Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:55

Sorry, I don't agree. 10 cents per image isn't acceptable to me. (new subs)

Video subs also aren't acceptable to me.

So when I act, I act with these principles in mind. There should be a vote in regards to what the contributors want, and they need to put their portfolios on the line. No battle has ever been won by cowards or without sacrifices/risk.

That's fair. Without knowing how many dls get utilised by buyers I don't know how much we would make if they actually paid a real percentage. I do know some people did a calculation a few years ago and found that SS would be making a loss under the old system if the big package buyers actually used all their dls so I assume these buyers must only use a tiny fraction of their allowance (or SS was being extremely generous, in this business doubtful).

So a higher baseline guarantee? What would be the lowest you would accept for a sub sale from the biggest buyer, given that it would be offset by much higher payments from those buying smaller packages (it would have to be less than 25c of course for this to work, and we're talking for the lowest tier contributor selling less than 100 images per year).

I'm not sure. Adobe has a pricing structure similar to "old shutterstock" and they had no problems paying out 33c per image to contributors. https://stock.adobe.com/plans

Some complex math would be needed to see what the minimum "should" be, and it's further complicated by the fact that we have no idea how many of the buyers have those 350/750 images plans. Someone said it's a large majority of sub sales. If so - then I wouldn't go below 33c.

If they operate at a loss (which I doubt), then increase the prices for customers. Or maybe decrease your operating costs, spend less on that fancy Empire State Building office...

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:24

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:06

1. Percentages have to mean actual percentages based on downloads utilised by buyers. They are now meaningless. Ongoing reporting can be achieved by reporting and paying the minimum possible payout each month (if buyer uses all dls) and the remainder paid the following month when SS knows how many dls the buyer actually used.

2. Totals absolutely must be based on a rolling 12 month basis, the January reset is bizarre and indefensible. Rolling basis would have all the claimed benefits of rewarding contributors, while we still get to eat and pay rent in the first few months of the year.

We aren't going to get them to abandon the new structure entirely. We need to pressure them to make it a win win rather than simply punishing us to line their own pockets.

Percentages could also be rolled back for sub sales, so that we earn the familar 0.25-0.38 per download, as we did until now. Use percentages only for OD sales.

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.

Honestly, I don't think these are realistic demands given what other agencies are doing

It's time to show our teeth.

Not just to shutterstock, but to all agencies that might try doing something similar. We succeeded with iStock (which is mostly irrelevant now) and DPC (which was shut down).

Don't let a crisis go to waste - there won't be another time like this when all contributors come together. We need to make a stand.

Just FYI, you're leaving 1 star reviews on the shutterstock contributor app. We, the contributors, already know everything. You need to leave a one star rating on the main shutterstock app, the one that actual buyers use. Android link

This sounds like bad news, but we all need to keep our cool. Personally, I've been waiting for something like this since video subs were implemented, but that didn't cause such a reaction.  If there was ever a time for a coordinated effort by contributors, it's now. Just my portfolio is around 50k assets, and I'm sure that, if needed, we can create a coordinated strong strike. But we need to see how will this affect us, using data, not emotions.

First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.

So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:

1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.

Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.

Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:

1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.

We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.

Seems that there is interest for this idea.

If anyone has web dev skills, hit me up and let's set up a website. I'll pay for the domain name and hosting, that's no issue.

There would be a form on the website to enter some basic details like the amount of assets in your portfolio - the portfolio you're willing to deactivate after 30 days if our demands won't be met. Then we sum up all the contributors that have signed up and see how much bargaining power we actually have.

Sure - they have 325 million images in the library. But let's not kid ourselves - most of that is spam.

You know how they always write in articles to produce unique and local content. Guess why? Because the image factories don't do that. Image factories make generic content, and that's our strength. That same generic content will probably stay, along with 1040337474 variations of waving flags of all countries, but the real content, the unique and local content? On other stock agencies.

Shutterstock knows how valuable this is. We should too.

Let's organize. Hit me up.

This sounds like bad news, but we all need to keep our cool. Personally, I've been waiting for something like this since video subs were implemented, but that didn't cause such a reaction.  If there was ever a time for a coordinated effort by contributors, it's now. Just my portfolio is around 50k assets, and I'm sure that, if needed, we can create a coordinated strong strike. But we need to see how will this affect us, using data, not emotions.

First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.

So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:

1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.

Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.

Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:

1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.

We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.

Quote from: GraffiTimi on May 15, 2020, 05:00

Quote from: Chichikov on May 15, 2020, 04:40

Quote from: PZF on May 15, 2020, 04:15

How do you see the number of sub downloads please?

This morning I could see them in right part of the subscription earnings box.
Now they have disappeared� O_o

Yes, even I saw it. Infuriating...

Well I saw it before they deleted it, and my downloads had increased by 500%.

No wonder they removed the field from the sales page, as everyone must be pretty angry to realise the true RPD.

Canva are clearly too ashamed to be transparent on this issue.

That's just disgusting behavior.

Quote from: spike on May 14, 2020, 13:20

Quote from: steheap on May 14, 2020, 09:51

Quote

Yes, that's old news. I was asking what happens if they don't deliver the stats by May 15th, the deadline that they've set up for themselves.

I think we all know the answer to that - nothing will happen. We will wait until the next day and then the next day.

Why do they use the phrasing like "by May, 15th at the latest" if "at the latest" doesn't mean anything? Surely these agencies could be made accountable for their promises somehow?

I'd say let's give them the benefit of the doubt, we can complain after the 15th, if nothing happens.

Of course, I'm not complaining, I'm just asking in advance, "what if".

Specifically, if they are legally liable with statements such as those.

They said they will pay the difference if you don't earn twice as much.

Yes, that's old news. I was asking what happens if they don't deliver the stats by May 15th, the deadline that they've set up for themselves.

I received the black an white answer from Canva, which is surprisingly satisfying for me and will clear any doubts. I edited out the USD number:
Hey Patrick,

Thank you for your response.

We are positive about how Photos Unlimited subscription worked out that we know that including contributor (premium) content in the Canva Pro subscription will yield you better earnings. Canva Pro has far more subscribers which is why we feel confident that you would (at least) double your total net earnings as this starts.

So if you received say roughly the same amount for you March sales - USD$X000 (which should come out by today, the 15th of April), we expect this to be at least double for your April sales (which will be released by May, 15th at the latest). This inclusion to the Canva Pro subscription started on April 6 (SYD) when we sent out the email. The amount is based on your total net earnings - individual license purchases, Canva Pro subscription earnings, and Photos Unlimited subscription earnings.

I hope this clears it up. Let me know if you need anything else.


Voila!

They said May 15th at the latest. Let's all hope they keep their word.
But even if they don't - is there any liability?

If enough people decide to buy something similar for a much higher price... then it's very likely that people will people decide to buy something similar for a much higher price? Erm... yeah, I guess so!

No, they don't get to decide, because there is no similar content like that left. That's why I said "if enough people do it".

Shutterstock at the moment has 18 million clips online. My portfolio contains about 25k clips. If 100 people like me decide to pull out our portfolio, that's 2.5 million clips. That's 13.8% of their whole library. Just in the hands of 100 people like myself.

It's not that hard to imagine what would happen if instead of a 100 people, 1000 people do it.

But it won't happen because you'll always have contributors from low income countries uploading and even ramping up production to fill in the gap left by an exodus. But then you'll have IndiaUkranieRussiaStock with $3 per 4k clip, with all the western producers and their assets on sites that pay them western prices.  It's just too bad we can't organize ourselves properly.

Btw, I'd immediately pull my portfolio if I were a part of such an union. Ideally, upon joining the union you'd have no say - the whole union pulls out.

I don't think the agencies are spending as much on advertising now, so since their expenses are lower, they could funnel it towards contributors. Of course they won't.

That's not what the e-mail is saying.

But it could be a prelude.

Great, SS! Only 5 years late!