This isn't FUN 

I will kill myself!

I can not survive without earnings from SS...

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.

Nothing. I'd just continue doing what I do.

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. 

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.

At a minimum I would not give them new content

Same Here.

I'd moan but, otherwise, nothing.

I'd moan but, otherwise, nothing.

better hope Shutter isn't reading this one!

I would complain on forums 

I too, but on iStock forums

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.

Quote from: heywoody on March 01, 2014, 19:05

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"

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! 

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.

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

I would do something much more profitable...panhandling comes to mind.

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.

I'm much more interested in a constructive debate about this "issue", rather than name-calling/ad hominems or low effort jokes.

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.

Quote from: Fairplay on March 02, 2014, 07:37

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.

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.

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...

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.

The list of "what-ifs" could go on in perpetuity.

What if we stop posting on this particular string- maybe we could get some work done?

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Mantis on March 02, 2014, 14:56

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.

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.

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!

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.

I will stop uploading.

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

Quote from: spike on March 01, 2014, 14:29

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.

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.

My bad, I thought we were just talking about subs.

Quote from: tickstock on March 02, 2014, 07:43

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.

Quote from: cthoman on March 03, 2014, 11:13

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 03, 2014, 10:22

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%.

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.