pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What would you do if shutterstock decreased all subs to the first tier (0.25$)?  (Read 14641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 01, 2014, 14:29 »
-11
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 14:46 by spike »


« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2014, 14:32 »
+6
This isn't FUN  :'(

« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2014, 14:35 »
+5
I would complain on forums  ::)

« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2014, 14:42 »
+5
I will kill myself!

I can not survive without earnings from SS...

« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2014, 14:45 »
+8

Would you quit?


Immediately - without any doubt!

EmberMike

« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2014, 16:07 »
+8
Would you quit?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I wouldn't delete my portfolio, but I couldn't continue to work in microstock and make a living at it, and I'd have to look at other options. I'd stop producing work for microstock and hopefully get by on existing earnings for a year or so while I work on something else.

Here's the more important question to me: What makes anyone think this isn't likely to happen?

We're talking about this as a "fun" topic, something to just goof around about and discuss in hypotheticals. But don't forget that Bigstock, operating out of the very same offices as Shutterstock, already are dishing out lower royalty levels. I doubt that anyone is making $0.38 per subscription sale at Bigstock. Most folks are probably making $0.31 or less.

And last summer when Bigstock reevaluated the tiers and decided to make no changes, that seemed to indicate that they're quite happy with that RC system.

Moreover, I think the tier levels of the Bigstock system were designed with porting that system over to SS in mind. 50,000 sales per year is impossible at Bigstock. 50,000 at SS is pretty tough to do, but not impossible. Sounds more like the numbers fit SS than Bigstock.

So regardless of what I'd do or anyone else would do, I'm more interested in what SS is going to do in the next year or two while Bigstock moves along with this lower paying RC system right under the same roof.

I don't think it's a matter of "if" SS ever lowers rates or changes the system. It just wouldn't make sense to have these two companies operating in the same office and paying out different rates. Eventually, those rates will have to meet somewhere. And it won't be on the high end.

« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2014, 16:17 »
+12
Thats not fun. Unask that question.

« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2014, 16:53 »
+2
Nothing. I'd just continue doing what I do.

« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2014, 17:00 »
+8
At a minimum I would not give them new content

« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2014, 18:19 »
+1
It just wouldn't make sense to have these two companies operating in the same office and paying out different rates. Eventually, those rates will have to meet somewhere. And it won't be on the high end.

Many companies operate different brands with different price points selling a very similar product from the same offices. 

« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2014, 18:23 »
+13
Whats the point of worrying about something that theres no sign of its happening isn't there enough doom and gloom on here already?

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2014, 18:27 »
+8
Microstock is gradually becoming unsustainable for me as it is.  If I took such a big loss at SS I would have to begin seriously planning my exit straregy.

+1 on Pauws99's statement above.

« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2014, 18:33 »
+4
If SS puts in some sort of RC system or otherwise cuts commissions it would pretty much be Game Over for microstock, at least for most contributors.  I wouldn't delete anything but it would no longer be worth keywording or uploading any more, even part time.  Not funny at all.

« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2014, 18:39 »
0
At a minimum I would not give them new content

Same Here.

Goofy

« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2014, 18:44 »
+3
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.

Cannot believe I wasted a few minutes of my time reading this string when there are a million other ones that have some value...  :-\


« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2014, 19:05 »
-5
I'd moan but, otherwise, nothing.

ACS

« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2014, 19:18 »
+1
At a minimum I would not give them new content

+1


Goofy

« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2014, 20:00 »
+7
I'd moan but, otherwise, nothing.

better hope Shutter isn't reading this one!

« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2014, 20:36 »
+3
even representing 42.42% of my income (2013 numbers), I would stop uploading like I did at iStock, then the decreasing earnings would take care of the rest

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2014, 01:33 »
+15
my first thought was that the OP is SS, testing our reactions.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2014, 02:23 »
+16
Aren't we traumatized enough already with real issues, that we need to punish ourselves with these kind of masochist thoughts?

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2014, 03:59 »
+5
I would complain on forums  ::)

I too, but on iStock forums

« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2014, 05:34 »
+2
Aren't we traumatized enough already with real issues, that we need to punish ourselves with these kind of masochist thoughts?

I'm not sure that it's unreal. On BS they cut the minimum payout from 50c (credit) to 38c (for me) for a sub and my earnings promptly slumped by 20%.

« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2014, 06:16 »
+7
I'd rather imagine them doing the opposite and paying us more.  There's not much point in supplying sites that have cut commissions too much.  If SS took the bold step to pay us more, they could become even more dominant.

Perhaps it is a coincidence that the other sites that cut commissions have all fallen behind SS in the earnings poll here and perhaps they are still making lots of money but I'd rather believe that you get what you pay for and paying us peanuts isn't working.

« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2014, 06:29 »
+2
I'm not even going to read this thread.

« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2014, 06:42 »
+1
I'd moan but, otherwise, nothing.

better hope Shutter isn't reading this one!

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"

« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2014, 07:10 »
+2

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.


« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2014, 07:37 »
+7
spike, you don't understand why most of the people here don't like your topic?

Because you think there is fun in it! When you make a living in microstock, such kind of thoughts are not fun at all!
Because this is another negative thing these days! Why should we think about it? I don't want to think every day about: what if I die tomorrow? what if I get ill......
 
Don't you ever heard about the power of the positive thinking? Let's think about good things!
SS is doing great and may be they will decide to put another nail in the coffin of their rivals with a rise of the contributors earnings!  :)

« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2014, 07:43 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:56 by tickstock »

Ron

« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2014, 07:52 »
+9
I think giving contributors a raise will in the long run actually bring SS more profit. And I think its remarkable that SS could deal another blow to competitors by paying more, instead of less. Also a small raise across the board wouldnt even hurt their cost % by that much. 100 million downloads, raise by 2 cents would cost them 2 million annually. It would just slow profit growth by a small margin temporarily. It would do wonders for them in terms of goodwill, contributor commitment, motivate contributors to keep submitting their best work, and a good WOM.

« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2014, 08:13 »
0
Lets try this question upside down - what would you (all photographers) do if SS offers $1 (!) for basic level? Can you imaging how many photographers will come here? How motivating it could be?
It would be revolution in microstock (todays) world...
0,25, 0,33, 0,36, 0,38 $ - all will now be $1 for you, clear and fat $1 :)
?
What do you do?
?

And of course, they might use it in perfect marketing: "we are paying more than others, we are fair to photographers... we pay better for artists work " (you know what I mean...)

;)

« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2014, 08:28 »
+1
Lets try this question upside down - what would you (all photographers) do if SS offers $1 (!) for basic level?

I would sell all my shares immediately , I believe 8)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2014, 08:53 »
0
Lets try this question upside down - what would you (all photographers) do if SS offers $1 (!) for basic level? Can you imaging how many photographers will come here? How motivating it could be?
It would be revolution in microstock (todays) world...
0,25, 0,33, 0,36, 0,38 $ - all will now be $1 for you, clear and fat $1 :)
?
What do you do?
?

And of course, they might use it in perfect marketing: "we are paying more than others, we are fair to photographers... we pay better for artists work " (you know what I mean...)

;)

It would have to be established that they'd be able to maintain sales while offering a fairer price to togs (presumably by increasing prices considerably).

« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2014, 09:00 »
+2
I would do something much more profitable...panhandling comes to mind.

« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2014, 09:05 »
0
Whats the point of worrying about something that theres no sign of its happening isn't there enough doom and gloom on here already?
The point is to determine if we, the contributors, make our decisions based on priciples or economic arguments.

When the deposit-shotshop deal came out and the contributors were screwed, many of us deactivated our portfolio. We were very noisy in protesting, mentioning principles and how WRONG this is. And that we don't want to be a part of this, if we are treated in that way. We were firm in this!

So ok. If it's like that, it should be the same with SS, no? Principles are principles, regardless of the agency.

If they're not, they're not principles. And I'm ok with that. But I'm not ok with the delusion that one has some principles, when the only time he/she exercises those principles is with an agency which earns less than 5% of the monthly total.

That was the point of the topic.

« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2014, 09:15 »
0
spike, you don't understand why most of the people here don't like your topic?

Because you think there is fun in it! When you make a living in microstock, such kind of thoughts are not fun at all!
Because this is another negative thing these days! Why should we think about it? I don't want to think every day about: what if I die tomorrow? what if I get ill......
 
Don't you ever heard about the power of the positive thinking? Let's think about good things!
SS is doing great and may be they will decide to put another nail in the coffin of their rivals with a rise of the contributors earnings!  :)
Based upon what I know about positivism, there are two kinds: good and bad positivism.

Bad positivism is when you ignore the negative facts that you need to deal with in your life and focus only on the positives.
Good positivism is a solution orientated mindset - look for solutions to problems, focus on actions that you can take in response to negative facts or situations. Be actively on the lookout for real opportunities so that you will notice them. Realistically assess what is and what isn't under your control.

People who focus only on the positives live in their little bubble of delusion, and not in reality. I'm not one of those people and I can see you're not like one of "mine" people.

To be frank, I'm really surprised by the fact that such a large proportion of people can't or don't want to think about possible negative situations which might (or not) occur.

« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2014, 09:21 »
+6
thank god we have you!!


« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2014, 09:25 »
-6
I'm much more interested in a constructive debate about this "issue", rather than name-calling/ad hominems or low effort jokes.

ethan

« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2014, 09:25 »
+2
Enough.

Ergo, Spike's on ignore.

Permanently :)

« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2014, 09:26 »
+3
I'll write to Luis and ask him to adopt me.

But seriously, I run my business(es) on 99% economics , 1% principles - same as the agencies we work with.

« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2014, 09:30 »
+1
I'm much more interested in a constructive debate about this "issue", rather than name-calling/ad hominems or low effort jokes.

the point is that you cannot do anything about it, so enjoy while it lasts, in the meantime appreciate what SS have rewarded you because other haven't, that is the hard truth

« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2014, 09:30 »
+5
spike, you don't understand why most of the people here don't like your topic?

Because you think there is fun in it! When you make a living in microstock, such kind of thoughts are not fun at all!
Because this is another negative thing these days! Why should we think about it? I don't want to think every day about: what if I die tomorrow? what if I get ill......
 
Don't you ever heard about the power of the positive thinking? Let's think about good things!
SS is doing great and may be they will decide to put another nail in the coffin of their rivals with a rise of the contributors earnings!  :)
Based upon what I know about positivism, there are two kinds: good and bad positivism.

Bad positivism is when you ignore the negative facts that you need to deal with in your life and focus only on the positives.
Good positivism is a solution orientated mindset - look for solutions to problems, focus on actions that you can take in response to negative facts or situations. Be actively on the lookout for real opportunities so that you will notice them. Realistically assess what is and what isn't under your control.

People who focus only on the positives live in their little bubble of delusion, and not in reality. I'm not one of those people and I can see you're not like one of "mine" people.

To be frank, I'm really surprised by the fact that such a large proportion of people can't or don't want to think about possible negative situations which might (or not) occur.

What you are suggesting isn't a fact so most of us choose not to entertain your doomsday speculation.
There are enough everyday things that need my attention much more than somebody else's paranoia.

« Reply #42 on: March 02, 2014, 09:33 »
+9
Spike, it's not that people can't or won't think about it, it's that they don't consider it a "fun" topic to be discussed for entertainment.

It's like saying "just for fun, let's talk about what you would do if you home burned down"  no one wants to chit chat about that for entertainment but it doesn't mean they don't have insurance, thought out safety strategies like window decals to alert rescuers of pets inside, exit ladders from second floors, alarm systems, etc.

You probably would have gotten a better response if you'd posed the question with concern instead of trivializing it   Consider the difference between asking "are you concerned you daughter might be killed in a school shooting" and "just for fun, let's talk about what you'd do if you daughter was killed in a school shooting"

« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2014, 09:36 »
-2
What you are suggesting isn't a fact so most of us choose not to entertain your doomsday speculation.
There are enough everyday things that need my attention much more than somebody else's paranoia.
True, it's not a fact, but it could happen. I mean, in business, anything can happen, and I wouldn't count this hypothesis as super-unlikely, almost impossible. Maybe it is, I don't know, I'm not the CEO of SS, but it's a hypothesis worth exploring because it allows us to determine if we base our decisions upon principles or economic factors. Because I feel that many people feel self-righteous when they discard a low-earning agency, being all smug and full of integrity, but I'm not so sure they would discard a best-earner which would do the same.

This is not paranoia, this is just realistic thinking about our priorities. And why people block or downvote is still beyond me - if you don't like what I'm saying, talk to me, be constructive, defeat my arguments. If you just "don't like what I'm saying", that's not really a good reason (at least in my world) for a downvote.

« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2014, 09:39 »
+3
Consider the difference between asking "are you concerned you daughter might be killed in a school shooting" and "just for fun, let's talk about what you'd do if you daughter was killed in a school shooting"
Yep, this is probably true.

English is not my first language, so sometimes I fail to evaluate how things will sound to native speakers. "Just for fun" is an expression I know to be used in hypothetical scenarios, so I used it, didn't think it alone would cause a response like this.

Goofy

« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2014, 10:39 »
+3
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.


And here I thought my state (Washington State) was the only one that legalized marijuana? Where do you come up with these lovely thoughts? I tend to keep negative thoughts to myself but that's me... 8)


« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2014, 12:33 »
-2
I would draw more to keep up! Wouldn't you?


« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2014, 12:39 »
+3
10% would quit.

80% would be unhappy, but just keep doing more of what they already do, hoping for something good to happen.

10% would be posting here, telling us it's a good deal,  how we'll obviously make it up in volume,  what a smart businessman "Jon" is,  and that anyone who can't see that is an idiot.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 12:43 by stockastic »

« Reply #48 on: March 02, 2014, 14:48 »
+2
Spike you are comparing things to each other that are not the same.

Whenever SS made changes they informed their contributors.

Istock didnt with the Google-deal and now they don't with the being overpaid thing.
DP and Shotshop were hiding the fact that they are playing this sneaky game against all rules and agreements, even their own. 
When it is proven that they cant be trusted and while cheating them, they still ask trust from their contributors.

When SS should announce that they are lowering prices,  you can be angry, you can choose to stop uploading new content, you have the right to leave if you wish,  but until now, you are not cheated behind your back.

...and "fun''or "funny" are indeed not good words for all this.

« Reply #49 on: March 02, 2014, 14:56 »
+3
The list of "what-ifs" could go on in perpetuity.

« 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

« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2014, 12:02 »
+2
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

They could go with the Costco model instead of the Sam's club plan for maximum return for investors. Keeping the contributors happy might actually increase long term profits.

« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2014, 12:07 »
+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.

I would have lost 16.7%, its way more than any other agency

(last month numbers)


« Reply #77 on: March 03, 2014, 12:37 »
0
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.

I would have lost 16.7%, its way more than any other agency

(last month numbers)

Yeah taking both down (subs and other sales) makes it a lot uglier. I could see people folding up shop if they lose closer to 20%.

dpimborough

« Reply #78 on: March 03, 2014, 15:31 »
+3

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.

Because it's bad enough getting paid so little in the first place in the world of microstock.

What kind of foolishness would it be to accept even lower rates?

Are you saying that you'd be happy to be paid less for your work?  ::)

« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 15:33 by dpimborough »

« Reply #79 on: March 03, 2014, 15:52 »
+2
Because it's bad enough getting paid so little in the first place in the world of microstock.

What kind of foolishness would it be to accept even lower rates?

Are you saying that you'd be happy to be paid less for your work?  ::)

Yep, totally stoked! Pay us less. That's what I've been preaching for the last few years.  ;)

Seriously though, I'm done complaining and fighting. It hasn't done me much good. If there is going to be a real revolution, then give me a call. Otherwise, I'm just going to collect my paycheck.

« Reply #80 on: March 03, 2014, 19:03 »
+2
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

They could go with the Costco model instead of the Sam's club plan for maximum return for investors. Keeping the contributors happy might actually increase long term profits.

I've never seen any sign that any microstock company is concerned with anything "long term".


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
43 Replies
16376 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 10:10
by 4seasons
11 Replies
6556 Views
Last post March 06, 2009, 10:47
by ljupco
15 Replies
4772 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 08:38
by wollwerth
108 Replies
60715 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 18:07
by OM
28 Replies
5777 Views
Last post October 29, 2024, 14:08
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors