Its not as you have a choice...
You must select the 30%.

Everyone sees the two options. I think Aeonf means that since you are likely selling the same stuff in micros, you should be always selecting 30%. If you have specific images that you sell at higher priced agencies only, then 50% would be the right choice.

And then there is obviously the "liar's" option...

I've all mine at 30%.

There is it right next to the check boxes

Commission
 50% - Image is only offered via PantherMedia (and equally/more expensive stock agencies)
 30% - Image is also offered in cheaper stock agencies

The "cheaper agencies" are obviously microstock agencies.

Everyone sees the two options. I think Aeonf means that since you are likely selling the same stuff in micros, you should be always selecting 30%. If you have specific images that you sell at higher priced agencies only, then 50% would be the right choice.

And then there is obviously the "liar's" option...

I've all mine at 30%.

Exactly

Nothing to do with exclusivity.

You can change all your portfolio at once from 50%. Here are the instructions I got:

"You can change your settings for your pictures at: Contributor Portal -> Image Management -> Policy Management -> Edit existing images -> set all of my ... COMMISSION image to = 30%


The settings for the future will be posted here.
Contributor Portal -> Image Management -> Policy Management -> Default settings -> Newly uploaded images shall have following default settings -> commission (If you offer this image via PantherMedia
(or equally / more expensive) stockagencies, you will receive commission 50% If you commission also offer cheaper via stockagencies this image, please enter 30%) -..> 30% or 50%."

I had mine at 50% for a long time, but hardly seemed to sell anything. I always thought it was very strange that the commission we receive should depend on whether we sell elsewhere - so Panther sells them at whatever price they set, but pay us less if we have them selling on Shutterstock? I also get occasional small subscription sales from this site - what does that mean in terms of "expensive sites."

Anyway, I have changed all mine to 30% to see if that improves sales any.

Steve

These commission settings will have no influence on your sales. It does not change what is charged to the buyer.

That system came into existence a few years ago when PM was still a midstock agency. Their commission was a flat 50% at that time. People uploaded more and more microstock material and PM decided that from a buyers point of view that didn't look good - they tried to sell material at midstock prices that was available elsewhere a lot cheaper.
So they thought to discourage people to upload microstock material they simply changed the commission structure - if you sell the same image cheaper than on PM you get penalized by only receiving 30% commission (their definition of cheaper is comparing to their own standard price for A4 resolution, which is about 50� - essentially anything available on any microstock site therefore will receive only 30% commission).

Over time they changed their own pricing structure and now offer credits which are way cheaper than their old prices and also subscriptions. But they still kept their old rule about the commission - although they are now offering for a lot cheaper prices on their own site. Ridiculous. But why give away a commission cut already established? Another greedy stock agency is not really a big surprise...

So, to finish it off: If you tick the 50% box for pictures available somewhere on microstock, you are essentially breaking their rules... What happens if you do, I don't know...

These commission settings will have no influence on your sales. It does not change what is charged to the buyer.

That system came into existence a few years ago when PM was still a midstock agency. Their commission was a flat 50% at that time. People uploaded more and more microstock material and PM decided that from a buyers point of view that didn't look good - they tried to sell material at midstock prices that was available elsewhere a lot cheaper.
So they thought to discourage people to upload microstock material they simply changed the commission structure - if you sell the same image cheaper than on PM you get penalized by only receiving 30% commission (their definition of cheaper is comparing to their own standard price for A4 resolution, which is about 50� - essentially anything available on any microstock site therefore will receive only 30% commission).

Over time they changed their own pricing structure and now offer credits which are way cheaper than their old prices and also subscriptions. But they still kept their old rule about the commission - although they are now offering for a lot cheaper prices on their own site. Ridiculous. But why give away a commission cut already established? Another greedy stock agency is not really a big surprise...

So, to finish it off: If you tick the 50% box for pictures available somewhere on microstock, you are essentially breaking their rules... What happens if you do, I don't know...

You still get 30%, they know.

Changing it to 30%, means they will reject a hell of a lot,  PM, dont like the idea of spreading shots around too much, especially not the cheaper sites. So, Hobsons choice really.

I don�t see them rejecting a lot having the 30%, always had since day 1