pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What would you do if shutterstock decreased all subs to the first tier (0.25$)?  (Read 13084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2014, 14:58 »
+1

How many of those who lost the 50% did anything besides moan when 123 pulled the RC stunt?  Reality check: some people would lose enthusiasm to produce but the rest would continue on as it would still produce the best return.  "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"

But hardly anyone will have received most of its revenue from 123RF. 123rf has always been an agency, where sales were only a small part of the whole cake.

Exactly and, for this reason, much less likely that action would be taken.  Mind you, I would be more than surprised if SS did something like this as they do seem to see the value of having  happy suppliers.


Goofy

« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2014, 15:15 »
+3
What if we stop posting on this particular string- maybe we could get some work done?

« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2014, 15:23 »
0
Honestly, I lost more per month on the affiliate changes than I would on this hypothetical change. It wouldn't be pleasant at all, but it doesn't seem like a game changer for me either. Unless, it really did cause a bunch of contributors to pack up shop. Not that I'm looking to benefit from other people's suffering, but it could be a side effect.

EmberMike

« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2014, 15:24 »
+2
The list of "what-ifs" could go on in perpetuity.

This is a very possible "what-if", though. The Bigstock RC system should serve as a warning that this could happen at SS.

Certainly worth discussing in my opinion.

« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2014, 16:40 »
+6
The best thing we can do to prevent SS from giving us the shaft is to support and encourage smaller agencies. The more successful agencies there are, the less it hurts to drop one when they turn against us. Even 123 turned against us and they never made it past middle tier.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2014, 16:55 »
+1
No it's not a fun question. But it's a legit question.

SS is now a public company. They answer to investors. And investors always want more. While SS hasn't changed much at some point the lovefest will end. They'll be forced to change. And when financial change comes I think we all know what happens.

I haven't done much with stock in the past six months. I've found other ways of selling my work. And because of that I no longer need to be concerned with what changes any stock agencies make.

« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2014, 17:05 »
0
The list of "what-ifs" could go on in perpetuity.


This is a very possible "what-if", though. The Bigstock RC system should serve as a warning that this could happen at SS.

Certainly worth discussing in my opinion.


It's not like this is a new concern.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/e-mail-about-subscriptions-and-an-rc-like-payment-system/

This one you started:  http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-extends-current-subscription-royalty-rates/msg340204/

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/subscriptions-taking-off-how-are-your-april-sales/msg314458/

Anyhow, have fun.

EmberMike

« Reply #57 on: March 02, 2014, 17:53 »
0

It's not like this is a new concern.

So what? We can't discuss it because it has already been discussed enough in your opinion?


« Reply #58 on: March 02, 2014, 21:47 »
0
Since this is a hypothetical discussion, a more interesting  question is what would you do if they increased all subs to $25.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 03:54 by LesPalenik »

lisafx

« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2014, 22:33 »
+6
The list of "what-ifs" could go on in perpetuity.

This is a very possible "what-if", though. The Bigstock RC system should serve as a warning that this could happen at SS.

Certainly worth discussing in my opinion.

It's definitely worth thinking about, but not sure of the value of discussing it in a public forum.  If the consensus was that most people would be upset but soldier on, SS might just take that as a green light.  Then we will have " discussed" ourselves into a big pay cut.

 I've seen similar worst case scenario threads turn into realities on I stock, and I always felt TPTB used such threads to take the pulse of the contributor base.

« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2014, 23:09 »
+6
Diversification is the key, if you have a folio divided across many markets you will have greater power to pull your port and fight on. I suggest to anyone with serious concerns about this happening in the future to look at the broadening your scope of distribution across RM markets, PODs, Self hosting, Lower tier Micros (w fair comissions) and all other markets. Being prepared for a situation like this requires forward planning and not waiting for disaster to strike.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2014, 23:25 »
+5
Scary to contemplate, but with Shutterstock offering comp images to ad agencies and their new partnership with the Art Director's Club in New York, I foresee things moving in the opposite direction...direct competition with Getty, resulting in more extended licenses to larger clients and gradually increasing average earnings per download.

« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2014, 23:50 »
+9
On the contrary, perhaps its time for SS to increase prices at least to keep up with inflation ...

« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2014, 00:53 »
+1
With the huge profits, wonderful stock growth, great CEO, etc... isn't it almost a given that contributors will get more of a share rather than less?

Excellent point, Tickstock! Thank you for giving me a bright start to the morning. I assume you base your analysis on what Getty Images does to photographers when faced with ever falling profits (if there are any), a disintegrating share price and a seemingly unshiftable CEO who presides over all of it. 

Certainly, with the way things are going at Shutterstock there's no reason to expect it to sink to the grubby business of commission cuts, price cuts, 8c commissions and cash clawbacks that aren't supported by documentary evidence  (edited, since GI apparently has started providing the details).

But I guess I'm just restating your opinion!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 02:10 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2014, 01:39 »
+3
As I see it, there are only a few options to hedge against lower royalties; Only place your work with fair agencies to begin with. Stop uploading if an agency cuts royalties. Develop your own site. Pack a parachute now to jump off the microstock hot air balloon when the time comes.

« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2014, 01:50 »
+1
Let's just imagine, for fun's sake, that the thing described in the subject happens. Also, all your OD's fall to the lowest price tier.

Would you quit?

I know a lot of contributors who report that around 70% of their earnings are from shutterstock. It's easy to have integrity when a small agency screws you over. If they account for 3% of your income, who cares, you have principles!

Is it the same story when the best earner does it?

EDIT: I don't understand why the downvotes. Is it wrong to ask a question like this? Some things I'll never understand.

This scenario is highly unlikely..... the Bigstock level structure is seriously possible. That way the big contributors will be untouched and the rest.... the big majority screwed. I believe the formula in which 80% of the income came from 20% of the business  applies to SS also.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 02:42 by nicku »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2014, 05:32 »
+2
Only place your work with fair agencies to begin with. Stop uploading if an agency cuts royalties.
Who do you consider 'fair'?
I've never heard of any which actually sell; we just have to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.


« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2014, 06:30 »
+2
I will stop uploading.

I already fell that I am working for free, SS dont sell new content as they sell 3 years ago.

dpimborough

« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2014, 06:32 »
+3

Would you quit?



Yes because it wouldn't be worth the effort  :(

« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2014, 09:59 »
0

Would you quit?



Yes because it wouldn't be worth the effort  :(

Would you really lose that much? I'm thinking most people wouldn't lose more than 10% of their total income. My assumption for worst case scenario is that subs are about 50% of SS earnings and SS is about 50% of total earnings. The difference between $.25 and $.38 would end up costing you around 10%. Not that 10% is a small number though. That would be like losing a solid earning agency.

I could be wrong though. If you are losing more, feel free to share. My numbers only came out to about 2-3% and like I pointed out before it was less than what they took when they modified the affiliate program which was closer to 5% total income.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2014, 10:22 »
+1
My earnings per DL have been going steadily upward at SS and steadily downward at iS, until recently SS surpassed iS in the amount I earn per DL. If SS went only to 25 subs, my earnings there would be cut by more than 50%. I only submit to those two, and SS makes up 75% of my stock earnings. So that would mean about a 40% drop in overall earnings for me. :(

I guess then I'd start submitting to more sites and working harder on my own site.

« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2014, 11:13 »
-1
My earnings per DL have been going steadily upward at SS and steadily downward at iS, until recently SS surpassed iS in the amount I earn per DL. If SS went only to 25 subs, my earnings there would be cut by more than 50%. I only submit to those two, and SS makes up 75% of my stock earnings. So that would mean about a 40% drop in overall earnings for me. :(

I guess then I'd start submitting to more sites and working harder on my own site.

I think your math is a little off. The reduction from $.38 to $.25 is a little over 34%, so you can't be any more than that. But at 34%, that would mean you sold all subs and only made money at SS. Still though, I'm sure it would hit your earnings more than 10%. You would probably be closer to 15%. None of it would be good.

« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2014, 11:27 »
0
Would you really lose that much? I'm thinking most people wouldn't lose more than 10% of their total income. My assumption for worst case scenario is that subs are about 50% of SS earnings and SS is about 50% of total earnings. The difference between $.25 and $.38 would end up costing you around 10%. Not that 10% is a small number though. That would be like losing a solid earning agency.

I could be wrong though. If you are losing more, feel free to share. My numbers only came out to about 2-3% and like I pointed out before it was less than what they took when they modified the affiliate program which was closer to 5% total income.
In the opening post, I've written:

Quote
Also, all your OD's fall to the lowest price tier.

« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2014, 11:28 »
0
My bad, I thought we were just talking about subs.

« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2014, 11:51 »
0
With the huge profits, wonderful stock growth, great CEO, etc... isn't it almost a given that contributors will get more of a share rather than less?

LOL

LOL

ROFL

Stop! You're killing me!

LOL


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
43 Replies
15251 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 10:10
by 4seasons
11 Replies
6004 Views
Last post March 06, 2009, 10:47
by ljupco
15 Replies
4396 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 08:38
by wollwerth
108 Replies
57448 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 18:07
by OM
24 Replies
3715 Views
Last post May 01, 2023, 07:00
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors