|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 151
376
« on: August 28, 2015, 11:10 »
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.
377
« on: August 28, 2015, 09:28 »
It is my understanding from Shutterstock that this $9.99 price is simply one of the many tests they regularly run with small segments of their customer base. Such tests are designed to determine if certain strategy modification have customer appeal and are likely to result in increased downloads and revenue. Many of these tests are never implemented across their entire customer base.
Nevertheless, this certainly indicates that given Adobe/Fotolias lower price offering Shutterstock is considering the possibility of needing to lower prices somewhat. So far we have no indication that the Adobe offering has impacted Shutterstock sales. If there is an impact, we may get some indication of how much when Shutterstocks third quarter sales are reported in November.
I don't think this is a test. When they got rid of the Two Image On Demand sales they also changed the earnings schedule and dropped Two Image On Demand sales from that too, it seems like that is gone forever. I wouldn't be surprised if they are testing other things but that change looks permanent.
379
« on: August 27, 2015, 14:03 »
I'd say, if the earnings would have been changed, this forum would have exploded. FWIW, I am still having all earnings as expected, I dont care so much what they're called. I think it is safe to say, earnings havent changed. Yet
It was only recently changed, I'm not sure of the exact date but within one month. My guess is that the Two Image On Demand sales were not terribly common because it wasn't too much more to get a 5 image On Demand pack. It seems a lot of people didn't know what they were getting paid from Two Image On Demand sales either, it's rather opaque, it would just show up mixed in with your other SODs. You could go back and check how many you've possibly had depending on your level you would have received $2.90 at the 20% level, $3.62 (or $3.63, the actual number is $3.625) at the 25% level, $4.06 at the 28% level and $4.35 at the 30% level.
380
« on: August 27, 2015, 12:14 »
My stats match with JoAnn and Worldplanet.
Why does this matter to you so much?
I'm not sure what that means? Your stats don't say where a sale in the SOD column is from. How are you judging that your stats say Two Image On Demand sales are going into the On Demand column instead of the SOD column?
Everyone who contribute to SS understands what that means. It means I have always got a flat $1.24 or $2.85 for the category that reads On Demand Downloads, and that hasn't changed.
For Single and Other Downloads, there is a separate section and those sales have always fluctuate wildly between .38 (Facebook ads) on up to a couple of hundred $ each.
I answered your question. Now you answer mine - Why do you care so much?
Look at Jo Ann's response. In 2012 On Demand images paid out in two separate columns Multi Image On Demand paid out the On Demand rates you list and Single Image On Demand packs paid out under the SOD column. In 2013 they introduced Two Image On Demand packs and the same month changed the earnings schedule from Single On Demand and other sales to Single/Two Image On Demand and other sales. Those Two Image On Demand sales went into the SOD column just like the Single Images On Demand sales did the previous year. This month they changed the pricing of the Single On Demand images to be the same as the multi image On Demand sales and at the same time dropped the Single/Two Image On Demand and other sales category from the earnings schedule replacing it with Custom Images. New sales of Single On Demand images will show up in the On Demand category going forward instead of in the SOD column like they used to. I answered your question in response to MichaelJay.
381
« on: August 27, 2015, 12:09 »
The point of this thread isn't so much that Shutterstock pays a low amount it's more that Adobe Stock is affecting what Shutterstock is paying. When they started selling Single Images On Demand at Adobe, Shutterstock dropped the price and changed the category they are paid under reducing royalties and slightly reducing the royalty rate those sales paid. It's clearly a direct result of what's going on at Adobe. Adobe charges $50 dollars for 10 images while Shutterstock is charging $50 for 5 images. There will likely be price reduction for those sales along with a change to royalties to match.
382
« on: August 27, 2015, 11:28 »
I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.
383
« on: August 27, 2015, 10:53 »
I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?
...[fill in useless stuff]...
Is there a reason why you reject giving an answer to a direct question in return for all the information you are getting to all your questions?
Oh I ignored that because it was silly. No I'm not getting paid by Getty, that's ridiculous. I think you can look at Jo Ann's last response and see that I might actually be correct on this. I'm keeping up on what's happening at Shutterstock and Adobe because it directly affects me, when SS or Adobe drop prices or royalties I expect it to affect other sites. We've just seen DepositPhotos do it. On the video side we've seen Dissolve react to VB. We saw it when iStock introduced monthly subs. We saw it when Adobe set the max price for photos to $10. I like to understand what's happening so I can plan for the future. The information is only useless if you don't care about what you're getting paid and have no desire to understand how it is now or will be in the future. Turning this into a personal thing rather than looking at the actual information does you no favors.
384
« on: August 27, 2015, 10:51 »
They must be trying different plans out, I don't have that. The plan you're pointing to though is for Signature not Essentials meaning the royalties paid could be up to $2.50 per download or theoretically up to 100%. Where are you located, I'm in the US.
I am in Turkey, maybe prices are changing by country.
Yep, I see you're in Turkey. They must be trying different plans out in different countries.
385
« on: August 27, 2015, 10:48 »
They must be trying different plans out, I don't have that. The plan you're pointing to though is for Signature not Essentials meaning the royalties paid could be up to $2.50 per download or theoretically up to 100%. Where are you located, I'm in the US. Is that Turkey?
386
« on: August 27, 2015, 09:24 »
There was a one year (ish) period, from about June 2012 to June 2013 where they offered the single image sale. And I can see $5.70 royalties during that period in my SOD column as you said. And the customer price for the single image is shown in the price list ($19 on the US site).
Before that it was 5 and 25 packs; after that it went back to 5 and 25 packs. Some time later (wayback machine servers are having a problem right now so I can't see) the 2 pack was introduced.
I do have SODs for $4.35 - which is 30% of $14.50 (the price per image from the 2 pack), but as you say I don't know where the $4.35 comes from.
Those were most likely Two Image On Demand sales. Looks like they added Two Image On Demand to the earnings schedule in June 2013 and the Two Image On Demand packs for sale in June 2013. So can we agree on this point now and move on?
387
« on: August 27, 2015, 09:14 »
Please look istock subscription sales, in a basic math setup, buyers give $2,5 per image to istock for monthly 100 image download, but we get $0,27 per image, it almost equal 10% commision!......
so istock get 90%, we get 10% from one subscription sales,
look what a big difference and what a big GREED!!!
You are saying iStock has a subscription plan that is 100 images for $250? I don't see that anywhere. They have a 750 image plan for $166 or a 250 image plan for $200.
388
« on: August 27, 2015, 09:06 »
I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right?
One if "On Demand", the other is "Single & Other". It's quite simple once you understood it. Obviously you are not understanding it, most likely not even willing to understand it even when it is being explained to you by several people with far more experience in this matter than you have.
I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?
If you are right and I'm wrong then Shutterstock looks much much worse than I thought. What I'm saying is they lowered the minimum royalty rate for Single/Two Image On Demand from 20% to 18.8% while you guys are arguing that for years Shutterstock paid less than 10%. See the 2012 royalty rate schedule. If they paid $1.88 on $19 sales then you got less than 10%. https://web.archive.org/web/20120615063135/http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtmlhttps://web.archive.org/web/20120821145231/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtmlLook at these and tell me that it's not clear that Shutterstock was paying a percentage for Single Image On Demand.
390
« on: August 27, 2015, 09:00 »
I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right? I'm saying that your Two Image On Demand sales go in that column while your other On Demand sales go in the On Demand column. It should say Single/Two Image On Demand And Other Downloads but that's a bit too long to fit but that is how it's written in the earnings schedule.
Looking at your SODs won't tell you if something is a Two Image On Demand sale or a Facebook sale, you might be able to guess by the amount though.
I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why? Have you seen an admin post that Two Image On Demand sales do not get filed under the Two Image On Demand category? Have you seen something that says each and every sale filed under SODs is pre-negotiated or have you seen that pre-negotiated sales go under the SOD category?
My stats match with JoAnn and Worldplanet.
Why does this matter to you so much?
I'm not sure what that means? Your stats don't say where a sale in the SOD column is from. How are you judging that your stats say Two Image On Demand sales are going into the On Demand column instead of the SOD column?
391
« on: August 26, 2015, 22:32 »
I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right? I'm saying that your Two Image On Demand sales go in that column while your other On Demand sales go in the On Demand column. It should say Single/Two Image On Demand And Other Downloads but that's a bit too long to fit but that is how it's written in the earnings schedule.
Looking at your SODs won't tell you if something is a Two Image On Demand sale or a Facebook sale, you might be able to guess by the amount though.
I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why? Have you seen an admin post that Two Image On Demand sales do not get filed under the Two Image On Demand category? Have you seen something that says each and every sale filed under SODs is pre-negotiated or have you seen that pre-negotiated sales go under the SOD category?
392
« on: August 26, 2015, 22:18 »
They pay 20% to 30% depending on your tier, not 13%.
I can't explain it any more simply than Jo Ann and I already did.
Goodnight!
Not according to you and Jo Ann. Two Image On Demand packs cost $29 or $14.50 for each sale. You said they pay $1.88 to $2.85 for those that makes the percentage for the Two Image On Demand sales 12.9% to 19.6%. I'm saying (and the earnings schedule says) you get paid 20-30% for those sales. When they lowered the price of Two Image On Demand sales from $14.50 to $10 each they lumped them in with the other On Demand sales which is why they changed the category from Two Image On Demand and other sales to Custom Image. Now Single and Two Image On Demand sales fit in with the others, they didn't a month ago when they were priced higher.
393
« on: August 26, 2015, 22:07 »
I believe the multi-image packs are the ODDs where our royalties are not based on a percentage, but on a fixed rate. The Single/two image demand you're referring to are the custom licenses where we get a percentage of the license which varies by whatever deal SS makes and the contributor earns anywhere from a few dollars to over $100. So the ODD rates that Jo Ann quoted you do not apply to the Single/two image on demand licenses.
I know you and Jo Anne believe that, the question is why? What would you call a Two Image On Demand pack if not a Two Image On Demand pack? It is listed in the earnings schedule just like that. I find it hard to believe that Shutterstock is negotiating 2 image deals with companies, that seems a bit far fetched doesn't it? I really don't believe Shutterstock would pay less than a 13% royalty rate for Two Image On Demand sales but you seem pretty sure of it, is there some evidence that they were paying that little?
394
« on: August 26, 2015, 21:53 »
Jo Ann is correct.
On Demand (ODD in shutterstock lingo) pays a fixed amount depending on size and the contributor's tier.
Single and Other Downloads (SOD in shutterstock lingo) pays anywhere from the single subscription rate for FB downloads to $120 or more.
We're with shutterstock. We know what we are being paid and it hasn't changed. If buyers are paying more or less for certain image packs, that does not affect what we get. Just like we get the same amount for every subscription whether a buyer downloads one image or 750. The only payment that is affected by what the buyer pays is when it comes to a custom SOD, hence you can earn up to $120 and in the rare case even more. To date, my highest SOD is $80. This month's SOD's for me range from the FB subscription rate to $15; all my other downloads this month - both subscription and ODDs - are based a fixed amount based on my tier, which has been consistent since I hit the current level and has not changed this month despite changes in the price buyers pay for image packs.
If a buyer pays for a two image On Demand, we get paid a fixed rate for each one of those two images the buyer downloads based on our tier, so whether they buy a 5-pack or a 2-pack, our royalty for each ODD is still the same and it is not dependent on what the buyer paid.
What part of this don't you understand?
Look at the link from last month, then look over to the right side column, read it. It says this "Single/ Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" along with the other two columns for On Demand images. https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtmlYou can look back through the history of the earnings schedule, it's kind of interesting. They used to list OD royalties under "Images: Multi-Image On Demand" and also had a column for Images: "Single Image On Demand and Any Products Not Listed Above" which evolved into what it is now. They dropped the wording for multi image packs but kept the single and two image packs in a separate category, which disproves Jo Ann's earlier statement that On Demand images never paid a percentage.
395
« on: August 26, 2015, 18:24 »
You still haven't answered the most obvious question what is a two image on demand sale if not a two image on demand sale? They list those for sale and on the earnings schedule but you say they aren't the same thing? I think you're mistaken on that and they show up under the sod column. I don't believe shutterstock was paying less than 13 % for those sales. They changed the category from two image on demand etc.. to custom images when they made the price about the same as the other ODs. It seems pretty clear what happened, SS was not paying 13% for those sales.
396
« on: August 26, 2015, 16:57 »
@tickstock. I gather you're not a SS contributor so it's perhaps puzzling to sort out given the different labeling for products across various parts of the SS interface, but I can only tell you what I see, which is the same as it has been for years in terms of royalties.
I don't see any column with the label you mentioned on the page you linked. On this page, I do see that label, but that has nothing to do with the Image packs which are paid out as On Demand
https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
A couple things. First what is meant by Two Image On Demand if not the 2 image on demand packs? Second. I think SOD doesn't stand for single on demand it stands for single/two image on demand as stated in the earnings schedule. Third if SS was paying the rates you think then the two image packs would only be paying 12.9%-19.6% royalty rates while the 5 image packs were paying 18.8-28.5% royalty rates. It doesn't seem right that they paid the same royalty for $10 sale as a $14.50 sale but paying between 20-30% would seem fair. If you're right and two image on demand sales weren't counted as two image on demand sales then you got a nearly 50% royalty rate increase on those sales.
397
« on: August 26, 2015, 13:00 »
If you were at the 30% level you would have earned $4.35 for single On Demand sales. 2 images for $29 is $14.50 each and 30% of that is $4.35. The old earnings schedule had "Single/Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" listed as 30% of sale price now it's been changed to say "Custom Image".
https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
I'm not 100% sure that Single On Demand sales aren't included in the Custom Image category but from the change of language I would guess they've changed categories which means a lower royalty rate.
Contributors were never paid on a percentage basis for On Demand sales. Those have always been a fixed amount based on your earnings tier and the two size brackets.
Shutterstock talks about their overall payout being around a certain percentage, but they don't pay on a percentage basis except for the Corporate deals - called Single and Other Downloads in the contributor interface and Custom Images on the earnings page.
Did you look at the link (from last month), the far right column labeled "Single/ Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" wouldn't that be for the 2 image On Demand sales? Here's the link to the sales page with 2 image packs, aren't those Two Image On Demand sales? https://web.archive.org/web/20150620202559/http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe
398
« on: August 26, 2015, 12:49 »
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out? And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match. Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks. Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change. http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6
399
« on: August 26, 2015, 09:52 »
Isn't the logic of lowering prices and royalty rates that the site will gain more traffic? Jon Oringer has said something like if a site pays more than 30% they won't be able to do the marketing necessary to compete. If DepositPhotos lowers their prices and royalties even more than SS and Adobe and gains market share you will support them? I think with that kind of thinking it's easy to see what is going to happen.
400
« on: August 26, 2015, 09:35 »
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download? Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.
You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago. But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this. It's still better than those sites isn't it. The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me. Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
