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.

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%.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

• 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)

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

• what should be the minimum baseline guarantee?

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