pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Level 6 Congrats, you climbed to a higher level as an image contrib  (Read 2817 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 »
+14
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 »
+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.

« 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 »
+13
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 »
+9
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 »
+18
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 »
+3

...
...
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 »
+2
Ok, I give up.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4430 Views
Last post May 12, 2008, 13:03
by Whiz
15 Replies
7403 Views
Last post November 28, 2009, 11:30
by PeterChigmaroff
4 Replies
3283 Views
Last post January 03, 2010, 20:18
by icefront
10 Replies
3555 Views
Last post June 23, 2016, 05:08
by Justanotherphotographer
3 Replies
2083 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