MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "I'm a single mother. My son and I will literally have nothing to eat."  (Read 3927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2020, 18:46 »
+5
Based in SS profile info her facebook is: https://www.facebook.com/WatercolorBird/

She made pretty nice illustrations, if you know of someone who need illustrations for books or any other project you can recommend her.


« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2020, 20:32 »
+6
I really don't understand this attitude.

I'm a fellow SS contributor who's also affected by this cut of royalty, but i still fail to see how SS is responsible for the current economic hardships of that alleged single mother or anyone else here. SS is a business not a charity. We are not employees, we are just contracted freelancers, and SS as an organization has zero responsibility towards us. They never made any promises and you are free to terminate your contract any time. The only reason you don't is because the rest of the agencies are just as crap or worse. A few agencies who are committed to fair trade, like pond5 or alamy, don't sell sh*, so it doesn't matter that they give you 40 to 60% of nothing. SS remained the only big one that actually sells and now it's gone too. I don't count istock/getty. The business landscape keeps shifting.

Let's face it: creating stock is a skill of very little added value, at least according to the market. No one cares how long it took you to learn photography and how much you spent on gear. Photography is extremely hard to sell even outside stock, otherwise we wouldn't bother selling for 20 cents a pop. As for me, i just stopped uploading and don't care any more.

It's not SS management's mistake that the single mother failed to obtain more marketable skills. We are all free to move on. Why would you rely on a single source of income, especially if it's known to be very unreliable?

Shutterstock can do whatever they like, but they can't control the consequences. Such as mass turning off of portfolios. Massive amounts of people taking offense and refusing to add new fresh work to their collection. Massive amounts of people determined to tell all their friends to not buy from Shutterstock. The shaming they are getting on social media. There is also the issue that 10 cent royalties means it is not worth it to create new work for Shutterstock.

anon20200611

« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2020, 00:19 »
+3
The amount of criers in here is too high ... so does this single mother calculate the 2/3 by the reduction on the minimum earnings on a single sub image? Or was it another miscalculated mistake?

Also all those that come too emotional, did they even bother calculating their average rpd (RETURN PER DOWNLOAD)? The answer is NO, because most contributors don't care to be objective towards the situation. And by this you make us ALL look bad.

The objective approach is to measure the new average RPD and really find out how much is Shutterstock gaining towards contributors with this move. The percentage tier earnings seemed fair all along. I never understood why Shutterstock should be selling .22 and pay .38 to someone. Even paying 0.10 might put them at a loss here.

In the post we did about average RPD (that nobody bothers posting) we are currently measuring an average reduction of contributor % compared to a past lifetime average. Currently it's at just 20% average (even with some people complaining that they lost 66%). Did they get only 1*$0.1 dl compared to $0.38 and gave it as data?

The only bad thing about that new deal, objectively, is the January reset. For both economic and psychological reasons. Contributors value their gained retention and it shouldn't be taken away. That is all that any contributor should be hard to negotiate with and Shutterstock should be pushed to change their policy. The rest, might be ok at the end if measured correctly. Personally my RPD in June for the first week looks almost as before (-2% average without enhanced dl's, with enhanced I am counting a +37% in RPD right now for June) and I am level 5. So if I was level 6 I would have +5% on that and level 4 would be -5%. The "point zero" of no loss / no gain in this tier system is Level 5.

So, to recap, just push Shutterstock to remove the January reset, because it's harmful to the contributor's pocket indeed and retention psychology. But the Tier system, ain't THAT much harmful in the pocket, as much as it is in psychology of watching a new minimum amount earned per download (but a proportionate number of downloads are returning higher too).

You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ... because of the ... 4>3.

Learn some math and then come to the business. Compare:

Lifetime Income / Lifetime Downloads = x
June Income / June Downloads = y

Divide y to x and then deduct 1.
y/x-1 = Your generic average +- %

The enhanced downloads seem to complicate this so:


Go to a month that you had minimal or no enhanced downloads at all and measure that months average RPD.
That month's Income / That month's = z

And count June as if no enhanced also.

June with no enhanced income / June with no enhanced dl = v

Redo this equation:
v/z -1 = An "as accurate as it gets" representation of your gains or losses

The actual difference I am getting with this in the first week is that with the new tier system I am losing -1% or -2% in level 5. It's a negligible difference and could be attributed to normal fluctuations. But level 4 is surely at a 5% calculated loss, level 3 surely at a 10% calculated loss if they are coming from the earlier highest 0.38 tier.

And let's get some accurate results:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-is-ss-rpd-turning-out-for-you-in-this-first-month/msg551033/#msg551033
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 00:32 by astockphotographer088 »

« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2020, 00:22 »
+7
Great post. Agree 100% with it.

We live in a ruthless world where ethics, specially in the economic system, from big pharmaceutical companies that rise their medicines in monopoly x5 or more to banks that have to be bailed out on bad times by everyones taxes and keep all the profist when the sun comes out. Nearly all the large companies are located in semi-paradise countries and compete in advantage to all the small business that have to pay much larger taxes in their home countries,etc,etc,etc.......
Private equity mafia that you described very well what they do............

We will see more street revolutions around the world like the one happening now in the US. People are slowly fed up with this unequal and corrupted system.

This is what happens when the wealthy move in on the talent and steal the assets.

American companies are renowned for this in the UK, over the years they have moved into loads of companies and asset stripped them.

Their usual exit plan after a couple of years, is once they have taken everything that isn't nailed down, they flog off what is left to the management and a couple of years later the company goes bust. The American company Blackstone did this to a Company called Southern Care Homes, they sold all the freeholds and then sold the company having walked away with many millions. When they had to pay rents the business became unsustainable, by that time Blackstone was long gone.

The British Government ended up having to bail them out, otherwise they would have had over twenty thousand old people with nowhere to live.

We have a long list of American Companies doing this over here in the UK and our Government does nothing about it, and this is apart from them offshoring the tax they owe, like Amazon and Google.

Personally I believe that the American system of Capitalism seems to have become corrupted, mostly they act like the Mafia in a Martin Scorsese film.

Shutterstock shareholders are doing exactly the same at the moment, they are asset stripping the creatives.

It is the ordinary people who's lives they destroy that is the real travesty.

« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2020, 00:32 »
+9
Go back to your deep dark Shutter cave troll.

Talking about burguers maybe you ate too many of those and your brain cannon function nor calculate properly. The proof is in the pudding as many contributors that haven't yet disabled their portfolios are now confronting.
Reality is stubborn and no gibberish talk will hide a fact in capital letters. The disgraceful money grab they implemented from one day to the other without even having the face to confront the suppliers that made them rich.

This firm needs to go under so moroons like Oringer, Pavlosvsky, Getty,Klein.......get buried. People like them are a disgrace for the whole society.
 
The amount of criers in here is too high ... so does this single mother calculate the 2/3 by the reduction on the minimum earnings? Or was it another miscalculated mistake?

...................................

 The percentage tier earnings seemed fair all along. I never understood why Shutterstock should be selling .22 and pay .38 to someone. Even paying 0.10 might put them at a loss here.




You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ...


« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2020, 00:34 »
+9
I really don't understand this attitude.

I'm a fellow SS contributor who's also affected by this cut of royalty, but i still fail to see how SS is responsible for the current economic hardships of that alleged single mother or anyone else here. SS is a business not a charity. We are not employees, we are just contracted freelancers, and SS as an organization has zero responsibility towards us. They never made any promises and you are free to terminate your contract any time. The only reason you don't is because the rest of the agencies are just as crap or worse. A few agencies who are committed to fair trade, like pond5 or alamy, don't sell sh*, so it doesn't matter that they give you 40 to 60% of nothing. SS remained the only big one that actually sells and now it's gone too. I don't count istock/getty. The business landscape keeps shifting.

Let's face it: creating stock is a skill of very little added value, at least according to the market. No one cares how long it took you to learn photography and how much you spent on gear. Photography is extremely hard to sell even outside stock, otherwise we wouldn't bother selling for 20 cents a pop. As for me, i just stopped uploading and don't care any more.

It's not SS management's mistake that the single mother failed to obtain more marketable skills. We are all free to move on. Why would you rely on a single source of income, especially if it's known to be very unreliable?

Stan Pavlovsky ... is that you?

No he's not Pavlovskly. He's that guy that cracks the whip on the back of the workers on orders of the bosses. Just as poor and miserable as the others that get exploited, but who feels good being the attack dog of his millionaire owner. I know the type from the ditatorship times, and history is full of examples like him.

anon20200611

« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2020, 00:36 »
+2
Go back to your deep dark Shutter cave troll.

Talking about burguers maybe you ate too many of those and your brain cannon function nor calculate properly. The proof is in the pudding as many contributors that haven't yet disabled their portfolios are now confronting.
Reality is stubborn and no gibberish talk will hide a fact in capital letters. The disgraceful money grab they implemented from one day to the other without even having the face to confront the suppliers that made them rich.

This firm needs to go under so moroons like Oringer, Pavlosvsky, Getty,Klein.......get buried. People like them are a disgrace for the whole society.
 
The amount of criers in here is too high ... so does this single mother calculate the 2/3 by the reduction on the minimum earnings? Or was it another miscalculated mistake?

...................................

 The percentage tier earnings seemed fair all along. I never understood why Shutterstock should be selling .22 and pay .38 to someone. Even paying 0.10 might put them at a loss here.




You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ...


So I should disable my port and not pay my rent this month because of your communist nonsense? How about NO? I am not trolling by stating accurate and mathematical truths and facts. You are trolling by bringing in your "emotions" to our serious business. At least for some of us it's serious.

« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2020, 01:01 »
+6
"Communist nonsense" ?? Are you a McCarthyism apostle?
My ideology is quite the opposite of communism and like already thousands of creatives I can see a bad deal in front of me , no matter how much nice wrapping paper you put around it.

Emotions? No, facts. This business is "serious for many of us". Tha's the reason while many don't accept another dent into their pockets at the expense of more wealth to the company shareholders and directive team.

You can do what you want with your portfolio, it's your business run the numbers but by some of your comments in the previous post I wonder who you refer to when you say "to our serious business" .



So I should disable my port and not pay my rent this month because of your communist nonsense? How about NO? I am not trolling by stating accurate and mathematical truths and facts. You are trolling by bringing in your "emotions" to our serious business. At least for some of us it's serious.

« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2020, 01:04 »
+6
By the end of month you're be able to pay only half of the rent. And how is getting from $0,38 for sub to $0,10 1% drop? You were skipping math classes when you were young, weren't you?

« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2020, 02:08 »
+5
A few agencies who are committed to fair trade, like pond5 or alamy, don't sell sh*, so it doesn't matter that they give you 40 to 60% of nothing. SS remained the only big one that actually sells and now it's gone too.

Which is not true.
I earned three times as much money on alamy than I did on SS.
Thats why I left SS now.
Im far better off with alamy and Pond5. Im actually moving my pictures to Pond5 now, only did footage there until now.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 02:12 by Astrantia »

« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2020, 02:09 »
0
double
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 02:11 by Astrantia »

« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2020, 02:34 »
+6
The amount of criers in here is too high ... so does this single mother calculate the 2/3 by the reduction on the minimum earnings on a single sub image? Or was it another miscalculated mistake?

Also all those that come too emotional, did they even bother calculating their average rpd (RETURN PER DOWNLOAD)? The answer is NO, because most contributors don't care to be objective towards the situation. And by this you make us ALL look bad.

The objective approach is to measure the new average RPD and really find out how much is Shutterstock gaining towards contributors with this move. The percentage tier earnings seemed fair all along. I never understood why Shutterstock should be selling .22 and pay .38 to someone. Even paying 0.10 might put them at a loss here.

In the post we did about average RPD (that nobody bothers posting) we are currently measuring an average reduction of contributor % compared to a past lifetime average. Currently it's at just 20% average (even with some people complaining that they lost 66%). Did they get only 1*$0.1 dl compared to $0.38 and gave it as data?

The only bad thing about that new deal, objectively, is the January reset. For both economic and psychological reasons. Contributors value their gained retention and it shouldn't be taken away. That is all that any contributor should be hard to negotiate with and Shutterstock should be pushed to change their policy. The rest, might be ok at the end if measured correctly. Personally my RPD in June for the first week looks almost as before (-2% average without enhanced dl's, with enhanced I am counting a +37% in RPD right now for June) and I am level 5. So if I was level 6 I would have +5% on that and level 4 would be -5%. The "point zero" of no loss / no gain in this tier system is Level 5.

So, to recap, just push Shutterstock to remove the January reset, because it's harmful to the contributor's pocket indeed and retention psychology. But the Tier system, ain't THAT much harmful in the pocket, as much as it is in psychology of watching a new minimum amount earned per download (but a proportionate number of downloads are returning higher too).

You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ... because of the ... 4>3.

Learn some math and then come to the business. Compare:

Lifetime Income / Lifetime Downloads = x
June Income / June Downloads = y

Divide y to x and then deduct 1.
y/x-1 = Your generic average +- %

The enhanced downloads seem to complicate this so:


Go to a month that you had minimal or no enhanced downloads at all and measure that months average RPD.
That month's Income / That month's = z

And count June as if no enhanced also.

June with no enhanced income / June with no enhanced dl = v

Redo this equation:
v/z -1 = An "as accurate as it gets" representation of your gains or losses

The actual difference I am getting with this in the first week is that with the new tier system I am losing -1% or -2% in level 5. It's a negligible difference and could be attributed to normal fluctuations. But level 4 is surely at a 5% calculated loss, level 3 surely at a 10% calculated loss if they are coming from the earlier highest 0.38 tier.

And let's get some accurate results:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-is-ss-rpd-turning-out-for-you-in-this-first-month/msg551033/#msg551033
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

anon20200611

« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2020, 02:45 »
+1
By the end of month you're be able to pay only half of the rent. And how is getting from $0,38 for sub to $0,10 1% drop? You were skipping math classes when you were young, weren't you?

I just explained to you a whole valid mathematical equation formula on how to monitor your average rpd accurately. The real difference in average income I am measuring is -2% right now because:
(1) I don't count results with the enhanced downloads to determine an average just by subs and on demand downloads that their frequencies are steady. For example I am +37% in average income / download, because I had big single/enhanced dls this week.
(2) For each chance to get a 0.1 instead of a 0.38 there is an equal chance that I will receive a $1.0 instead of a 0.38.

By closely monitoring these results for the whole first week that the system came into effect, I can tell you accurately that the end difference on average return per download (the only accurate measurement in this whole charade) was -2%. 25% of the month has passed and the first sample is valid enough by now.

I am level 5, and level 6 is +5% which is motivating me to contribute more.

What I don't like, is that I will need to have bad Januaries consistently and not keep my retention. So my only protest is against the reset, to transform into a 12 month average and not a level 1 reset. Other than that the new system seems fair so far for level 5.

A level 4 though, that would come from the previous highest tier, on the same measurements they would lose -7%. So it might be harder. But Level 4 is under 2500 dl's, which is at the best a part time work for some.

For big contributors at level 6, they probably earn +3% against Shutterstock than they did before by now. The tier system is fair, but not the January reset.

Ps. My math scores were 18/20 to 20/20 for 6 years of middle/high school consistently. In my business degree in college I also retained good scores to finances. Thanks for bringing up some good times from the past.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 02:48 by astockphotographer088 »

anon20200611

« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2020, 02:47 »
+1
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 02:53 by astockphotographer088 »

« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2020, 03:12 »
+1
Personally I believe that the American system of Capitalism seems to have become corrupted, mostly they act like the Mafia in a Martin Scorsese film.

Everything that you say is true about American companies but I take exception with you calling this "American style of capitalism."

It's not only not American, it's not capitalist. What you're talking about is neoliberalism, which has its roots in Ayn Rand (a Russian) and was introduced into both the US and the UK via Reaganomics and Thatcherism in the 1980s, then later propagandized via Rupert Murdoch media. Neoliberalism also took hold in many countries, but not to the extreme as it has in the US. (See David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism.")

Neoliberalism has been such a deeply entrenched part of UK politics that it was neoliberals that drove the Brexit movement. The idea was to free UK companies from the EU, which is staunchly anti-neoliberal and was trying to reign in abuses via heavy regulation. This was what was meant by "gaining our sovereignty back." They didn't mean it in a political but business sense, as in neoliberal corporations gaining their right to practice business free of EU restrictions.

Sorry but this is not at all correct. It is all very complex so I really don't want to derail the thread but the EU is staunchly neoliberal.

What is being criticised is in fact late stage capitalism.

« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2020, 03:26 »
+5
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

I am level 5 and have seen a near 30% drop in income excluding ELs. My maths may be rusty, but I did spend a hefty chunk of my career in academia in stats heavy field so I think I am calculating it right  :-\

Also, I am confused by the belligerent attitude. Not to kink shame anyone, but this masochistic tendency to back any aggressive move to screw us as "just business" but refusal to push back or use any of our leverage is just absolutely bizarre. Why bother coming on to propagandise for the other side. Assuming you aren't here from SS or just a plain troll that is. What are you hoping to achieve?

anon20200611

« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2020, 03:47 »
+1
I am level 5 and have seen a near 30% drop in income excluding ELs. My maths may be rusty, but I did spend a hefty chunk of my career in academia in stats heavy field so I think I am calculating it right  :-\

Also, I am confused by the belligerent attitude. Not to kink shame anyone, but this masochistic tendency to back any aggressive move to screw us as "just business" but refusal to push back or use any of our leverage is just absolutely bizarre. Why bother coming on to propagandise for the other side. Assuming you aren't here from SS or just a plain troll that is. What are you hoping to achieve?

I am not here to troll, but really, just read this thread's title ... my support to the other side in this case (not full support, but partial) is clearly because I am seeking a balanced result in the negotiations between Shutterstock and contributors. I swear I am 100% truthful as to the accuracy of my statistics and math and also I am not in under any circumstance an employee of Shutterstock, but only a contributor with a calculator.

If you would like to discuss your statistics and share screenshots to each other, feel free to have a skype video call with me at thomas_lotzik. I just didn't understand based on my early stats, how this system is unfair, because it ain't right now. But the January reset is what makes it unfair for me.


« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2020, 03:51 »
+14
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

So please be as kind as to explain my numbers then. I am a mathematician and a software engineer by trade so I might know a thing or two. I have not been posting on forums because I am emailing shutterstock directly BUT I am lvl 6 and I have had a steady 500+ images sold on every freaking day for the past 3 years. That gives you a clear picture and a good enough sample to draw conclusions. 70% of the sales are below 0.2 and most are just 0.1. I do get 100+ sales as well but the overall numbers are dreadful. We are looking at a 30% decrease in earnings. I am waiting for another week and I am gone.

« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2020, 03:58 »
+5
... my support to the other side in this case (not full support, but partial) is clearly because I am seeking a balanced result in the negotiations between Shutterstock and contributors...
How do you plan to achieve balanced result in a negotiation by taking the side of the other party in that negotiation, who already holds most of the power and has behaved utterly ruthlessly?

I also suggest you wait a few a few days before claiming so little change in your income level. I suspect you are an outlier as most level 5 contributors seem to be reporting a 20%-30% drop

« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2020, 04:05 »
+1
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

So please be as kind as to explain my numbers then. I am a mathematician and a software engineer by trade so I might know a thing or two. I have not been posting on forums because I am emailing shutterstock directly BUT I am lvl 6 and I have had a steady 500+ images sold on every freaking day for the past 3 years. That gives you a clear picture and a good enough sample to draw conclusions. 70% of the sales are below 0.2 and most are just 0.1. I do get 100+ sales as well but the overall numbers are dreadful. We are looking at a 30% decrease in earnings. I am waiting for another week and I am gone.
Thank you for this and taking the time to post

« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2020, 04:09 »
+1
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.
One persons earnings are not quite a 25% sample of shutterstock's total  payments are they? As a matter of fact election predictions have not proved particularly accurate of late...mainly due to sample bias it seems. Your sample size is so small as to be virtually meaningless and an estimate based around the published rates is just as valid.

« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2020, 04:12 »
+1
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

So please be as kind as to explain my numbers then. I am a mathematician and a software engineer by trade so I might know a thing or two. I have not been posting on forums because I am emailing shutterstock directly BUT I am lvl 6 and I have had a steady 500+ images sold on every freaking day for the past 3 years. That gives you a clear picture and a good enough sample to draw conclusions. 70% of the sales are below 0.2 and most are just 0.1. I do get 100+ sales as well but the overall numbers are dreadful. We are looking at a 30% decrease in earnings. I am waiting for another week and I am gone.
You are right, I'm level 6 also, and the numbers  look more like 40% to 50% decrease. Maybe you were talking about impact on your overall income (including all the agencies)?

« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2020, 04:15 »
+3
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

So please be as kind as to explain my numbers then. I am a mathematician and a software engineer by trade so I might know a thing or two. I have not been posting on forums because I am emailing shutterstock directly BUT I am lvl 6 and I have had a steady 500+ images sold on every freaking day for the past 3 years. That gives you a clear picture and a good enough sample to draw conclusions. 70% of the sales are below 0.2 and most are just 0.1. I do get 100+ sales as well but the overall numbers are dreadful. We are looking at a 30% decrease in earnings. I am waiting for another week and I am gone.
Thank you for this and taking the time to post

No problem guys. I am doing this for the greater good and to postpone the death of the broken microstock business model.  For the record, I have been earning more at AS for the last couple of months with May being AS = SS x 1.15. So far in June AS= SS x 1.3 . If AS had a nice exclusive package for contributors I would be gone by now.

« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2020, 04:19 »
+2
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

So please be as kind as to explain my numbers then. I am a mathematician and a software engineer by trade so I might know a thing or two. I have not been posting on forums because I am emailing shutterstock directly BUT I am lvl 6 and I have had a steady 500+ images sold on every freaking day for the past 3 years. That gives you a clear picture and a good enough sample to draw conclusions. 70% of the sales are below 0.2 and most are just 0.1. I do get 100+ sales as well but the overall numbers are dreadful. We are looking at a 30% decrease in earnings. I am waiting for another week and I am gone.
You are right, I'm level 6 also, and the numbers  look more like 40% to 50% decrease. Maybe you were talking about impact on your overall income (including all the agencies)?

Just SS alone, but some contributors I know have had a huge jump, 200% during covid months at SS. I kept dropping sales during that period as well. So depends what timeframe we compare it to. There is a natural decline because of the volume and expansion of microstock and covid added to that but May vs June should filter out the noise somewhat ..and that is a 28% drop for me.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 04:38 by nd3000 »

anon20200611

« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2020, 04:34 »
+1
You are taking a 5 day sample of one person's earnings and then telling people they need to understand maths maybe you could brush up on your statistics.

With a 25% sample you can accurately determine election results also. It's called statistics and they work. The 25% is because I counted 5 working days out of ~20 average that stock sales are most active.

So please be as kind as to explain my numbers then. I am a mathematician and a software engineer by trade so I might know a thing or two. I have not been posting on forums because I am emailing shutterstock directly BUT I am lvl 6 and I have had a steady 500+ images sold on every freaking day for the past 3 years. That gives you a clear picture and a good enough sample to draw conclusions. 70% of the sales are below 0.2 and most are just 0.1. I do get 100+ sales as well but the overall numbers are dreadful. We are looking at a 30% decrease in earnings. I am waiting for another week and I am gone.

Look man, I trust what you are saying but I'm out of this sentimental bs that some people that can't calculate throw at me. I don't see a 70% below $0.2 like you, but more like a 40%. If you want to talk about it more accurately and compare stats feel free to pm me. If your portfolio had exactly the same tendencies like mine at the moment then you would have surely seen a +8% with the new system just because you are level 6 and I am level 5. I am willing to share screenshots, skype video call with you or whatever.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5220 Views
Last post November 04, 2009, 21:10
by pdesign
13 Replies
5520 Views
Last post January 16, 2013, 14:55
by RacePhoto
25 Replies
20165 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
15 Replies
3468 Views
Last post July 19, 2017, 07:31
by Mantis
16 Replies
3470 Views
Last post June 30, 2018, 01:54
by PinHead

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle