Quote from: dirkr on August 23, 2012, 23:09
The $0.52 is part of the $2.05, no need to add it.
SS states in their filing with the SEC (that Leaf has linked to in the opening post) that their average sales price per download in 2011 was $2,05. And out of this average we receive our royalties.

Oops. Missed that part. That will teach me to cherry pick.

That sales and marketing budget is monstrous. Looking at these numbers, I guess they couldn't pay contributors 50%.

Quote from: cthoman on August 23, 2012, 23:54
That sales and marketing budget is monstrous. Looking at these numbers, I guess they couldn't pay contributors 50%.

I'd say in the past 18 + months, I see far more ads (in magazines) for SS than all the other agencies combined.

Averages??? Head in an oven and arse in a freezer = comfortably warm!

thanks guys for digging this out!

Quote from: leaf on August 23, 2012, 23:13

I'll try and state what I originally said a bit clearer.
In the IPO they clearly stated that
* Gross revenue in 2011 was 120.3 million
* Gross royalties paid to artists in 2011 was 33.8 million

I'm not sure how you can twist the numbers to say anything other than a 28% overall payout. (to artists)  Even if you have a different way of calculating the figures, what is wrong with this method?

I'm sure someone will try when you just stated it in simple factual numbers. Claiming that a simple term royalties paid to artists means something else, like..., rent, reviewers or other expenses. Then question which people are getting this, when the numbers are gross and have nothing to do with if it's me or you or someone else.

That's the twist.  

As long as I get that deposit every other month into my Paypal account, what do I care if it's 15% - 20% or 30%? I'm only concerned with myself and my bottom line. Income.

Quote from: leaf on August 23, 2012, 23:13

In the IPO they clearly stated that
* Gross revenue in 2011 was 120.3 million
* Gross royalties paid to artists in 2011 was 33.8 million

I'm not sure how you can twist the numbers to say anything other than a 28% overall payout.  Even if you have a different way of calculating the figures, what is wrong with this method?

My common and logical sense says to me that you are spot on. Of course individual numbers vary but that's up to everyone's effort without the need of bad deals like contributor-exklusivity.

Quote from: Ed on August 23, 2012, 21:40
Leaf, I think you're over-thinking it.
The next question is...at what level are the majority of the contributors?

The truth is that the majority of contributors is responsible for the minority of income. I'm pretty sure that the top 10% makes more than the bottom 90%. So it's no point in looking at the payout rate of people who get sales occasionally. Most of the sales come from content provided by people in the 38 cents club and that's what Shutterstock needs to pay.
You can either calculate the average the way Leaf did it - check how big the whole pie is and how much out of the pie is given to contributors. Simple math and actually most precise in my opinion.
Or you can take the average gross income per download (the $2.05 figure) and compare it to the average RPD.
Mine is $0.59 so that means I'm getting ~28,8%. Someone still getting 25 cents for subs might get a lower rate, but the majority of people with significant sales get $0.5-$0.6 RPD. That would give us a range of 24.4%-28.8% That's more or less what both Leaf calculated and what Scott Braut posted. 

Quote from: cthoman on August 23, 2012, 23:54
That sales and marketing budget is monstrous. Looking at these numbers, I guess they couldn't pay contributors 50%.

yeah, it'd be pretty fun to see the various marketing budgets of the different agencies.