Author Topic: Concrete demands from SS regarding new pay structure (Read 8088 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **on:** May 28, 2020, 04:06 »

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

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

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

Desintegrator · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2020, 04:11 »

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

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

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

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

Also Video level limits are ridiculous like this, only the biggest studios could climb back to normal percentages. The tolerable thing for video level boundaries would be these number in dollars earned, not number of downloads

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2020, 04:24 »

To be honest video only makes up a relatively small percentage of my portfolio so I wont be continuing to upload any after the changes in any case (even if they change levels, do rolling etc. I would still be in too low a tier for my liking).

My knowledge for that is therefore limited. If they do levels on rolling 12 months is 251+ sales in a calendar year a lot for a mainly-video full time contributor (I genuinely don't know). This would put you on 30%.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2020, 04:48 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:24

To be honest video only makes up a relatively small percentage of my portfolio so I wont be continuing to upload any after the changes in any case (even if they change levels, do rolling etc. I would still be in too low a tier for my liking).

My knowledge for that is therefore limited. If they do levels on rolling 12 months is 251+ sales in a calendar year a lot for a mainly-video full time contributor (I genuinely don't know). This would put you on 30%.

Yes, I would probably make that, but putting 250 video sales on par with 500 photo sales is nonsense. (but the whole new payment scheme is ridiculous anyways...)

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:18 »

Looking at the tables, where would be a good place to set the levels for video IF it was a rolling 12 month basis and REAL percentage of amount paid per dl by the buyer (without these two changes I agree that the new structure completely unacceptable anyway)?

Could some other professional video people please chime in? I really think we need to focus on specific demands if we want to make a difference here.

spike · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:24 »

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

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:26 »

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

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

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.

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

cobalt · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:26 »

I am not a video pro, but video is now 30-40% of my monthly stock income.

For sales volume only, video sales are maybe 5- 10 % of photo sales. But moneywise they are very powerful, often one video sale equals more than 100 photo sales.

So for creating a royalty step ladder based on individual sales as opposed to money, I would create a system with maybe 5-10% of the photo volume.

But SS has the data, it should be really easy for them to come up with a system that makes sense.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:29 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:26

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:24
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:06

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.
Honestly, I don't think these are realistic demands given what other agencies are doing

At least we should demand on opt out option for video subs

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:34 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on May 28, 2020, 05:29

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:26
Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:24
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:06

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.
Honestly, I don't think these are realistic demands given what other agencies are doing

At least we should demand on opt out option for video subs

Good idea

spike · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:40 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:26

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:24
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:06

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.
Honestly, I don't think these are realistic demands given what other agencies are doing

It's time to show our teeth.

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

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

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:43 »

Is the main problem with the video tiers then the level 3-4 boundary? So if 30% was at 150 dls level would that be acceptable? Trying not to compare to photos.

(again I am going to keep reiterating IF and only if they also implement 12 month rolling and actual percentage paid to SS)

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:48 »

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:40

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:26
Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:24
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:06

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.
Honestly, I don't think these are realistic demands given what other agencies are doing

It's time to show our teeth.

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

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

I personally don't see a flat rate as necessarily preferable. It motivates SS to minimise number of dls big buyers use so they pocket the difference. The same thing they are trying to pull with the new levels by basing our payment on if buyers use all their dls rather than a real percentage.

Most of us have been seeing income from SS slide for a while so something needs changing.

A system based on actual, fair, achievable percentages based on a rolling 12 months basis could be a win win for everyone involved.

The proposed version SS has rolled out is a nightmare.

spike · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2020, 05:55 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:48

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:40
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:26
Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:24
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:06

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

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

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

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

+

3. Video subs. Out with them.
Honestly, I don't think these are realistic demands given what other agencies are doing

It's time to show our teeth.

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

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

I personally don't see a flat rate as necessarily preferable. It motivates SS to minimise number of dls big buyers use so they pocket the difference. The same thing they are trying to pull with the new levels by basing our payment on if buyers use all their dls rather than a real percentage.

Most of us have been seeing income from SS slide for a while so something needs changing.

A system based on actual, fair, achievable percentages based on a rolling 12 months basis could be a win win for everyone involved.

The proposed version SS has rolled out is a nightmare.

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

Video subs also aren't acceptable to me.

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

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:09 »

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

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

Video subs also aren't acceptable to me.

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

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

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

spike · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:16 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 06:09

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:55
Sorry, I don't agree. 10 cents per image isn't acceptable to me. (new subs)

Video subs also aren't acceptable to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:18 »

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:40

It's time to show our teeth.

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

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

To reply to this point specifically I agree that we need to use all leverage that we can but please know that many huge movements (occupy etc.) fail because they don't focus at these times of crisis. They don't have simple clear goals and demands.

Yes this business has generally been awful for contributors, but my fear is that if we lump everything in together we will end up getting nothing.

spike · « **Reply #17 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:23 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 06:18

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:40
It's time to show our teeth.

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

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

To reply to this point specifically I agree that we need to use all leverage that we can but please know that many huge movements (occupy etc.) fail because they don't focus at these times of crisis. They don't have simple clear goals and demands.

Yes this business has generally been awful for contributors, but my fear is that if we lump everything in together we will end up getting nothing.

I agree.

That's why I suggested a poll or a form to fill out.

Questions:

do you want a rolling 12 month windows for level determination (y/n)
subs should not be included in levels (y/n)
video subs should be removed (y/n)

etc.

Size of your portfolio: _____ assets
-----------
We, the undersigned, agree to disable our portfolios if our demands aren't being met.

Whatever 51%+ contributors decide, I will go with.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #18 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:26 »

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 06:16

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 06:09
Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:55
Sorry, I don't agree. 10 cents per image isn't acceptable to me. (new subs)

Video subs also aren't acceptable to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh I am absolutely sure they weren't operating at a loss, they would have been making several times what we were, I was using it as evidence that these buyers weren't using anything like their full allowance.

The major corporations have packages that are basically unlimited with a cap to just stop any funny business.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #19 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:27 »

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 06:23

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 06:18
Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:40
It's time to show our teeth.

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

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

To reply to this point specifically I agree that we need to use all leverage that we can but please know that many huge movements (occupy etc.) fail because they don't focus at these times of crisis. They don't have simple clear goals and demands.

Yes this business has generally been awful for contributors, but my fear is that if we lump everything in together we will end up getting nothing.

I agree.

That's why I suggested a poll or a form to fill out.

Questions:

do you want a rolling 12 month windows for level determination (y/n)
subs should not be included in levels (y/n)
video subs should be removed (y/n)

etc.

Size of your portfolio: _____ assets
-----------
We, the undersigned, agree to disable our portfolios if our demands aren't being met.

Whatever 51%+ contributors decide, I will go with.

Okay, I guess I am just warning against having too many questions on the list

Desintegrator · « **Reply #20 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:28 »

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 06:16

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

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

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

Yes! We shouldn't accept anything lower than the 33cent and the average should go way beyond the current 38cent, as sales volume decreases.
If they can get away with paying out much less than Adobe then they would have an unfair competitive edge in how much they can spend on marketing. If they win over buyers from Adobe to this new scheme that would be a disaster

spike · « **Reply #21 on:** May 28, 2020, 06:32 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 06:27

Okay, I guess I am just warning against having too many questions on the list

I can only think of these 3.

Plus, an additional one if you choose N on "subs should not be included in levels (y/n)?"

what should be the minimum baseline guarantee?

Choices: 15c, 20c, 25c, 30c, 33c

That's it. That covers everything I can think of.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #22 on:** May 28, 2020, 16:51 »

Thinking more about it i would only find the currently propose percentage tier system acceptable is if it would be not even from previous 12 months, but from your all time totals

flywing · « **Reply #23 on:** May 28, 2020, 17:15 »

Quote from: spike on May 28, 2020, 06:23

do you want a rolling 12 month windows for level determination (y/n)

Does that mean everyone will be stuck at a level whole year long before getting promoted/demoted?

thirdbornentertainment · « **Reply #24 on:** May 28, 2020, 17:57 »

Why is everyone trying to "demand" ss to do anything? Hey SS thanks for raping us, but could you ease up on the hair pulling while you do so, pretty please?

Don't try to deal with these crooks, abandon them.

marthamarks · « **Reply #25 on:** May 28, 2020, 19:32 »

Quote from: thirdbornentertainment on May 28, 2020, 17:57

Why is everyone trying to "demand" ss to do anything? Hey SS thanks for raping us, but could you ease up on the hair pulling while you do so, pretty please?

Don't try to deal with these crooks, abandon them.

Amen.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #26 on:** May 28, 2020, 19:39 »

Here's a way to play with what happens with different royalty rates in the new system and compare with your current flat-rate subscription royalty

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d3zG0P4zkNtHU5W15kszacAmr6rjc3JU3vRrmdZSCKM/edit?usp=sharing

I've only allowed edits on the three input fields - royalty rate, new minimum sub amount and current flat-rate sub royalty (nothing is error checked so you'll get daft answers if you enter daft numbers)

In the prices section I've shown all three payment options (monthly, annual paid monthly & annual up front). It's the last one that's creating problems for Shutterstock - and that they're trying to dump on us by cutting royalties

Ignore the fact that they must have been making out like bandits if they only paid us 38 cents a pop for the 10 and 50 per month subscriptions. I'm guessing not many people buy those or they wouldn't be adding the new cheap options for annual paid up front. Also ignore the dangled bait of potentially higher royalties on those small-volume subs (which aren't really subs at all; I assume they created them to increase their profit compared to the On Demand items)

The real story is in the 10 cent sub royalties for huge portions (not all, I understand) of our sub downloads. The changes in the global market they obliquely refer to are I assume them losing subscribers and their idea to woo them back is cut prices.

The cut-price sub royalties allow them to offer the annual up front payment discounts without worrying over losses if customers download too much. If anyone remembers SS's early days, they'd change prices and then wait about a month to set the new royalty rates - with 25 a day (not 750 a month as it now is) they had 10 weekend days that probably wouldn't get used as much and needed to see what actual download numbers looked like to be sure they set a rate they could afford to pay. Removing daily limits made managing that buffer of unused images harder, and there's no room to discount.

Bottom line for me is that our images are already licensed at rock bottom prices and if they keep undercutting other agencies with race-to-the-bottom price cuts, they will hurt all of us once the other agencies copy them.

Why do you think Adobe Stock has the same top-tier minimum 38 cent subscription royalty? It's not a coincidence.

Couple of tweets on this point - retweet if you can

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266221554209193986
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266222133018935296

oooo · « **Reply #27 on:** May 28, 2020, 20:07 »

Quote

what should be the minimum baseline guarantee?
Choices: 15c, 20c, 25c, 30c, 33c

what??

No one can produce fresh quality for these prices

Even image factories will fail,
employees, running costs .., no way

Yes yes i know, msg can do that... good luck..

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** May 28, 2020, 20:45 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 28, 2020, 19:39

Why do you think Adobe Stock has a minimum 38 cent subscription royalty? It's not a coincidence.

They do? I thought it was 33 cents.

And the other question has always been, who's copying whom, and who's really driving the prices down. I don't know, but SS historically hasn't been the leader in slicing prices, at their own expense. This looks more like catch up to me? All the small agencies have been screwing us the best they can, and so have some big ones. Yet some people keep uploading to those places.

I've been pounding the desk shouting don't support the parasites, and what happens. "I'd rather make a little than make nothing." OK folks, not you have less because the race to the bottom is being won by the crooks and creepy little places that were fed images for years. SS is being forced down into the cesspool because artists have chosen to sell for less and less.

I see this as following, not leading.

WaterView · « **Reply #29 on:** May 28, 2020, 21:45 »

I was enjoying my what was supposed to be a raise in royalties and then a week or 2 later their new reset every year massacre. Horrendous.
Why isn't the original founder speaking up? Anybody know him? I think we can never get beyond the slave mentality with some of these sites in the race to the bottom for us.
Where are the ideas about a collective stock image and video, etceteras site these days?
I've heard it talked about it before but, never seen it gain traction yet.
Anybody know more about a stock image video, similar digital content that we can all join and share our talents as a collective, or co-op, or some kind of stock agency where we all have a voice in our incomes and ways business is done? Thanks, Lee

mj007 · « **Reply #30 on:** May 28, 2020, 22:07 »

The original owner took his billion dollar stock option and left SS. Here is the fact..SS is the biggest and largest seller of stock photos. Most likely that is not going to change until some new technology comes along. They can and will set the new standard of stock prices. Yes we are getting screwed. Just wait until all the other sites start paying 10 cents per sell. You can quit stock and a lot of folks will. You can get 10-20 cents per sale in the near future. Learn to play the guitar. ...Buy SS wall street stock and short it....

wordplanet · « **Reply #31 on:** May 28, 2020, 22:49 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 28, 2020, 20:45

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 28, 2020, 19:39

Why do you think Adobe Stock has a minimum 38 cent subscription royalty? It's not a coincidence.

They do? I thought it was 33 cents.

And the other question has always been, who's copying whom, and who's really driving the prices down. I don't know, but SS historically hasn't been the leader in slicing prices, at their own expense. This looks more like catch up to me? All the small agencies have been screwing us the best they can, and so have some big ones. Yet some people keep uploading to those places.

I've been pounding the desk shouting don't support the parasites, and what happens. "I'd rather make a little than make nothing." OK folks, not you have less because the race to the bottom is being won by the crooks and creepy little places that were fed images for years. SS is being forced down into the cesspool because artists have chosen to sell for less and less.

I see this as following, not leading.

I think it was shutterstock who led the way. Shutterstock kept their prices low for over a decade in an effort to become the biggest stock supplier but the joke was on them not realizing others would follow with similarly low prices, creating expectations on the part of nearly all stock photo customers that prices would always be low. They can't put the genie back in the bottle and raise prices at this point, the market is saturated, so they need to cut somewhere and they think that if they could get people to accept 25 cents when they first started, why can't they accept 10 cents? For the corporate executives who dreamed this up, I'm sure they figure 10 cents isn't even much less than the 38 cents those in the soon to be old top tier make. They don't realize that there was a time when the volume of downloads even at that paltry 25 cents added up to decent money, but with the ever increasing size of shutterstock's portfolio it's harder and harder to make any money and this will make it impossible.

They planted the seeds of thier own demise. You can't blame the little guys who were just following suit, and probably won't be around much longer.

I don't think Adobe will follow suit. If stock photography becomes untenable, there will be a lot fewer people who will bother with Photoshop, since there are many stock shooters who don't shoot assignment work and fine art. As someone mentioned, they have many other sources of revenue, and hopefully this will keep them from following ss.

marthamarks · « **Reply #32 on:** May 28, 2020, 23:11 »

Quote from: WaterView on May 28, 2020, 21:45

Where are the ideas about a collective stock image and video, etceteras site these days?
I've heard it talked about it before but, never seen it gain traction yet.

Had you been active around here a few years ago, you would have lived through the Symbiostock experience. Many of us here spent a lot of time and money and effort building our own websites as part of a collective project. Some still have those sites, but I don't believe any of us have ever made back a tiny fraction of what we put into it.

We have been there and done that. We don't need lectures from someone who didn't give it a try back then.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** May 28, 2020, 23:35 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 28, 2020, 20:45

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 28, 2020, 19:39

Why do you think Adobe Stock has a minimum 38 cent subscription royalty? It's not a coincidence.

They do? I thought it was 33 cents.

My mistake. Adobe has three subscription minimums, depending on lifetime downloads; 33, 36 and 38 cents.

Shutterstock has 4 - those three plus the 25 cent lowest tier.

The point stands though that when Adobe set up the rates for Adobe Stock (Fotolia's were different), they took care to at least match what Shutterstock paid.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Concrete demands from SS regarding new pay structure (Read 8088 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Desintegrator

Justanotherphotographer

Desintegrator

Justanotherphotographer

spike

Justanotherphotographer

cobalt

Desintegrator

Justanotherphotographer

spike

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

spike

Justanotherphotographer

spike

Justanotherphotographer

spike

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Desintegrator

spike

Desintegrator

flywing

thirdbornentertainment

marthamarks

Jo Ann Snover

oooo

Uncle Pete

WaterView

mj007

wordplanet

marthamarks

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors