habitacion-en-el-paraiso-para-dama-_JM#position=11&type=item&tracking_id=b1d48ff2-ef93-409b-b85e-05b57f17a979 $ 80 room rent for a month, not an apartment.

In my country Venezuela exist two kinds of dollars, the black market , https://twitter.com/DolarToday, and the official dollar, Banco Central de Venezuela  http://www.bcv.org.ve/
« Last Edit: November 29, 2020, 19:10 by alexandersr »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2020, 03:09 »
+1
I prefer Numbeo when looking for a rough idea of prices in various countries. Usually filled in by expats/immigrants, so prices can be a bit off compared to that of a local, but usually seems to be about right... you can compare different cities within the countries as well.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Venezuela

« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2020, 04:53 »
0
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)


I know a few photographers in these eastern countries and Ukraine, Russia etc etc and according to themselves they earn very good money and keep uploading like crazy hundreds of shots per week and no problem almost everything pass the QC!.........this is old news actually its been going on for a few years!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2020, 10:41 »
+1

Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)  Could you show me where did you find that information? it is very few!  Not rent cost included , no leisure, no medicines . Maybe that person only eat and live with his/her parents ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Look at this!
https://inmueble.mercadolibre.com.ve/MLV-569612537-alquiler-de-habitacion-en-el-paraiso-para-dama-_JM#position=11&type=item&tracking_id=b1d48ff2-ef93-409b-b85e-05b57f17a979 $ 80 room rent for a month, not an apartment.

In my country Venezuela exist two kinds of dollars, the black market , https://twitter.com/DolarToday, and the official dollar, Banco Central de Venezuela  http://www.bcv.org.ve/


I will never doubt anything you say about this, over what an uninformed website has for their guess. They admit it's estimated guess, and I suspect that's because of what you added.  :)  You live there, I trust you know better than they do.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/venezuela?currency=USD because you asked. I don't believe them.

I prefer Numbeo when looking for a rough idea of prices in various countries. Usually filled in by expats/immigrants, so prices can be a bit off compared to that of a local, but usually seems to be about right... you can compare different cities within the countries as well.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Venezuela


Thanks for additional. I don't know and I don't make any claims. The giant disinformation network has some flaws when it comes to accurate data, sometimes.

Example: FPL USA - federal poverty level for a household of 2 members would be $16,460. I believe them in general. Can someone live reasonably on $1,333 a month in the US? Single person estimated monthly costs: $2,611 2 people would be at least $3,000

Between rent, and food, basic necessities for life at home, I think there would be nothing left for transportation, for example. So how could someone work, if they wanted, with no way to get there? Mass transit in the US is only good in some large cities. Elsewhere it just doesn't work.

Hey wait, Microstock, some people could actually increase their income. A couple hundred a month could make a big difference. I'm not saying anyone should live off stock photo/video/illustrations, just that as extra income, Microstock could make a difference.

So I dare to say, someone, who can use that money, making $100 a month on ShutterStock, is not going to disable and drop that money.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2020, 10:48 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2020, 17:19 »
0
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy  PaYiNg!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:("

I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.

I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).

Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario). 

You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.

Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)

If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl

Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.

You assume nobody downloads their full allowance, $199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl you want them to pay us .36c a download 68% on every sale.

iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.

« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2020, 20:26 »
+1
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy  PaYiNg!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:("

I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.

I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).

Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario). 

You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.

Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)

If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl

Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.

You assume nobody downloads their full allowance, $199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl you want them to pay us .36c a download 68% on every sale.

iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.

I want 4c instead of 10c because they pay me what they say they will. I want 15% instead of 30% because SS is scum and Getty is my dream date. Justanother Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2020, 04:42 »
0
Did I even mention Getty here? Go take a look at what I had to say about Getty on one of the many times they f***** us too. Or Depositphotos or Freepik or whoever the **** else.
Can't we discuss anything without all the whataboutism. God **** internet broke people's brains.

« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2020, 05:35 »
+1
...
iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.

What are you talking about? Who said I was okay with IStock's compensation levels? When have I been a cheerleader for IStock (quite the opposite actually).

What I would argue for as a MINIMUM is the levels on Shutterstock's table as a real percentage of amount paid by the customer calculated on a rolling 12 month basis (no January reset) and with the 10c minimum still in place. So what Shutterstock was selling the scheme as pretty much, just with a fairer rolling schedule.

That means no one doing this as a professional would be on 15%. In fact no one doing this regularly would be on less than 30% (500dls/rolling 12 month year).

Shutterstock has come up with a scheme where they can force as many subs downloads as they like to 10c by just changing the number of dls in a subs package because they are based on a fantasy percentage.

Saying I like what IStock is doing is like saying "clearly you love getting 5% because you are arguing for 95% and they are both calculate the same way" or you are cheerleading for getting $3 per hour because you have taken a job for $50 and they are both paid hourly. 


« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2020, 02:27 »
0
anyone else got the survey page for contributors in ss recently ?
Shutterstock_survey" border="0

« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2020, 03:02 »
0
I got a contributor's survey a few months ago after stopping uploads. Filled it in explaining why I wasn't contributing any more.

Have also had a couple of emails asking me to start upoloading again, looked pretty automated. Of course hell no, not until they change their comission structure.

BME across the other agencies.


« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2020, 03:27 »
+2
I got a contributor's survey a few months ago after stopping uploads. Filled it in explaining why I wasn't contributing any more.

Have also had a couple of emails asking me to start upoloading again, looked pretty automated. Of course hell no, not until they change their comission structure.

BME across the other agencies.
;D Possible ss missing some of great fresh contents uploaded regularly by those who have stopped uploading / removed their port.. If its so then its good

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2020, 12:36 »
+1
I got a contributor's survey a few months ago after stopping uploads. Filled it in explaining why I wasn't contributing any more.

Have also had a couple of emails asking me to start upoloading again, looked pretty automated. Of course hell no, not until they change their comission structure.

BME across the other agencies.

Makes me wonder if anyone at SS reads them? I mean, honestly has anyone written back and said, "Wow we really like the 66% cut in commissions?" Or maybe some dim bulb at SS decided that they needed a survey to find out what was obvious?

I don't know about others, but that pops up every day for me, and I ignore it. Maybe it has something to do with time on the site, in the catalog manager or something. Or could be a cookie with a nag screen association.

Let me say, if they don't know what most artists think at this point, they aren't paying attention or are in some kind of serious denial.  :) Their own forum has almost 300 pages of angry posts over the announcement, and that's with some deletions. I'm not wasting my time.

« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2020, 10:49 »
+1
I already know that I will be shocked in mid-January. It will be cruel. The comparison with January 2019 will be interesting (horrible).

« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2020, 02:38 »
+2
I got a contributor's survey a few months ago after stopping uploads. Filled it in explaining why I wasn't contributing any more.

Have also had a couple of emails asking me to start upoloading again, looked pretty automated. Of course hell no, not until they change their comission structure.

BME across the other agencies.

Makes me wonder if anyone at SS reads them? I mean, honestly has anyone written back and said, "Wow we really like the 66% cut in commissions?" Or maybe some dim bulb at SS decided that they needed a survey to find out what was obvious?

I don't know about others, but that pops up every day for me, and I ignore it. Maybe it has something to do with time on the site, in the catalog manager or something. Or could be a cookie with a nag screen association.

Let me say, if they don't know what most artists think at this point, they aren't paying attention or are in some kind of serious denial.  :) Their own forum has almost 300 pages of angry posts over the announcement, and that's with some deletions. I'm not wasting my time.

I never got a contributor survey, I just get customer surveys all the time.

But at this point, if they really do contributor surveys, the only reason for these might be to pretend they care and give contributors some kind of option to vent and voice their frustration. I have high doubts they will actually look at the results and even higher doubts that, if they look at them, they will really act upon thes results in any kind of way. Because we all know what contributors want and what they are dissatisfied with. All want more money, all want their levels not to be reset or at least the past 12 months being taken into account and at least some want less rejections. But the interests of contributors and of Shutterstock don't align, so this won't lead anywhere....
« Last Edit: December 19, 2020, 02:46 by Firn »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4563 Views
Last post May 12, 2008, 13:03
by Whiz
15 Replies
7602 Views
Last post November 28, 2009, 11:30
by PeterChigmaroff
4 Replies
3407 Views
Last post January 03, 2010, 20:18
by icefront
10 Replies
3712 Views
Last post June 23, 2016, 05:08
by Justanotherphotographer
3 Replies
2233 Views
Last post October 03, 2016, 22:15
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle