I've had this sales disgrace today.
They say they sold it to WIX.
SS should make a decision, Is wix more important or are we the ones that make you money?

I've had this sales disgrace today.
They say they sold it to WIX.
SS should make a decision, Is wix more important or are we the ones that make you money?

Wix are more important to shutterstock I'm afraid.  They make money from buyers not us. Sad maybe but true. They have made that decision.

It depends........landscapes,pets,objects on white,food,drone shots,timelapses,etc yeah you are right. Overflow of those images will is very high and will become worse and worse. It is what it is. Most people that supply to micro are amateurs anywhere and the tendency to 0 for those kind of images is quite logic, supply and demand meeting at a point we all feared years ago is happening now in front of everybody's eyes.

Another thing is very niche subjects or lifestyle shots. Here the situation is more complicated. Very few shooters are supplying up to date material that fits actual trends in subject and style. But on the other hand the low prices policy  where the 1000000 skyline of New York or cat image has the same price that a complex multi model shot in an expensive location makes that even those photographers are quitting the game and those are not being replaced by hoarders of very skilled amateurs. So we will see where all this ends.......

Its probably a good idea to understand where contributors fit into the MS food chain these days.

Quite simply, we're expendable.  These days everyone has a phone, has a camera and will give images for pennies or even nothing at all.  So we're replaceable and dont matter in the slightest to them.  If someone objects to a new price or terms, they'll be immediately replaced by 3 or 4 others who are happy with it.

A tiny tiny percentage of MS contributors overall submit images of a unique and high standard which would be hard to replace but the majority do not and from an MS point of view, wont be missed.

We need to stop thinking the sites need or care about us in the slightest - they dont.

For what its worth, my self-imposed rules for submitting are simple. If I think my clip is worth more than $0.60 ($3.00 is my all-time worst sale) ....I submit only to Pond5. I have hundreds of clips that are exclusive to Pond5. And for images, any agency that pays less than $0.30 doesn't get my submissions. That's why I work exclusively with Dreamstime, Deposit Photo and Shutterstock.

Deposit photos? I've had 16c before and overall the return there is only better than Big Stock and these days RF123. I look at the overall return focusing on the individual return is flawed logic in my view.

I got one for 18c last week they seem quite rare but they do happen.

 "Note: If an image was purchased via a monthly subscription plan, your royalty rate will depend on your Contributor's Level. Royalty calculations are based on the price of the subscription plan and the number of downloads included in it. If a Buyer gets a discount on the purchase, the royalties received by the Contributor for the file will be based on the amount paid by the Buyer, incorporating the discount, and not the �standard� value of the file." In other words we can sell images for what we like and you take your share of the "hit".

I do sell reasonably consistently on DP but can't recall anything over about $3. I've had $40 before on Istock even.