MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: DC on November 02, 2015, 20:25
-
I'm surprised there isn't already a thread about this.
I noticed a couple of SODs for 30 cents each today. Never had a sale for less than what I would earn from a sub before.
There is a thread on the SS forum about it but no response from SS so far.
Anyone else getting these? I guess some people are getting less than 30 cents.
-
Never had one for less than sub, which I believe is the FB sales
I quit trying to figure out their forum when they changed the format
-
I've had some odd sub-$1.00 amounts, but I don't think anything less than 38 cents. 69 cents, 80 cents, 95 cents; that sort of thing. Given that they negotiate deals with large companies, and they're all custom, I guess the number could be anything. We just get 30% (or whatever percentage you get) of whatever is paid.
-
I just got one for .20 :) My lowest return on anything I've ever sold :)
-
I just got one for .20 :) My lowest return on anything I've ever sold :)
Don't you sell on 123RF?
-
I receive 0.01$ on iStock - G.I. Connect. This is my record !!!
-
I got 2 for 0,29$ yesterday. Wasn´t the sub rate garanteed as a minimum?
-
I got 2 for 0,29$ yesterday. Wasn´t the sub rate garanteed as a minimum?
That's what I thought too.
-
Two $0.30 sales on 23 October and 17 yesterday! >:(
In the last few months the FB SODs almost disappeared and now this ...?!?
-
At the moment, SS doesn't bother to inform us what they do with our files. They think they can do whatever they want and we are happy with earning pennies.
-
Im 038 level, if i earned 0,30 is because they are selling images from 1 dollar.
Not cool.
-
Some 0.29 sales yesterday.
-
Some 0.29 sales here over the previous couple of days too. No explanation. Come on SS we expect better of you.
-
Checked my sales - everything looks normal there so far, but anything can happen with SS.
-
i have one with $0.26!
-
Two SODs yesterday for $0.29 each. Normal subs rate for me is $0.36.
Maybe FB renegotiated or SS wants a bigger cut?
-
Two SODs 30cent each yesterday. That's more than 25% less of an already meagre 38ct. Well SS has now officially turned its coat from bright blue to dark grey
-
Also got 30 cent SOD, not happy.
-
more 0.29 SOD's rolling in today.... just as 0.36 FB SOD's have dried up. Coincidence..?
-
We need to have some sort of award ready for the first person to get a sale paying $0.00. Maybe a trophy saying "winner of the RACE TO THE BOTTOM".
-
At the moment, SS doesn't bother to inform us what they do with our files. They think they can do whatever they want and we are happy with earning pennies.
of course they do and most newbies are also.
-
.30 sale here too. what?
-
I just got one for .20 :) My lowest return on anything I've ever sold :)
SS states on their web page "Earnings range from $ 0.25 to $120.00, depending on the customer's license" so I guess they'll have to go change that now.
-
I WIN!!!!
Yesterday I got 2 (two!) SOD from SS for a whopping .25 each. Whoop-de-do!
In the past, my SODs were $62....then early last year I started getting only SODs for .36.
Looked at their payment page, and now the highest SOD payment listed is $28.
Which I never get.
Might be a reason that Fotolia has provided me more earnings than SS for the past 3 months.
It's only the 3rd as I write this; but currently this month's sales on FT are 40% higher than SS.
"A change is coming. I feel it in my bones" (for LOTR fans)
-
At the moment, SS doesn't bother to inform us what they do with our files. They think they can do whatever they want and we are happy with earning pennies.
of course they do and most newbies are also.
Agree. But its no wonder there is no resistance from us so why should they respect us.
-
Doublepost
-
Looked at their payment page, and now the highest SOD payment listed is $28.
I got a $30 SOD yesterday, so that can't be right.
-
I got a $75 SOD on Friday.
-
Looked at their payment page, and now the highest SOD payment listed is $28.
I got a $30 SOD yesterday, so that can't be right.
$37.50 today, $37.50 yesterday
-
Looked at their payment page, and now the highest SOD payment listed is $28.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts (http://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts)
up to $120
I think you are talking about EDs.
-
OK, just got one of the .30 SODs.
-
Yeah, I got one this morning. Hoped it would be $122.00 but no, it was for $0.30. Downward and backward!
-
Has anyone ever gotten an SOD for more than $120? Because now I'm interpreting this differently:
"30% (up to $120)"
Now I think it means the most you'll receive is $120, no matter how much an image sells for.
Large enterprises pay $500 for non-web-use images, and at a 30% royalty that would be $150, not $120. So for those of us who earn 30%, we get only 24% for those large sales. If I'm correct.
-
That's how I interpret that as well.
I've had SODs between $0.49 and $0.66 the past couple of days but fortunately so far no 30 centers. The only good thing is that the past couple of months the ratio of ODs/SODs/clip sales versus subs has been much higher than usual - so far this month it is running one non-sub to every 3.25 subs, compared to one every 10-15 usually. Overall volume is down about 25% from last year but the number of non-subs is staying the same or getting better so revenue hasn't decreased that much. Maybe subs buyers are switching to FT/Adobe but others are sticking with SS?
-
From the site:
30% (up to $120)†
†Percentage is based on sale price received. Amount earned may be more if sale price received is more.
-
A sprinkling of .30s but also a couple of 1.50 and a 3.60 - these are more wallet friendly but I can't recall seeing these amounts before either. Something is afoot or a leg - hard to tell with SS these days.
Anyway, I don't expect to know what SS serves up with tofu in their canteen or what the latest plans are to make the offices more Feng Shui - but I would like to know what I'm getting paid for so I can make informed decisions.
-
Well, this is a bit hilarious. I used the SS contact form to send an inquiry. Minutes late:
This is the mail system at host smtp.shutterstock.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
<[email protected]>: host ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com[173.194.214.27] said:
550-5.7.1 Unauthenticated email from yahoo.com is not accepted due to
domain's 550-5.7.1 DMARC policy. Please contact administrator of yahoo.com
domain if 550-5.7.1 this was a legitimate mail. Please visit 550-5.7.1
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/2451690 to learn about DMARC 550
5.7.1 initiative. 140si1233923vkc.130 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA
command)
-
I looked at yesterday's stats this morning, and there were two 30 cent royalties among yesterday's SODs.
So someone was sold an image at $1
-
Has anyone ever gotten an SOD for more than $120? Because now I'm interpreting this differently:
Yes -I had 5 in one day at 125.61 each last June.
-
Has anyone ever gotten an SOD for more than $120? Because now I'm interpreting this differently:
Yes -I had 5 in one day at 125.61 each last June.
Oh, good! Good to be wrong in this case. :)
-
I think shutterstock sucks!
-
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1512825 (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1512825)
-
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1512825[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1512825[/url])
Well that's mostly good news - not the part about having a bug in calculating payments, but the part about identifying it and promising a fix.
I think they should e-mail contributors about stuff like this - both the bug and when they make the fix so we can go and check days when we had the wrong amount to ensure it's been corrected.
I wonder, if those amounts cross month boundaries - i.e. if we've already been paid for October by the time the adjust October earnings - will they just add some magic number to the November payout?
It'd be nice to see improved detailed statements for this type of thing, particularly if there need to be retroactive adjustments of payments for prior months (or years).
-
Looked at their payment page, and now the highest SOD payment listed is $28.
I got a $30 SOD yesterday, so that can't be right.
no, the highest is $120
i don't know how low it goes , but i did get SOD at 28, and a colleague got 80,and 102,
my highest to date is 80+
i also have a lot of tiny ones, but i don't pay much attention to those.
i assume there are different usage plans with each of these,
or else it would piss off the client who got us to earn 120 , 102, 80, 77, etc
to know another person got the same deal for 28 or like you say 30 ccts
-
I miss the days when Scott would usually clarify whats going on. Looks like we are seeing a new model. Reminds me of DPC.
-
Reminds me of DPC.
'Fraid you're right!
I woke up this morning to the first of these lower-than-my-sub-rate SODs. Earned a grand $.26 (26 cents) for a new image of the Lower Falls of Yellowstone River.
Not happy 'bout that.
-
Reminds me of DPC.
'Fraid you're right!
I woke up this morning to the first of these lower-than-my-sub-rate SODs. Earned a grand $.26 (26 cents) for a new image of the Lower Falls of Yellowstone River.
Not happy 'bout that.
You did read the thread on the SS forum linked above?
It's a bug and they're going to fix it and they will adjust those sales to normal subs value.
Not good that such bugs happen, but good that they are admitting and fixing it.
-
Reminds me of DPC.
'Fraid you're right!
I woke up this morning to the first of these lower-than-my-sub-rate SODs. Earned a grand $.26 (26 cents) for a new image of the Lower Falls of Yellowstone River.
Not happy 'bout that.
You did read the thread on the SS forum linked above?
It's a bug and they're going to fix it and they will adjust those sales to normal subs value.
Not good that such bugs happen, but good that they are admitting and fixing it.
Well thats good news. Unfortunatly i am banned from the ss forums. I have to jump through hoops to go in there by deleting my cookies for read onky access so i just never go there. So much for anthony saying it will be a temporary ban. That was 5 years ago...lol
-
I just receive 0.82$ for a SOD ..
-
Reminds me of DPC.
'Fraid you're right!
I woke up this morning to the first of these lower-than-my-sub-rate SODs. Earned a grand $.26 (26 cents) for a new image of the Lower Falls of Yellowstone River.
Not happy 'bout that.
You did read the thread on the SS forum linked above?
It's a bug and they're going to fix it and they will adjust those sales to normal subs value.
Not good that such bugs happen, but good that they are admitting and fixing it.
No, actually, I haven't read the forum link. Just woke up to find this odd sale. I'll go read it now.
Nice to hear it's not yet another "new normal" drop in royalties.
ETA: Well, I clicked the link, watched the ball spin for a while, and wound up with a "The connection was reset" message. Tried it again twice, with the same result. Guess I'll just have to take your word that there's an interesting discussion going on in the SS Forum, 'cause I don't seem to be able to get there.
-
For those of you who can't access the SS forums, here the first post of that thread by Vincent:
Hi everyone,
Our collaboration with Facebook continues to grow. As it grows, the SOD payout will vary, but should not fall below subscription rates - as promised in our original Facebook announcement.
We have identified a bug that resulted in some payouts that were below this minimum, and we are actively working to resolve this to ensure that you receive the accurate payout, both for future earnings and those you received earlier this week.
We will update you again once the fix is in place.
We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience.
-
For those of you who can't access the SS forums, here the first post of that thread by Vincent:
Hi everyone,
Our collaboration with Facebook continues to grow. As it grows, the SOD payout will vary, but should not fall below subscription rates - as promised in our original Facebook announcement.
We have identified a bug that resulted in some payouts that were below this minimum, and we are actively working to resolve this to ensure that you receive the accurate payout, both for future earnings and those you received earlier this week.
We will update you again once the fix is in place.
We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience.
Thanks for providing that!
-
i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.
the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.
the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc
correct me if i am worng about social media
-
Yes, you are well off the mark with your views on social media. I rather doubt Facebook would have the market capitalisation it does based on your use case.
The use of Shutterstock images, so far as I can see, is more for business use: advertise an event, drive traffic to a website, promote a product where the number of viewers is considerably higher than kids posting their social life. Last time I looked (a while ago), it was also possible when selecting the Shutterstock image on Facebook to extract the underlying URL and get yourself a free medium-sized watermark-free image. Don’t know if that bug has been fixed yet but it is more of a concern to me than the use of images to illustrate the Hieronymus Bosch-type world you imagine teenagers inhabit.
-
That message just means they were testing lower royalties and it hit the live site by accident. my guess is we can expect lower royalties soon. 30 cents instead of 38 then. I mean, a bug, really.
-
I think that too. There is coming a battle between Adobe and SS. SS will beginning with the price race to the bottom. In longterm SS will loose the battle Adobe is to mighty.
Unfortunately in the mean time we will loose commisions in this battle.
-
Doublepost
-
i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.
the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.
the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc
correct me if i am worng about social media
Wow! What a twisted interpretation of social media. You obviously have a problem with what you consider "loose" women..
The SS images are thumbnails used in ads. I doubt many people are sharing the ads unless it's an offer they think a friend might be interested in. Nobody cares about the images themselves.
-
i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.
the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.
the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc
correct me if i am worng about social media
You're wrong. It might be stupid but doped and date-raped? You are over the limit in your self serving superior self.
Glad that SS answers to questions, unlike most others. Now they will fix the mistake.
-
the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
Well, yes, that's indeed the point.
Not counting the direct licencing deal, if a company uses your picture on their site, blog or Fb page, and post 'share' icons, they are hoping their content will be freely spread all around the web.
AFAICS, most, maybe all, of the micros allow these share buttons.
IIRC, very few people complained about this at the outset. Difficult to put a lid on it now.
Part of the problem is the terminology. Just like "Royalty-free" seems to mean 'you don't pay any royalties, viz it's free to use', Share wouold seem to imply that the content is free for sharing.
I once had a pic licensed by a woman's magazine and it was on their website. I then found it on two home decor blogs, both acknowledging the copyright of the magazine, as the mag wrongly (as it was used editorially) hadn't credited me/iStock. Both bloggers declined to purchase the file from iS but each took the pic down instantly with an apology. However, both pointed out that the magazine site had 'share' (with the social media buttons) right next to the image, so they assumed that they were free to share the image on their blogs (having right-click/saved it) and the mag would be pleased as long as they were credited. To be fair, that's not an unreasonable interpretation of the invitation to share.
-
SS has acknowledged that the fix wasn't made last week and said on Monday that the fix would be deployed Monday or Tuesday which would correct all future SOD royalties from the Facebook deal to be a minimum of a sub royalty.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-and-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1513515 (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-and-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1513515)
Then they'll look at correcting the prior royalties. No ETA on that.
-
Well just had an 8c sod so theyve done nothing or theyre not honest
-
Yeah two .08 SOD sales for me today too. My earlier <sub ones were .30. Based on the images I'm guessing Facebook sales. I tried to get to the SS forum page but it never loaded for me.
-
How about they are the .08 cents owed to you for the .30 SODs earlier in the month?
-
How about they are the .08 cents owed to you for the .30 SODs earlier in the month?
Could be - they are the same images.
if so, A for fixing it, F for communication
-
Aaah sorry then