Author Topic: "I'm a single mother. My son and I will literally have nothing to eat." (Read 13360 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **on:** June 04, 2020, 13:59 »

"I'm a single mother. I lost 2/3 of my income. My son and I will literally have nothing to eat."

A post from the Shutterstock forum.
I don't have the words for how I feel about SS management right now.

MicroVet · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2020, 14:21 »

I'm at risk of suffering the same situation as our fellow artist. Currently scrabbling to reinforce my presence in other areas but far from guarantee any return greater than I have now. And certainly not fast enough.

The wort part is that I beleve that after the January 1st reset, SS will drop the $0,10 minimum royalty and effectivelly implement the percentages for each level.

It just doesn't make any sense defining levels and then create a flat rate that make people in the higher levels earn the same than those on the lower levels. Prepare yourself to be earning $0.04 per download.

The drop won't be 60 to 70%. It wil be 90% in most cases.

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2020, 16:53 »

I saw that. Heartbreaking.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2020, 09:32 »

I wonder how reading this makes management, or even their social media handlers, feel? Do they even realise there are real people on the other end of this?

mj007 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2020, 09:34 »

SS Wall Street stock is going up today...I wonder why...

charged · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2020, 09:37 »

Quote from: mj007 on June 05, 2020, 09:34

SS Wall Street stock is going up today...I wonder why...

You don't understand the stock market at the moment. Most stocks are moving at a value of 0.8 correlation. Versus, 0.35 in normal times. Meaning most stocks are moving up and down fairly correlated to each other at the moment. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of each stock. Basically stocks move based upon news that are related to the reopening of the US economy. Also watch any stock over days and weeks and months, they move up and down. That is just what stocks do. Even absent news that would move a stock.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2020, 10:00 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 05, 2020, 09:32

I wonder how reading this makes management, or even their social media handlers, feel? Do they even realise there are real people on the other end of this?

It's hard for management to determine whether we are real people if they themselves are basically heartless robots devoid of emotion or guilt.

H2O · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2020, 10:13 »

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.

Firn · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2020, 10:25 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 05, 2020, 09:32

I wonder how reading this makes management, or even their social media handlers, feel? Do they even realise there are real people on the other end of this?

They will never see it. I think for a long time Kate has been the only admin to even go on the forum and I doubt she looks at even half of these posts. And seeing how she is most likely also the one responsible for the banning of contributors who voiced their negative opinion too loudly, I honestly doubt she is a very nice or caring person....probably got a nice fat sale raise at the beginning of the year too.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #9 on:** June 05, 2020, 10:40 »

Quote from: Firn on June 05, 2020, 10:25

They will never see it...

They will if it's all over social media...

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2020, 10:56 »

Quote from: Firn on June 05, 2020, 10:25

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 05, 2020, 09:32
I wonder how reading this makes management, or even their social media handlers, feel? Do they even realise there are real people on the other end of this?

They will never see it. I think for a long time Kate has been the only admin to even go on the forum and I doubt she looks at even half of these posts. And seeing how she is most likely also the one responsible for the banning of contributors who voiced their negative opinion too loudly, I honestly doubt she is a very nice or caring person....probably got a nice fat sale raise at the beginning of the year too.

mayber "Kate" is only a moniker that is only there to serve the reply aspect of all forums etc. Easy enough to do and more common than you think.

Lizard · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2020, 11:03 »

Quote from: Firn on June 05, 2020, 10:25

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 05, 2020, 09:32
I wonder how reading this makes management, or even their social media handlers, feel? Do they even realise there are real people on the other end of this?

They will never see it. I think for a long time Kate has been the only admin to even go on the forum and I doubt she looks at even half of these posts. And seeing how she is most likely also the one responsible for the banning of contributors who voiced their negative opinion too loudly, I honestly doubt she is a very nice or caring person....probably got a nice fat sale raise at the beginning of the year too.

She is as important at SS as a traffic light in GTA.

Firn · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2020, 12:59 »

Quote from: Lizard on June 05, 2020, 11:03

She is as important at SS as a traffic light in GTA.

We don't know what she does and what her task are though. Surely just being a forum admin can't be all? She literally doesn't do more than 5 posts a week and questions and PMs towards her stay unanswered. Unless her working hours are like 3 minutes a day only, she must surely have some other tasks at SS? At least that's what I always assumed, as she is so inactive on the forum that I can't really imagine that that's her actual job. Always assumed it's just a side-task.

trabuco · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2020, 14:08 »

Companies are not humans.

No feelings.

rcnyc · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2020, 14:15 »

Quote from: H2O on June 05, 2020, 10:13

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.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2020, 15:12 »

Quote from: H2O on June 05, 2020, 10:13

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.

It's called crony-capitalism and it's a perversion of Capitalism as it should be.

It's a perversion created by government interference in the economy, by regulations enacted to protect the sponsors of the government from too much internal and external competition. The lack of competition leads to pseudo-monopolies and price gauging.
These days, it is even meant to directly protect the wealth of the people running the government and their private businesses.
One of the most glaring recent examples of government overreach is a regulation dedicated to penalize private companies "daring" to label presidential statements as inaccurate.
That's not Capitalism as it should be.

DallasP · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2020, 15:30 »

Quote from: mj007 on June 05, 2020, 09:34

SS Wall Street stock is going up today...I wonder why...

Increased dividend. But, shitterstock is still literally a crappy stock. lol.

morfon · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2020, 16:09 »

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?

tpack · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2020, 16:42 »

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09

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?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2020, 17:20 »

Pavlovsky and Oringer were happy to tell people they know personally that they could leave and go find another job if they didn't like what SS was doing in China. Do you think they care about contributors they've never met?

morfon · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2020, 17:23 »

Quote from: tpack on June 05, 2020, 16:42

Stan Pavlovsky ... is that you?

I wish. It may sound like that, but no, it's what i actually think.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2020, 17:49 »

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09

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?

I don't like to brush you off with a 'oh you must be Stan Pavlovsky' comment, because there is some truth to your comment. If you look at it completely objectively, I'd even say you're right.

But the problem isn't that we're wondering why Shutterstock does this to their contributors. We all know any agency or commercial company is only in it for the profit, not for charity or goodwill. However, that shouldn't hold us back from calling out hypocrisy, greed or lack of ethics in business, when CEO's/managers/board decide to grab a bigger piece of the pie and insult us by pretending it's a good thing. They may have zero responsibility to us, it doesn't excuse them from being completely careless a-holes.

We're also angry about the short 6-day notice, about the financial issues this may create for us and the kick in the teeth during an already tough time. Maybe we should've seen it coming, but the anger and backlash is justified.

As to not caring and just stopping uploading: some people don't have that luxury. Because of the corona pandemic, some people have been fired from their day job or lost freelance gigs.
Surely the financial situation of this single mother (or anyone) isn't Shutterstock's responsibility (besides, being a single mom doesn't make her situation more pitiful than some random photographer without kids), but it does illustrate capitalism at its worst.

We may not be able to stop this greed or change the world (or Shutterstock), but we can still let our voices be heard. We'll have to learn to live with this new reality, but I think speaking out loud is still better than staying silent.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2020, 18:04 »

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09

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?

Looking at your previous posts, it sounds like you had a tiny portfolio and stopped uploading. So yeah, this change doesn’t affect you much. But there are many people who make a full-time living from this, and others, like me, who make a five figure income from this every year and are currently unemployed and were unfortunately counting on this to help us make it through a lean time, during a pandemic, until we get our day jobs back.

You sound very much like an attorney who posted a similar sentiment on the Ss forums. Like him, you seem to have a complete lack of empathy for anyone who decided to make illustration, videography or photography their full time career.

cathyslife · « **Reply #23 on:** June 05, 2020, 18:30 »

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09

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?

I feel the same way, but know it’s going to be an unpopular opinion, judging by all the plusses and sympathy.

That single mother had money to buy camera equipment and/or a good cellphone to take photos. She has a kid (or kids). While I certainly think this SS move is disgusting and I know lots of people are losing money (I have too), come on. We have all seen it coming for years! If a person was banking on microstock to feed their family, they must be living under a rock. For months, people should have been lining up plan Bs, Cs, or whatever. It’s called personal responsibility, something it seems no one wants to take anymore. No, it’s not SS’s fault a single mother can’t feed her family. For gosh sakes, these companies have been greedy for years!

cathyslife · « **Reply #24 on:** June 05, 2020, 18:35 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 05, 2020, 17:49

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09
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?

I don't like to brush you off with a 'oh you must be Stan Pavlovsky' comment, because there is some truth to your comment. If you look at it completely objectively, I'd even say you're right.

But the problem isn't that we're wondering why Shutterstock does this to their contributors. We all know any agency or commercial company is only in it for the profit, not for charity or goodwill. However, that shouldn't hold us back from calling out hypocrisy, greed or lack of ethics in business, when CEO's/managers/board decide to grab a bigger piece of the pie and insult us by pretending it's a good thing. They may have zero responsibility to us, it doesn't excuse them from being completely careless a-holes.

We're also angry about the short 6-day notice, about the financial issues this may create for us and the kick in the teeth during an already tough time. Maybe we should've seen it coming, but the anger and backlash is justified.

As to not caring and just stopping uploading: some people don't have that luxury. Because of the corona pandemic, some people have been fired from their day job or lost freelance gigs.
Surely the financial situation of this single mother (or anyone) isn't Shutterstock's responsibility (besides, being a single mom doesn't make her situation more pitiful than some random photographer without kids), but it does illustrate capitalism at its worst.

We may not be able to stop this greed or change the world (or Shutterstock), but we can still let our voices be heard. We'll have to learn to live with this new reality, but I think speaking out loud is still better than staying silent.

I agree with everything you say. Playing the “single mother can’t feed her kid” card for sympathy is a tad overboard. And yes, SS is capitalism and greed at its worst. TONS of people are having a hard time because of this. Some won’t be able to pay their mortgage, or medical bills, or whatever. It’s all a clusterf*ck.

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 05, 2020, 18:46 »

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.

charged · « **Reply #26 on:** June 05, 2020, 20:32 »

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09

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 »

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

everest · « **Reply #28 on:** June 06, 2020, 00:22 »

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.

Quote from: H2O on June 05, 2020, 10:13

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.

everest · « **Reply #29 on:** June 06, 2020, 00:32 »

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.

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:19

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 ...

MicroVet · « **Reply #30 on:** June 06, 2020, 00:34 »

Quote from: tpack on June 05, 2020, 16:42

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09
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 »

Quote from: everest on June 06, 2020, 00:32

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.

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:19
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.

everest · « **Reply #32 on:** June 06, 2020, 01:01 »

"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" .

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:36

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.

Dumc · « **Reply #33 on:** June 06, 2020, 01:04 »

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?

Astrantia · « **Reply #34 on:** June 06, 2020, 02:08 »

Quote from: morfon on June 05, 2020, 16:09

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.
That´s why I left SS now.
I´m far better off with alamy and Pond5. I´m actually moving my pictures to Pond5 now, only did footage there until now.

Astrantia · « **Reply #35 on:** June 06, 2020, 02:09 »

double

Pauws99 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 06, 2020, 02:34 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:19

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 »

Quote from: Dumc on June 06, 2020, 01:04

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.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 06, 2020, 02:47 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34

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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #39 on:** June 06, 2020, 03:12 »

Quote from: rcherubin on June 05, 2020, 14:15

Quote from: H2O on June 05, 2020, 10:13
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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #40 on:** June 06, 2020, 03:26 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47

Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 06, 2020, 03:26

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.

nd3000 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 06, 2020, 03:51 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47

Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #43 on:** June 06, 2020, 03:58 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 03:47

... 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

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #44 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:05 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 03:51

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47
Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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

Pauws99 · « **Reply #45 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:09 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47

Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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.

pics2 · « **Reply #46 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:12 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 03:51

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47
Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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)?

nd3000 · « **Reply #47 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:15 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 06, 2020, 04:05

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 03:51
Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47
Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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.

nd3000 · « **Reply #48 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:19 »

Quote from: pics2 on June 06, 2020, 04:12

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 03:51
Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47
Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:34 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 03:51

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47
Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #50 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:35 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:19

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

June 2020 compared to June 2019, according to your formula: -0.33, or a 33% loss
June 2020 compared to May 2020: -0.497, or an almost 50% loss
June 2020 compared to April 2020: -0.35, or a 35% loss.

And I also counted the downloads of June 1st under the old system, so in reality the loss will be bigger than that in future months.

How do you come up with just a 5% loss is beyond me. One look at the new tier system and royalties shows that most contributors will be making a huge loss if you're level 4 or lower. Let alone when you start over at level 1 every January.

nd3000 · « **Reply #51 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:35 »

I really dont like the negativity, guys stop it. People assuming higher levels could actually increase the earnings are VERY wrong. People who have large amounts of traffic and sales can provide better samples. I am nowhere near the big guns but I have managed to get here in 5 years while being a father of 2 while having other things to do. I really havent slept much, that is for certain 😂. I never wanted to negotiate a special deal nor do I intend to. What really pisses me off is that I have 20.000+ New photos ready to be uploaded which are way above my microstockish quality I have been adding thus far and I am not willing to upload high quality content to be sold off for 10 cents. So For the past months I kept uploading subpar quality images from 4-5 years ago..

So where does one sell high quality macrostock other than getty? I really dont fancy them either.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #52 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:46 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 06, 2020, 04:35

June 2020 compared to June 2019, according to your formula: -0.33, or a 33% loss
June 2020 compared to May 2020: -0.497, or an almost 50% loss
June 2020 compared to April 2020: -0.35, or a 35% loss.

And I also counted the downloads of June 1st under the old system, so in reality the loss will be bigger than that in future months.

How do you come up with just a 5% loss is beyond me. One look at the new tier system and royalties shows that most contributors will be making a huge loss if you're level 4 or lower. Let alone when you start over at level 1 every January.

Is this at level 4, compared with an earliest highest tier of 0.38?

Did you run the formula that takes enhanced or with no enhanced under consideration? Because it can count negatively when you compare a lifetime average including enhanced dls and a week with only sub and OD without enhanced dls.

By June 2, I saw a maximum fluctuation to my average up to -29% to my lifetime average (but I was comparing WITH enhanced dls against WITHOUT). Then I did without and the real stat was -12%. I was also worried with that, but then it retracted when above average sub and on demand downloads came. Now I am seeing +3% without counting the enhanced dl's. With the enhanced dl's I am +37% in rpd this month.

nd3000 · « **Reply #53 on:** June 06, 2020, 04:53 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 04:34

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 03:51
Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:47
Quote from: Pauws99 on June 06, 2020, 02:34
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.

I believe you. As strange as it sounds some really did see a 200% increase during The past 2months without having covid images at all. Some glitch in the algorithm or pushing of some contributors to the front pages is real thing it seems. What bothers me is that I have seen in some post that The average RPD netted SS something like 3.5 if I recall correctly. For them to decrease the rpd for us from 0.6-0.7 to 0.4-0.5 is just pure greed. I think january reset should be abolished although itwouldnt affect me much as I would climb the ladder fast enough. Still its just a moneygrab scheme for them and an ugly one. Whats more important, they should change the minimum sub to something like 0.3 andthat should pretty much result in numbers similar to the old system forthe average contributor while still stimulating them to upload more as the ones higher up would be earning a bit more. It wont happen though, the sole reason was to stuff their hungry capitalist mouths even more.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #54 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:00 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 04:46

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 06, 2020, 04:35
June 2020 compared to June 2019, according to your formula: -0.33, or a 33% loss
June 2020 compared to May 2020: -0.497, or an almost 50% loss
June 2020 compared to April 2020: -0.35, or a 35% loss.

And I also counted the downloads of June 1st under the old system, so in reality the loss will be bigger than that in future months.

How do you come up with just a 5% loss is beyond me. One look at the new tier system and royalties shows that most contributors will be making a huge loss if you're level 4 or lower. Let alone when you start over at level 1 every January.

Is this at level 4, compared with an earliest highest tier of 0.38?

Did you run the formula that takes enhanced or with no enhanced under consideration? Because it can count negatively when you compare a lifetime average including enhanced dls and a week with only sub and OD without enhanced dls.

By June 2, I saw a maximum fluctuation to my average up to -29% to my lifetime average (but I was comparing WITH enhanced dls against WITHOUT). Then I did without and the real stat was -12%. I was also worried with that, but then it retracted when above average sub and on demand downloads came. Now I am seeing +3% without counting the enhanced dl's. With the enhanced dl's I am +37% in rpd this month.

Yes level 4, and previously 38c tier (>$10k lifetime earnings).
I've not counted enhanced licenses (I don't get those anymore, lol).

I don't use lifetime income, as this can skew things, but as you can see I compared the average RPD of certain months. Lifetime average RPD don't come into play then.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #55 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:05 »

Wait, someone was using lifetime average? Including when they were on 25c as opposed to 38c to compare to being level 5 tier now? or even including older pay-scale before that? What? Why?

nd3000 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:08 »

I dont know why somebody would compare data from like 2 years ago even. The market has taken a hairpin turn since then basically. Add to that the presence of a virus and various other factors with one being certain portfolios have a specific time when theydo better etc. its best to compare May to June.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #57 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:18 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 04:53

I believe you. As strange as it sounds some really did see a 200% increase during The past 2months without having covid images at all. Some glitch in the algorithm or pushing of some contributors to the front pages is real thing it seems. What bothers me is that I have seen in some post that The average RPD netted SS something like 3.5 if I recall correctly. For them to decrease the rpd for us from 0.6-0.7 to 0.4-0.5 is just pure greed. I think january reset should be abolished although itwouldnt affect me much as I would climb the ladder fast enough. Still its just a moneygrab scheme for them and an ugly one. Whats more important, they should change the minimum sub to something like 0.3 andthat should pretty much result in numbers similar to the old system forthe average contributor while still stimulating them to upload more as the ones higher up would be earning a bit more. It wont happen though, the sole reason was to stuff their hungry capitalist mouths even more.

My average rpd without enhanced was $0.52 and with the enhanced it was $0.64
My June rpd right now without enhanced is $0.56 and with the enhanced it is $0.86

I don't understand the huge difference in your portfolio and you have a big number of downloads, so your losses must in the hundreds right now. Are you commercial or editorial? I am asking because maybe editorial gets more large publication clients that would own those penny deals Shutterstock is offering. But commercial may keep attracting more smaller clients?

nd3000 · « **Reply #58 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:25 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 05:18

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 04:53
I believe you. As strange as it sounds some really did see a 200% increase during The past 2months without having covid images at all. Some glitch in the algorithm or pushing of some contributors to the front pages is real thing it seems. What bothers me is that I have seen in some post that The average RPD netted SS something like 3.5 if I recall correctly. For them to decrease the rpd for us from 0.6-0.7 to 0.4-0.5 is just pure greed. I think january reset should be abolished although itwouldnt affect me much as I would climb the ladder fast enough. Still its just a moneygrab scheme for them and an ugly one. Whats more important, they should change the minimum sub to something like 0.3 andthat should pretty much result in numbers similar to the old system forthe average contributor while still stimulating them to upload more as the ones higher up would be earning a bit more. It wont happen though, the sole reason was to stuff their hungry capitalist mouths even more.

My average rpd without enhanced was $0.52 and with the enhanced it was $0.64
My June rpd right now without enhanced is $0.56 and with the enhanced it is $0.86

I don't understand the huge difference in your portfolio and you have a big number of downloads, so your losses must in the hundreds right now. Are you commercial or editorial? I am asking because maybe editorial gets more large publication clients that would own those penny deals Shutterstock is offering. But commercial may keep attracting more smaller clients?

Losses are in thousands. Commercial only.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #59 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:25 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 06, 2020, 05:00

Yes level 4, and previously 38c tier (>$10k lifetime earnings).
I've not counted enhanced licenses (I don't get those anymore, lol).

I don't use lifetime income, as this can skew things, but as you can see I compared the average RPD of certain months. Lifetime average RPD don't come into play then.

Ok I understand you. Yes my averages are not calculated as in the lifetime averages but mostly compared from my earlier .38 tier, same as you. If mine and your portfolio would have exactly the same tendency, I would say that the "new normal" for you would be -9%.

I am trying to find the real reason why some people face those huge drops of even 40% or even 50%.

I develop a suspicion about heavy on editorial content portfolios. Maybe editorial licenses are purchased more by editorial clients which may be populated as larger companies that would afford to purchase the annual prepaid, price killing, package? Are you an editorial heavy photographer? My stats are on a 100% commercial port.

cobalt · « **Reply #60 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:34 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 02:45

Quote from: Dumc on June 06, 2020, 01:04
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.

This is the first year. They are being very nice (from their perspective).

They put out a rate card and a 10 cent floor, that just might be enough to convince some top level artists to stay.

But if you have ever worked in a hamster wheel sales sweat shop envirnoment or just in sales full time...this will get much,much worse.

They might even introduce a level 7,8,9,10 and then point to maybe 6 large studios with 20 employees and say - you see? If they can make it, so can you. YOU ARE ALL JUST LAZY WHINERS!

While this might work in an economic environement where people have no options, like actual physical workers in the middle of nowwhere and there is just one very large company...on the internet...it does not work.

Because all content can very easily be moved elsewhere. Sure, it will again take time for customers to come around and find your files...but many buyers are producers...so

The Media industry needs change very, very quickly, every few weeks there is a new badly needed trend. If you don‘t have enough happy upload monkeys who are ready to supply that, the agency vibe goes down quickly.

Also the top level producers, you think they are idiots?

You saw how quickly eyeidea pulled his port, you see in the forums ports with 50 000 files being disabled. You think producers do this because they are „emotional“?

People can smell fakeness and coming failure from miles away.

So if for you the new system works well, by all means please go and upload and work hard. It just got a lot easier, because all your competition is leaving...

But the community of truly active producers, will never support a company that is completly incapabale of communicating, not even in their own forums, has a new CEO with no visible skills for the market or the business, reacts really badly to have their income cut abruptly with a 5 day notice in a middle of a pandemic...etc...

SS has 1.9 million registered buyer accounts and 1.2 million regustered producer accounts, accumulated over 15 years. They are not google or facebook or ebay.

It is not a place where Jim and Kate buy pictures. They get them from unsplash or pixabay or just steal them from google.

The relevant and active buyer base is maybe, just maybe, 10% of that. So is the producer base.

Yes, thousands of people register as producer or buyer every year. But in how many places do you yourself sign up one day and then forget about it?

Prodcuers and buyers are mostly the exact same group of people, as simply the registered account numbers already indicate.

That is why you cannot just be cruel to the producers and hope to get away with it.

How many graphic designers have already bought credits elsewhere??

They will never recommend SS to their high paying clients ever again.

So...if SS thinks they can „ make it up in volume“ in china or india...good luck with that.

In the meantime Adobe just sits back, twiddles their thumbs and enjoys their wine, while the producers are switching and driving buyers towards them.

The buyers will always follow the high quality content.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #61 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:35 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 05:25

Losses are in thousands. Commercial only.

It's intriguing then. But for some reason, your work seems to be appealing in a larger scale, to many more larger clients (with the annual prepaid plans) than mine does. Because the larger percentage of >.2 sales don't make any other statistical sense.

pics2 · « **Reply #62 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:37 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 04:35

I really dont like the negativity, guys stop it. People assuming higher levels could actually increase the earnings are VERY wrong. People who have large amounts of traffic and sales can provide better samples. I am nowhere near the big guns but I have managed to get here in 5 years while being a father of 2 while having other things to do. I really havent slept much, that is for certain 😂. I never wanted to negotiate a special deal nor do I intend to. What really pisses me off is that I have 20.000+ New photos ready to be uploaded which are way above my microstockish quality I have been adding thus far and I am not willing to upload high quality content to be sold off for 10 cents. So For the past months I kept uploading subpar quality images from 4-5 years ago..

So where does one sell high quality macrostock other than getty? I really dont fancy them either.

Well, if it turns out to be 30%, it is not the end of the world, especially because Adobe is overtaking a part of your and everyone elses income. It is roughly 15% of overall loses then. Just trying to make things look better, since I noticed it took a big hit on you

Regarding your top quality content, well I know you are emotional, but Getty is still the biggest player in that field.

nd3000 · « **Reply #63 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:46 »

Quote from: pics2 on June 06, 2020, 05:37

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 04:35
I really dont like the negativity, guys stop it. People assuming higher levels could actually increase the earnings are VERY wrong. People who have large amounts of traffic and sales can provide better samples. I am nowhere near the big guns but I have managed to get here in 5 years while being a father of 2 while having other things to do. I really havent slept much, that is for certain 😂. I never wanted to negotiate a special deal nor do I intend to. What really pisses me off is that I have 20.000+ New photos ready to be uploaded which are way above my microstockish quality I have been adding thus far and I am not willing to upload high quality content to be sold off for 10 cents. So For the past months I kept uploading subpar quality images from 4-5 years ago..

So where does one sell high quality macrostock other than getty? I really dont fancy them either.
Well, if it turns out to be 30%, it is not the end of the world, especially because Adobe is overtaking a part of your and everyone elses income. It is roughly 15% of overall loses then. Just trying to make things look better, since I noticed it took a big hit on you Regarding your top quality content, well I know you are emotional, but Getty is still the biggest player in that field.

I just cant let them keep humiliating us/me even so now when I know that the change was not done to help them cope with the new challenges and all that pr crap they throw at us.

pics2 · « **Reply #64 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:52 »

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 05:46

Quote from: pics2 on June 06, 2020, 05:37
Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 04:35
I really dont like the negativity, guys stop it. People assuming higher levels could actually increase the earnings are VERY wrong. People who have large amounts of traffic and sales can provide better samples. I am nowhere near the big guns but I have managed to get here in 5 years while being a father of 2 while having other things to do. I really havent slept much, that is for certain 😂. I never wanted to negotiate a special deal nor do I intend to. What really pisses me off is that I have 20.000+ New photos ready to be uploaded which are way above my microstockish quality I have been adding thus far and I am not willing to upload high quality content to be sold off for 10 cents. So For the past months I kept uploading subpar quality images from 4-5 years ago..

So where does one sell high quality macrostock other than getty? I really dont fancy them either.
Well, if it turns out to be 30%, it is not the end of the world, especially because Adobe is overtaking a part of your and everyone elses income. It is roughly 15% of overall loses then. Just trying to make things look better, since I noticed it took a big hit on you Regarding your top quality content, well I know you are emotional, but Getty is still the biggest player in that field.

I just cant let them keep humiliating us/me even so now when I know that the change was not done to help them cope with the new challenges and all that pr crap they throw at us.

I agree with you on that. I would also like to see some kine of exclusivity scheme from Adobe, for example, I would accept it in a blink. I have had few arguments and disappointments with ss down the road, so I could expect this from them, it didn't hit me that hard emotionally. But, what are the options - Adobe exclusivity (slim chances) and Istock exclusivity (another unfair slavery scheme)?

anon20200611 · « **Reply #65 on:** June 06, 2020, 05:55 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2020, 05:34

You saw how quickly eyeidea pulled his port, you see in the forums ports with 50 000 files being disabled.

Yea ok, but big contributors pull themselves out all the time. Arcurs also pulled 80k images out of SS back in the day and went exclusive on iStock. His quality was top also. But after some years, SS received other studios of 500k images that delivered an equal or better quality than Arcurs.

cobalt · « **Reply #66 on:** June 06, 2020, 06:57 »

If Adobe offered an exclusive path we would all go there...

anon20200611 · « **Reply #67 on:** June 06, 2020, 07:04 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2020, 06:57

If Adobe offered an exclusive path we would all go there...

Never put all your hopes to a single one of them ... it just doesn't make sense. Just sell to all non-exclusively and earn. And the same applies also in a stock income in general. It shouldn't be the sole source of income for a photographer. 50% tops. So if 20% of stock income fails (like in this case), the damage won't be more than 10%.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #68 on:** June 06, 2020, 07:06 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 05:35

Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 05:25
Losses are in thousands. Commercial only.

It's intriguing then. But for some reason, your work seems to be appealing in a larger scale, to many more larger clients (with the annual prepaid plans) than mine does. Because the larger percentage of >.2 sales don't make any other statistical sense.

You are just an outlier. Take step back and look at what most people are reporting. There are outliers in every sample, usually you disregard them.

I get that's hard when it's you, but take a look at what everyone else is reporting. You probably just had a couple of people with smaller subs packages find one of your collections or portfolio and use a big chunk of their dls there.

cobalt · « **Reply #69 on:** June 06, 2020, 07:08 »

Don‘t worry I was an istock exclusive, I will never do that again.

But if they offered exclusive images, video, I would sincerly try to build up a port there.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #70 on:** June 06, 2020, 07:18 »

I won't go exclusive.
If it's on a per image basis i would make a few best sellers on Adobe that does not sell on other sites exclusive

anon20200611 · « **Reply #71 on:** June 06, 2020, 07:22 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 06, 2020, 07:06

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 05:35
Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 05:25
Losses are in thousands. Commercial only.

It's intriguing then. But for some reason, your work seems to be appealing in a larger scale, to many more larger clients (with the annual prepaid plans) than mine does. Because the larger percentage of >.2 sales don't make any other statistical sense.
You are just an outlier. Take step back and look at what most people are reporting. There are outliers in every sample, usually you disregard them.

I get that's hard when it's you, but take a look at what everyone else is reporting. You probably just had a couple of people with smaller subs packages find one of your collections or portfolio and use a big chunk of their dls there.

I am running the average RPD thread man, it's currently -33% from 14 people average, I am not blind. But I am asking the right questions. Many people in my position could be like: "let others complain and there can only be gain from this since I already gained" right? Well no. The well being of Shutterstock matters equally to me and I don't see them as a charity organization. If people defame them more than they actually deserve, it's dangerous for my portfolio there in extend.

obj owl · « **Reply #72 on:** June 06, 2020, 08:11 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 07:22

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 06, 2020, 07:06
Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 05:35
Quote from: nd3000 on June 06, 2020, 05:25
Losses are in thousands. Commercial only.

It's intriguing then. But for some reason, your work seems to be appealing in a larger scale, to many more larger clients (with the annual prepaid plans) than mine does. Because the larger percentage of >.2 sales don't make any other statistical sense.
You are just an outlier. Take step back and look at what most people are reporting. There are outliers in every sample, usually you disregard them.

I get that's hard when it's you, but take a look at what everyone else is reporting. You probably just had a couple of people with smaller subs packages find one of your collections or portfolio and use a big chunk of their dls there.

I am running the average RPD thread man, it's currently -33% from 14 people average, I am not blind. But I am asking the right questions. Many people in my position could be like: "let others complain and there can only be gain from this since I already gained" right? Well no. The well being of Shutterstock matters equally to me and I don't see them as a charity organization. If people defame them more than they actually deserve, it's dangerous for my portfolio there in extend.

So what happens when they start heavily discounting those subs packages? They can now sell for 11cents per image, take all the market share back they lost. Your RPD will then look a bit sick, but you might regain any loss with increased turnover, but at the expense of losses at other agencies. It will 12 months before you know your true position, but by then the game is lost.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #73 on:** June 06, 2020, 08:30 »

Quote from: obj owl on June 06, 2020, 08:11

So what happens when they start heavily discounting those subs packages? They can now sell for 11cents per image, take all the market share back they lost. Your RPD will then look a bit sick, but you might regain any loss with increased turnover, but at the expense of losses at other agencies. It will 12 months before you know your true position, but by then the game is lost.

Maybe it's better to focus on the problems right now, than the hypothetical problems of the future? I am more concerned to how the average RPD will turn out, because it's all that matters really and how can Shutterstock change their minds to the January reset and replace with a 12-month-average.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #74 on:** June 06, 2020, 08:51 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 08:30

Quote from: obj owl on June 06, 2020, 08:11
So what happens when they start heavily discounting those subs packages? They can now sell for 11cents per image, take all the market share back they lost. Your RPD will then look a bit sick, but you might regain any loss with increased turnover, but at the expense of losses at other agencies. It will 12 months before you know your true position, but by then the game is lost.

Maybe it's better to focus on the problems right now, than the hypothetical problems of the future? I am more concerned to how the average RPD will turn out, because it's all that matters really and how can Shutterstock change their minds to the January reset and replace with a 12-month-average.

I am sorry but that really isn't all that matters.

Two other things that matter:

1. A January reset is insane whatever the level is now

2. If we accept tiers based on a hypothetical (if a buyer were to use all their dls) when we know big buyers don't use all their dls SS can overnight increase the permitted dls in the largest packages to cut our share by whatever they like with zero impact on their revenue and a huge decrease in their costs (and still get to claim they are paying us the same percentage).

Both the above are true regardless of the initial tiers set.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #75 on:** June 06, 2020, 09:21 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 06, 2020, 08:51

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 08:30
Quote from: obj owl on June 06, 2020, 08:11
So what happens when they start heavily discounting those subs packages? They can now sell for 11cents per image, take all the market share back they lost. Your RPD will then look a bit sick, but you might regain any loss with increased turnover, but at the expense of losses at other agencies. It will 12 months before you know your true position, but by then the game is lost.

Maybe it's better to focus on the problems right now, than the hypothetical problems of the future? I am more concerned to how the average RPD will turn out, because it's all that matters really and how can Shutterstock change their minds to the January reset and replace with a 12-month-average.
I am sorry but that really isn't all that matters.

Two other things that matter:

1. A January reset is insane whatever the level is now

2. If we accept tiers based on a hypothetical (if a buyer were to use all their dls) when we know big buyers don't use all their dls SS can overnight increase the permitted dls in the largest packages to cut our share by whatever they like with zero impact on their revenue and a huge decrease in their costs (and still get to claim they are paying us the same percentage).

Both the above are true regardless of the initial tiers set.

Well, that's the supposed reason that iStock delays the results by a month. That, they apply the value to a clients downloads and share it equally with you. However that didn't prevent them of paying contributors a mere 15% for a non-exclusive deal which sucks, totally, as they had the potential to sell more images than SS but give back, not even half the rpd. iStock is like SS tier 1 now, but forever and without 0.10 minimum! That's how bad it is.

So, again, you are making invalid assumptions that SS will do any of these things that you describe. Face the situation as is. (1) Calculate the RPD (2) Predict accurately how the January reset will turn out.

For example, do you know that if the RPD magically turns out to be higher, then the January reset is fair? But if the RPD is negative, then the January reset is a double down and there is every right from contributors to protest it? But it starts with the RPD. Everyone should focus on how much is their loss or gain in the new system for starters.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #76 on:** June 06, 2020, 09:26 »

This absolutely a distraction and we are arguing in circles. I too am done with you

Mantis · « **Reply #77 on:** June 06, 2020, 09:57 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:36

Quote from: everest on June 06, 2020, 00:32
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.

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 00:19
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.

Aren't you being a crier here? I mean, you just bashed the criers.

pics2 · « **Reply #78 on:** June 06, 2020, 11:52 »

What a liar and manipulator this astockphotographer088. He's saying that he has to pay a rent with SS earnings, so he won't disable his port. Level 4 can't afford to pay rent and make a living out of this job. i don't trust him anything.

everest · « **Reply #79 on:** June 06, 2020, 13:51 »

He is still the top lifestyle producer in the world and maybe the reason that lots of accounts stayed with Getty. Nobody is irreplaceable but for sure when content providers move their creations it has a big effect. You will see what this effect will have long term on Shutter. Thousands will move exclusive content to other sites or remain non exclusive and supply to Adobe Artgrid Stocksy etc.

This move will benefit their profits for sure the same that when Getty did similar but at least without the january reset. If you push enough that's the maximum you will get as a big favour from them.

What I am noticing since I disabled my portfolio is that my video sales have a "not normal" growth in sales at Adobe and P5. Every single sale over 28$ to 90$ net, no pennies. Maybe luck but it might be a possibility that some customers not finding their lightboxed content in Shutter look for it in the competing agencies. Imagine that by thousands of contributors. Not very clever piss off your contributors and send away your clients to your competition.

As I said give it time (1-3 years) and Shutter will lose their leadership as a content provider.
Sometimes profiting short term has this undesirables consequences........

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 05:55

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2020, 05:34
You saw how quickly eyeidea pulled his port, you see in the forums ports with 50 000 files being disabled.

Yea ok, but big contributors pull themselves out all the time. Arcurs also pulled 80k images out of SS back in the day and went exclusive on iStock. His quality was top also. But after some years, SS received other studios of 500k images that delivered an equal or better quality than Arcurs.

everest · « **Reply #80 on:** June 06, 2020, 14:03 »

If he lives in the Ukraine or any other eastern european country the living costs and wages specially on lifestyle model shoots can make a few thousands a month (if he makes that) go a long way. In Western Europe and USA you can surely not get a proper return on yours costs at this ridicolous commissions. Thats a reason why big names in this industry are also taking a stance and might well move to greener pastures........Shutter is alienating the big and small players. A shitstorm that will damage them deeply . But hey if the numbers work for him let him dance along to the playing melody........

Quote from: pics2 on June 06, 2020, 11:52

What a liar and manipulator this astockphotographer088. He's saying that he has to pay a rent with SS earnings, so he won't disable his port. Level 4 can't afford to pay rent and make a living out of this job. i don't trust him anything.

anon20200611 · « **Reply #81 on:** June 06, 2020, 18:14 »

Quote from: everest on June 06, 2020, 14:03

If he lives in the Ukraine or any other eastern european country the living costs and wages specially on lifestyle model shoots can make a few thousands a month (if he makes that) go a long way. In Western Europe and USA you can surely not get a proper return on yours costs at this ridicolous commissions. Thats a reason why big names in this industry are also taking a stance and might well move to greener pastures........Shutter is alienating the big and small players. A shitstorm that will damage them deeply . But hey if the numbers work for him let him dance along to the playing melody........

Dude I share what I want to share. I am not the matter here. The general contributor attitude is. Some come here to be competitive towards people that are sharing truthfully. Anyway, the RPD should be calculated and it's the sole indicator of the tier system performance. Some say -50%, some say -5% ... go figure.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #82 on:** June 07, 2020, 02:45 »

Quote from: astockphotographer088 on June 06, 2020, 18:14

Quote from: everest on June 06, 2020, 14:03
If he lives in the Ukraine or any other eastern european country the living costs and wages specially on lifestyle model shoots can make a few thousands a month (if he makes that) go a long way. In Western Europe and USA you can surely not get a proper return on yours costs at this ridicolous commissions. Thats a reason why big names in this industry are also taking a stance and might well move to greener pastures........Shutter is alienating the big and small players. A shitstorm that will damage them deeply . But hey if the numbers work for him let him dance along to the playing melody........

Dude I share what I want to share. I am not the matter here. The general contributor attitude is. Some come here to be competitive towards people that are sharing truthfully. Anyway, the RPD should be calculated and it's the sole indicator of the tier system performance. Some say -50%, some say -5% ... go figure.

Actually the true indicator of performance is total income earnt. You can't buy many burgers with a high RPD if you have only sold 1 image.

Horizon · « **Reply #83 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:54 »

I very much doubt they will do anything for this poor mother! if they do they would have to do the same for a number of sad cases! This should never have happened in the first place.
Makes me want to puke all over their imbecile and greedy management!

leaf · « **Reply #84 on:** June 07, 2020, 08:56 »

A few uncivil posts were removed from this thread

dragonblade · « **Reply #85 on:** June 07, 2020, 12:29 »

Quote from: Firn on June 05, 2020, 12:59

We don't know what she does and what her task are though. Surely just being a forum admin can't be all? She literally doesn't do more than 5 posts a week and questions and PMs towards her stay unanswered.

Speaking of Kate, have you seen her photo and video ports? I'm far from impressed. Very mediocre stuff. Obviously, the new payment system affects her too as she is also a contributor but I doubt she cares.

Snow · « **Reply #86 on:** June 07, 2020, 14:42 »

Quote from: dragonblade on June 07, 2020, 12:29

Quote from: Firn on June 05, 2020, 12:59
We don't know what she does and what her task are though. Surely just being a forum admin can't be all? She literally doesn't do more than 5 posts a week and questions and PMs towards her stay unanswered.

Speaking of Kate, have you seen her photo and video ports? I'm far from impressed. Very mediocre stuff. Obviously, the new payment system affects her too as she is also a contributor but I doubt she cares.

That goes for every employer at SS or any other agency for that matter. Even Jon's portfolio is far below standard. I always thought they should set an example but you can tell they have better things to do such as deleting messages.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: "I'm a single mother. My son and I will literally have nothing to eat." (Read 13360 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Clair Voyant

anon20200611

anon20200611

anon20200611

anon20200611

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

anon20200611

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

anon20200611

anon20200611

Justanotherphotographer

anon20200611

anon20200611

anon20200611

anon20200611

anon20200611

Justanotherphotographer

anon20200611

anon20200611

Justanotherphotographer

anon20200611

Justanotherphotographer

anon20200611

Snow

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors