MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock testing new pricing plans for customers  (Read 15566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 02, 2017, 02:01 »
0
Is 0,05 per download a new reality?

Testing New Pricing Plans for Customers
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/

admin edit: made the thread title more descriptive.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 05:56 by leaf »


« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2017, 02:09 »
+2
this is a bad joke or?  >:(

« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2017, 02:28 »
+2
The end of microstock probably?

alno

« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2017, 02:51 »
+2
And believe me there will be still a lot of people with active accounts on SS in six months who will keep moaning and comparing monthly progress from $0.96 to $1.34. It's definetely time for them to remove Business and Healthcare categories from uploader and rename their remaning ones to specify BBQ grill manufacturers and breeds of cats.
 

« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2017, 03:12 »
+4
"D.Trump promises more earnings for Americans vs SS promises less earnings"

Just try to imagine Trump as Shutterstock CEO

« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2017, 03:58 »
+11
it's time for one smart agency (maybe Adobe) to introduce 80-90% image based exclusive royalties and with that one move "destroy" all others 0.5 cent per download agencies with quality.

good quality images there, the rest or rejected images elsewhere




« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2017, 04:21 »
+5
The end of microstock probably?

The end of microstock and the beginning of nanostock...  ;D....... ???....... :-\....... >:(....... :'(

« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2017, 04:44 »
+2
Where do you get 5c and consequent doom for Mstock (which has been imminent for the 6 years I've been doing this) from?

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2017, 04:50 »
+2
New pricing plans, as in, smaller image packs means less On Demand Downloads, thus less earnings. Way to go Shutterstock!

Shelma1

« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2017, 05:14 »
+11
I'm not signing some stupid petition.

Everyone should have some pride and pull their portfolios from Shutterstock.

dpimborough

« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2017, 05:19 »
+3
The notification says quite clearly that percentage royalties will only be applied to the two new plans of 10 and 50 images so in actuallity you will earn more during the trial period instead of your usual sub rate.

The danger is of course that this is adopted across all subs upto 750 images after the trial period in which case earnings will be reduced.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2017, 06:47 »
+5
I'm not signing some stupid petition.

Everyone should have some pride and pull their portfolios from Shutterstock.

And then what? If I had to pull my port from any agency that announces some new plan, I could quit microstock altogether.
Not defending SS here, but there's hardly a decent agency left.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2017, 06:54 »
0
I'm not signing some stupid petition.

Everyone should have some pride and pull their portfolios from Shutterstock.

Neither am I. Sounds like a new plan only in aid for the shareholders.

Shelma1

« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2017, 06:59 »
+5
I'm not signing some stupid petition.

Everyone should have some pride and pull their portfolios from Shutterstock.

And then what? If I had to pull my port from any agency that announces some new plan, I could quit microstock altogether.
Not defending SS here, but there's hardly a decent agency left.

Just bitterly repeating what so many people said about signing the iStock petition. Despite repeated warnings that other agencies would be watching our reaction and would follow suit with 2 cent royalties. So here we go.

« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2017, 07:02 »
+7
They gotta pay for that second floor they just started renting in the Empire State Building somehow.

Could you imagine how great a company Shutterstock could be if they respected where their content came from as much as they indulge themselves? If only they chose to pay contributors fairly instead of blowing ridiculous amounts of their profits on excessive luxuries like some of the most expensive office space in the world...

« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2017, 07:06 »
+1
I'm not signing some stupid petition.

Everyone should have some pride and pull their portfolios from Shutterstock.

And then what? If I had to pull my port from any agency that announces some new plan, I could quit microstock altogether.
Not defending SS here, but there's hardly a decent agency left.

Just bitterly repeating what so many people said about signing the iStock petition. Despite repeated warnings that other agencies would be watching our reaction and would follow suit with 2 cent royalties. So here we go.
Again...where are these 2c royalties on SS. I'm not saying its a good thing but why catastrophise everything......

« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2017, 07:06 »
+23
I would say the market is ready for an Adobe take over!


« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2017, 07:28 »
+5
To really do it they have to start with editorials.

« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2017, 08:23 »
+2
They gotta pay for that second floor they just started renting in the Empire State Building somehow.

Could you imagine how great a company Shutterstock could be if they respected where their content came from as much as they indulge themselves? If only they chose to pay contributors fairly instead of blowing ridiculous amounts of their profits on excessive luxuries like some of the most expensive office space in the world...

Isn't that just the way capitalism should work, that the ones that happen to be in the right place, in the right time and made a move get all the luxuries while others gather crumbs? It's all in vain since there will always be someone somewhere who will work for almost nothing out of desperation and deliver the same quality. It happening in the whole world, in every industry. Why would microstock be an exception?

« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2017, 09:22 »
+7
They gotta pay for that second floor they just started renting in the Empire State Building somehow.

Could you imagine how great a company Shutterstock could be if they respected where their content came from as much as they indulge themselves? If only they chose to pay contributors fairly instead of blowing ridiculous amounts of their profits on excessive luxuries like some of the most expensive office space in the world...

Isn't that just the way capitalism should work, that the ones that happen to be in the right place, in the right time and made a move get all the luxuries while others gather crumbs? It's all in vain since there will always be someone somewhere who will work for almost nothing out of desperation and deliver the same quality. It happening in the whole world, in every industry. Why would microstock be an exception?
Sadly you are correct......the internet amongst other things is increasing the gap between winners and losers we are moving towards a super rich vs peasants world. Marx was right!

« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2017, 09:39 »
+2
They gotta pay for that second floor they just started renting in the Empire State Building somehow.

Could you imagine how great a company Shutterstock could be if they respected where their content came from as much as they indulge themselves? If only they chose to pay contributors fairly instead of blowing ridiculous amounts of their profits on excessive luxuries like some of the most expensive office space in the world...

Isn't that just the way capitalism should work, that the ones that happen to be in the right place, in the right time and made a move get all the luxuries while others gather crumbs? It's all in vain since there will always be someone somewhere who will work for almost nothing out of desperation and deliver the same quality. It happening in the whole world, in every industry. Why would microstock be an exception?

yes but history showed also the the rich at one point run away faster because poor got taking them with gun.....second war began because millions of germans didn't have nothing zero while a bunch of people had all.....we live in a world where mediocre football players gain 30 million euro a year in china while china workers earn 100 dollar.....the limiti is reaching fast...trump putin looks very similar to those who flame the masses in the 1932..

« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2017, 09:43 »
0
shutterstock is ending the same way stock. but the content is also much worst...lot of scammers, spammers...million of ugly files...model and food photography so * poor.....who ids buying this stuff?
i mean if i were somebody who have a business i will go directly to stocksy...if i not even have 10 euro to pay an image for a project what kind of business is this?

in my opinion there is pac for a real cooperative of talented stockers to recreate something similar to stock or ss in the first year. don't know the cost of such a project.


« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2017, 09:45 »
0
i was telling production cost are so low in eastern europe that a lot of people do stock..with this pace the only country left to produce stock will be some remote african region....even begging in the street is getting much profitable than microstok...they are not ashamed? luckily those people like everybody will die with all the money they earn with them.

« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2017, 09:48 »
+2
i went to the forum to look..

i am even more surprised that big sellers like sjlocke,etc are not saying anything to this.
here, i am waiting for jo-anne, and of course, sjlocke,etc.. to tune in.

the only thing i read worth shouting is the one who was smart enough to say,
give us an OPT-OUT.

perharps, we should get that choice.

« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2017, 09:50 »
+8
Actually BOTH Trump and SS promise more......but will deliver less  ::)

« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2017, 09:58 »
+6
With regards to what SS has done vs IStock/Getty remember that Shutterstock never reduce our commission fees while IStock has consistently been reducing RPD every year since 2009 as well as thinking up 1000 other ways to scr*w us. RPD on Shutterstock has increased every year since 2006. How do we expect them to compete if we keep taking trash commissions from their competitors?!

If you don't want to see lower commissions across the board suspend uploads or delete portfolios from all sites that pay low commissions, including IStock, Depositphotos and Bigstock, or we don't have a leg to stand on.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 12:32 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2017, 10:01 »
0
Actually BOTH Trump and SS promise more......but will deliver less  ::)

LOL, must be the signs of the time..  scavenger !!! no apology !!!

ironic, i was just listening to Joni Mitchell 's Taming the Tiger before going to bed..
this is the album she decides to quit the music business.. as she considers it a cesspool..
or something smelly like that.

looks like someone is trying to tell me something of my own "industry"..
time to move on to something else...

be a shareholder of ss, for one!!! start a small ad business so i can cheer ss some poor sucker
with a "photographer" ID is getting sucked while my business thrives  as a scavenger..8)


« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2017, 10:11 »
+2
From the latest post on the forum the new commissions wont be on 350 / 750 per month plans.
So the lower figures from the table wont be happening i.e. new pack return will be higher than sub returns.

We'll have to wait and see what the net effect is.

« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2017, 10:20 »
+1
Yes, only 10 and 50 packs are affected.

If your percentage is 30% earnings are 0,59 $ for 50 pack and 0,87 $ for 10 pack.

Less than 2,85 in demand but more than 0,38 sub ...

« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2017, 10:24 »
0
anyway ss is till selling very good..after uploading big batch i got two good days...fotolia even uploading is not selling nothing for me...i don't know why but can't sell nothing in fotolia....i think fotolia is more oriented towards model released photos and studio stuff

« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2017, 10:25 »
+1
Yes, only 10 and 50 packs are affected.

If your percentage is 30% earnings are 0,59 $ for 50 pack and 0,87 $ for 10 pack.

Less than 2,85 in demand but more than 0,38 sub ...

considering that in demand are less and less every month...well it could be interesting if they can reach a good volume of sales.

« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2017, 10:39 »
0
Is 0,05 per download a new reality?

Testing New Pricing Plans for Customers
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/

Where does that say 0.05 per download? I see the member created chart but the answer from Alex doesn't say the same? He says on plan will be percentage others remain the same.

Has anyone gotten a 2c download from IS yet? I know we are kept in the dark and earnings might show in days or on the 20th. But has anyone actually been paid 2c for a download from IS on the new plan? Is that real?

« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2017, 10:48 »
0
Is 0,05 per download a new reality?

Testing New Pricing Plans for Customers
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/

Where does that say 0.05 per download? I see the member created chart but the answer from Alex doesn't say the same? He says on plan will be percentage others remain the same.

Has anyone gotten a 2c download from IS yet? I know we are kept in the dark and earnings might show in days or on the 20th. But has anyone actually been paid 2c for a download from IS on the new plan? Is that real?
We wont hear about those 2c sales for a while as it's on the subs program that isn't being reported at the moment. The 2c sales will also be a result of discounted sales, so I would expect them to ramp up over several months after reporting starts.

« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2017, 10:51 »
+3
If buyers use these instead of ODs then the amount to us will decrease - you can be sure this will not increase sales enough to make up for the royalty difference.

One statistic I track for all agencies every month is the amount earned per accepted image - this gives the best picture of how images on that agency are selling and indicates which are the best for future submissions.  For SS last month the number was the worst since May of 2009, just after I started.  Things look bad and are getting worse.  Even though I just do this part time and mainly for fun, it is hardly worth the effort to process, keyword and upload any more.  I suspect with this change we will have reached the tipping point, or at least this is the one that will do it for me. 

SS was the one agency that kept rolling along more or less steadily.  We will see how this plays out going forward, but as we have all seen in the past these sorts of announcements rarely work out well for contributors.

« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2017, 10:56 »
0
Is 0,05 per download a new reality?

Testing New Pricing Plans for Customers
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/

Where does that say 0.05 per download? I see the member created chart but the answer from Alex doesn't say the same? He says on plan will be percentage others remain the same.

Has anyone gotten a 2c download from IS yet? I know we are kept in the dark and earnings might show in days or on the 20th. But has anyone actually been paid 2c for a download from IS on the new plan? Is that real?

Even, I am wondering where did they said that royalty will be 2 cents. They are telling about the percentage royalty. Shutterstock is in a very good position in market and I am sure they care of both customers as well as contributors.
They have enough money that can be spent on marketing and other strategies. Remember they purchased a new floor in empire state building

Why getting so panic?

« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2017, 11:11 »
+1
Is 0,05 per download a new reality?

Testing New Pricing Plans for Customers
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/

Where does that say 0.05 per download? I see the member created chart but the answer from Alex doesn't say the same? He says on plan will be percentage others remain the same.

Has anyone gotten a 2c download from IS yet? I know we are kept in the dark and earnings might show in days or on the 20th. But has anyone actually been paid 2c for a download from IS on the new plan? Is that real?

Even, I am wondering where did they said that royalty will be 2 cents. They are telling about the percentage royalty. Shutterstock is in a very good position in market and I am sure they care of both customers as well as contributors.
They have enough money that can be spent on marketing and other strategies. Remember they purchased a new floor in empire state building

Why getting so panic?

2c was from IS, which is what a user/contributor calculated. I don't know, because another version said 10c. Well, how bad does it have to be? 2 or 10 it's still terrible. It might be panic and over reaction, that's been going on for a couple months now. It might be right and getting out before wasting more time there for nothing.

The user calculation for SS was 5 cents. Again, I don't know, until I see one. Alex wrote it was only for one plan, only on a test basis. Maybe I'll never get one of those. Maybe the 5c was for a different plan and a mistake?

I'm not going to make a claim either way, until we see the facts. As you can see, some others are ready to blame Trump, what the f does he have to do with a SS earnings thread? The panic is based on conjecture and supposition. That doesn't mean it's not right and the worst is just around the corner, but people whipped into angry mob scene with no facts, is ahead of the truth.

« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2017, 11:17 »
0
If buyers use these instead of ODs then the amount to us will decrease - you can be sure this will not increase sales enough to make up for the royalty difference.

One statistic I track for all agencies every month is the amount earned per accepted image - this gives the best picture of how images on that agency are selling and indicates which are the best for future submissions.  For SS last month the number was the worst since May of 2009, just after I started.  Things look bad and are getting worse.  Even though I just do this part time and mainly for fun, it is hardly worth the effort to process, keyword and upload any more.  I suspect with this change we will have reached the tipping point, or at least this is the one that will do it for me. 

SS was the one agency that kept rolling along more or less steadily.  We will see how this plays out going forward, but as we have all seen in the past these sorts of announcements rarely work out well for contributors.

well already decreased a lot the on demand.


« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2017, 11:31 »
+2

So I should include Obama said in all my messages from now on, as part of the title or Hillary promises?  ;) My point is, it's unnecessary to include the T word in a subject about SS possibly cutting earnings...
Yup, unnecessary and confusing

« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2017, 11:47 »
+1
I just kind of skim read it, but it doesn't look like they are changing the volume stuff...

Quote
Hi,

 

There is no change to contributor payouts for our 350 / 750 per month plans. When a customer downloads one of your images through the 350 / 750 plans, you will continue to receive $0.25 - $0.38 (depending on your lifetime earnings).

 

As mentioned before, these new test pricing plans are designed to attract a new set of customers who are looking for an offering somewhere between the Packs and the 350 / 750 subscriptions. These new customers will drive a new stream of downloads and earnings.

 

Youll be earning more per download through these 10 / 50 per month plans than you do for our large volume plans. For these test products, your earnings will be calculated as a percentage of the purchase price, according to your earning tier in the Custom Image / Enhanced License Image category.  You will see these earnings in the Single and Other column in your earnings summary.

 

Best,

 

Alex

« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2017, 11:53 »
+2
That said, it does look like it cannibalizes the image packs sales which is probably the real bread and butter now.

« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2017, 11:54 »
+1
Quote
The OD was decreased? When and how? Is that part of this new plan or something that slipped past recently? Mine haven't dropped yet, should I be ready for less income?

After the fotolia and adobe acquisition, shutterstock started being more active in building customers by various means. With lot of images being uploaded (mostly crap :) ) we still see that earnings are fair, we never saw any dead end.

There are many agencies including istock who do not want their contributors to earn inspite of being in good position.
I still don't know how someone calculated 2 cents and make everyone in panic. This new model is in testing more which clearly states that if this isn't successful it will be removed.

« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2017, 12:37 »
+2
Quote
The OD was decreased? When and how? Is that part of this new plan or something that slipped past recently? Mine haven't dropped yet, should I be ready for less income?

After the fotolia and adobe acquisition, shutterstock started being more active in building customers by various means. With lot of images being uploaded (mostly crap :) ) we still see that earnings are fair, we never saw any dead end.

There are many agencies including istock who do not want their contributors to earn inspite of being in good position.
I still don't know how someone calculated 2 cents and make everyone in panic. This new model is in testing more which clearly states that if this isn't successful it will be removed.

Thanks I didn't understand how ODs commissions were reduced?

Success means does the company make more and pay us less. Sorry, but as much as SS has held up commissions and played straight, they have to pay for that new space in the building.  :)

« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2017, 12:49 »
0
Quote
The OD was decreased? When and how? Is that part of this new plan or something that slipped past recently? Mine haven't dropped yet, should I be ready for less income?

After the fotolia and adobe acquisition, shutterstock started being more active in building customers by various means. With lot of images being uploaded (mostly crap :) ) we still see that earnings are fair, we never saw any dead end.

There are many agencies including istock who do not want their contributors to earn inspite of being in good position.
I still don't know how someone calculated 2 cents and make everyone in panic. This new model is in testing more which clearly states that if this isn't successful it will be removed.

The 2c was put forward by istock as a safety net for commissions that may not reach that sum.  Therefore, istock must envisage a scenario in which buyers will be paying much less for their subs packages, discounting.  Even so the buyer would need to redeem a good number of their discounted package for the payout to be less than 2c.

« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2017, 15:34 »
+1
I would say the market is ready for an Adobe take over!

I've been earning more with Adobe than with Shutterstock for a couple of months now. Shutterstock was once responsible for over 70% of my earnings, now it's barely 40%.

« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2017, 18:34 »
+1
Can we keep trump off this thread? This is about business and politics is off topic. I am not sure why the op chose to insert him here and it's too late to start a new thread.

I think the OP can change the title.   

« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2017, 20:04 »
+7
...The danger is of course that this is adopted across all subs upto 750 images after the trial period in which case earnings will be reduced.

I think the "danger" is that the higher-royalty on demand downloads get replaced with these new packs. At the 30% tier I get $2.85 for an OD (2/$29, 5/$49, 25/$229).

Why would you buy 2 images for $29 (or 5 for $49) when you could buy 10 for $49? The only thing you (currently) get extra for paying $29 for 2 is one year to use your downloads vs. one month).

I would get paid $1.47 for a download  under the trial scheme, a 48% cut in my royalty. That's if they pay by the month. It's worse if they buy an annual subscription, but that's a less obvious substitute for the OD packs.

It's a mistake to think that subscriptions are the royalties with which to compare for the one month packs. For an annual subscription, it's possible that the current 350 a month deal customers will switch to 50, and 60 cents a download vs. 38 cents would be a nice increase. Whether that makes up for how we get scr*#ed with the team subscriptions, I'm not sure :)

As the Premier Select segregation has all but removed SOD sales (of decent size) for me, zapping the OD income would be yet another cut.

Given the earnings call is coming up and given the attention last quarter to the slowdown in their paid download growth, SS will want to say they're doing something about lower downloads. I'm guessing this is it.

I posted a comment in the SS forum thread on this topic
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 03:42 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2017, 01:25 »
+1
Can we keep trump off this thread? This is about business and politics is off topic. I am not sure why the op chose to insert him here and it's too late to start a new thread.

Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? It seems that some people are tired of democracy. That's why so many protests these days. The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.


« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2017, 03:46 »
+16
...

Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? ...The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.


Perhaps you should read Leaf's guidelines (it's his forum that he runs and that some of us - anyone marked Premium member - pay for)? They include:

"When you start a new thread, please give the thread a descriptive subject."

You've mixed two subjects in the title: payments to SS contributors and US politics. I don't think your subject is descriptive.

« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2017, 05:54 »
+4
Can we keep trump off this thread? This is about business and politics is off topic. I am not sure why the op chose to insert him here and it's too late to start a new thread.

Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? It seems that some people are tired of democracy. That's why so many protests these days. The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.

You are a strange duck aren't you?

Jo Ann has explained it but let me reiterate.

Ignoring that you are talking about freedom of speech (and not understanding the fundamentals of even that) and not democracy. We are not in a democracy here, we are in a dictatorship, a benign dictatorship but still a dictatorship.

I am not taxed to pay for the bandwidth or the numerous other costs of this site and I don't get to vote on what titles you can use.

It was a suggestion to try and keep things organised as there's an "Off-topic" section to the site for politics and the like. You can choose to ignore the suggestion, I am free to make it and Tyler is free to boot any one of us or delete any post he likes (see how that works?)

« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2017, 11:42 »
+1
Can we keep trump off this thread? This is about business and politics is off topic. I am not sure why the op chose to insert him here and it's too late to start a new thread.

Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? It seems that some people are tired of democracy. That's why so many protests these days. The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.

You are a strange duck aren't you?

Jo Ann has explained it but let me reiterate.

Ignoring that you are talking about freedom of speech (and not understanding the fundamentals of even that) and not democracy. We are not in a democracy here, we are in a dictatorship, a benign dictatorship but still a dictatorship.

I am not taxed to pay for the bandwidth or the numerous other costs of this site and I don't get to vote on what titles you can use.

It was a suggestion to try and keep things organised as there's an "Off-topic" section to the site for politics and the like. You can choose to ignore the suggestion, I am free to make it and Tyler is free to boot any one of us or delete any post he likes (see how that works?)

Yes, Tyler Olson aka Leaf owns and runs this place. It's not a democracy. He's King or dictator or whatever anyone wants to call it, but he's captain of the MSG ship and makes the rules.  ;D

As for the actual topic, I'd agree with the people here who say this could replace what we have, if it works for the agency. That would make me very unhappy.

We haven't seen the results of the new and exciting changes at IS but I'll predict what it means. Less for us, more for them. And the same will be true with shared plans like the new SS test. If they make more, we get less and the plan is a success for the agency.

Not for us!

Wait I have an idea. Since SS is so profitable and we are the suppliers who helped make it that way, how about a raise. One more level for the true artists who make the sales, and were important for making SS what it is? Now there's a plan I could like.

« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2017, 11:58 »
+6
I closed my account at SS a month ago and I feel good about that.


« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2017, 12:46 »
+4

Yes, Tyler Olson aka Leaf owns and runs this place. It's not a democracy. He's King or dictator or whatever anyone wants to call it, but he's captain of the MSG ship and makes the rules.  ;D

As for the actual topic, I'd agree with the people here who say this could replace what we have, if it works for the agency. That would make me very unhappy.

We haven't seen the results of the new and exciting changes at IS but I'll predict what it means. Less for us, more for them. And the same will be true with shared plans like the new SS test. If they make more, we get less and the plan is a success for the agency.

Not for us!

Wait I have an idea. Since SS is so profitable and we are the suppliers who helped make it that way, how about a raise. One more level for the true artists who make the sales, and were important for making SS what it is? Now there's a plan I could like.

They gave us a raise every year for a few years, and we could still be getting one if we stopped taking lower rates from other sites. If they know we will take less why would they pay more? they are a business not a charity.

« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2017, 12:48 »
0
I closed my account at SS a month ago and I feel good about that.
Really ?

« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2017, 13:08 »
+3

Yes, Tyler Olson aka Leaf owns and runs this place. It's not a democracy. He's King or dictator or whatever anyone wants to call it, but he's captain of the MSG ship and makes the rules.  ;D

As for the actual topic, I'd agree with the people here who say this could replace what we have, if it works for the agency. That would make me very unhappy.

We haven't seen the results of the new and exciting changes at IS but I'll predict what it means. Less for us, more for them. And the same will be true with shared plans like the new SS test. If they make more, we get less and the plan is a success for the agency.

Not for us!

Wait I have an idea. Since SS is so profitable and we are the suppliers who helped make it that way, how about a raise. One more level for the true artists who make the sales, and were important for making SS what it is? Now there's a plan I could like.

They gave us a raise every year for a few years, and we could still be getting one if we stopped taking lower rates from other sites. If they know we will take less why would they pay more? they are a business not a charity.

That we, doesn't necessarily include me, and I agree. I stopped working for the parasites that have nothing to offer but low prices, low pay and driving down the value of our work. Race to the bottom and some agencies are still trying to win.

They make their money off our backs at worse than minimum wage. I'm not going to support any of them except three and one that takes special images for 50%. What I mean, it's not only based on income, but also ethics and value of my time.

iStock is on the edge of being irrelevant and dropped after this last move. How much is 15% of nearly nothing?

But your point exactaly. If people are willing to sell out and take less, why would any of them offer to pay us more? The same files on 100 sites, or 50 or 25, it's the same. The buyers and the agencies are making the profits and the workers are slaves. Willing victims is what it is.

I'm not going to take that. Too bad there are so many people desperate for low pay that they will supply the blood * cheap agencies that do nothing but drive down our worth.

alno

« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2017, 03:26 »
+5
Can we keep trump off this thread? This is about business and politics is off topic. I am not sure why the op chose to insert him here and it's too late to start a new thread.

Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? It seems that some people are tired of democracy. That's why so many protests these days. The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.

It's democracy, you are right. But Shutterstock is not solely an American company, I guess the number of US contributors is less than 30%. Maybe even less. I can understand your concerns about your new president but believe me, the rest of the world doensn't give a s*** about who lives in the White house and what he promises. 

dpimborough

« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2017, 04:06 »
+6
Actually US contributors make up less than 5% of contributors

Shutterstock relies on Thais, Russians and Ukrainians

http://www.microstock.top/index.phtml

« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2017, 10:10 »
+1
Actually US contributors make up less than 5% of contributors

Shutterstock relies on Thais, Russians and Ukrainians

http://www.microstock.top/index.phtml
Thats interesting but those stats don't really pass the sniff test...they just don't look plausible to me. I could be wrong of course


niktol

« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2017, 10:31 »
+1
Actually, the numbers look reasonable. Residents of countries with a lower cost of living are more likely to participate because the incentive is higher.

« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2017, 10:44 »
+1
Can we keep trump off this thread? This is about business and politics is off topic. I am not sure why the op chose to insert him here and it's too late to start a new thread.


Isn't democracy allow us to choose titles we want? It seems that some people are tired of democracy. That's why so many protests these days. The topic is about SS unfair payment. If you do not like the title, please read the rest.


It's democracy, you are right. But Shutterstock is not solely an American company, I guess the number of US contributors is less than 30%. Maybe even less. I can understand your concerns about your new president but believe me, the rest of the world doensn't give a s*** about who lives in the White house and what he promises.




« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2017, 11:36 »
+5
I removed a couple posts from this thread - trying to keep the discussion on topic.

dpimborough

« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2017, 12:12 »
+1
Actually US contributors make up less than 5% of contributors

Shutterstock relies on Thais, Russians and Ukrainians

http://www.microstock.top/index.phtml
Thats interesting but those stats don't really pass the sniff test...they just don't look plausible to me. I could be wrong of course


Those stats are gleaned from the Shutterstock site itself.

« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2017, 18:31 »
+2
Yes I know and its kind of academic but when you look at the table of the 1.6 million registered contributors only 165,000 have more than 0 images which makes me wonder about the overall accuracy.  The South American, African, Indian contributors are way down...is there something about Thailand I'm missing? Is the population of Andora (79,000) totally comprised of photographers? ...14th in the table They took a relatively small small sample I suspect some kind of bias has crept into it.

niktol

« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2017, 20:48 »
0
Tax residencies perhaps? Who knows...

« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2017, 22:39 »
+1
Yes I know and its kind of academic but when you look at the table of the 1.6 million registered contributors only 165,000 have more than 0 images which makes me wonder about the overall accuracy.  The South American, African, Indian contributors are way down...is there something about Thailand I'm missing? Is the population of Andora (79,000) totally comprised of photographers? ...14th in the table They took a relatively small small sample I suspect some kind of bias has crept into it.

I was in Thailand before 3 years, I am sure there arent enough people who can buy nice camera and take good photos. I dont know why they are listed as one of the bigger contributor countries.

« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2017, 07:15 »
+1
Yes I know and its kind of academic but when you look at the table of the 1.6 million registered contributors only 165,000 have more than 0 images which makes me wonder about the overall accuracy.  The South American, African, Indian contributors are way down...is there something about Thailand I'm missing? Is the population of Andora (79,000) totally comprised of photographers? ...14th in the table They took a relatively small small sample I suspect some kind of bias has crept into it.

I was in Thailand before 3 years, I am sure there arent enough people who can buy nice camera and take good photos. I dont know why they are listed as one of the bigger contributor countries.
Isn't Thailand a top destination for nomad type westerners bootstrapping their businesses? I think there is quite a community of young Western designers and illustrators that work from Thailand to keep costs down.

« Reply #65 on: February 05, 2017, 07:24 »
+2
Is the population of Andora (79,000) totally comprised of photographers? ...14th in the table They took a relatively small small sample I suspect some kind of bias has crept into it.

If 176 out of 79,000 equals 100% to you, then yes... Naturally, the answer is no.

« Reply #66 on: February 05, 2017, 07:25 »
+2
I was in Thailand before 3 years, I am sure there arent enough people who can buy nice camera and take good photos. I dont know why they are listed as one of the bigger contributor countries.

Are you kidding? Sure, the average income isn't anywhere close to the UK but to say that 1,823 people can't afford a DSLR is a bit ridiculous. Out of a population of 67 million... 6.3 million in the modern city of Bangkok alone.


ShadySue

« Reply #67 on: February 05, 2017, 08:08 »
+1
I was in Thailand before 3 years, I am sure there arent enough people who can buy nice camera and take good photos. I dont know why they are listed as one of the bigger contributor countries.

Are you kidding? Sure, the average income isn't anywhere close to the UK but to say that 1,823 people can't afford a DSLR is a bit ridiculous. Out of a population of 67 million... 6.3 million in the modern city of Bangkok alone.

Also I can't speak about Thailand, but I know equipment is a lot cheaper in many other countries than it is in the UK (and at least one where it is, or at least was, much more expensive!). Partly due to taxes, partly because it seems that manufacturers price according to the market.

« Reply #68 on: February 05, 2017, 08:15 »
0
Yes I know and its kind of academic but when you look at the table of the 1.6 million registered contributors only 165,000 have more than 0 images which makes me wonder about the overall accuracy.  The South American, African, Indian contributors are way down...is there something about Thailand I'm missing? Is the population of Andora (79,000) totally comprised of photographers? ...14th in the table They took a relatively small small sample I suspect some kind of bias has crept into it.

I was in Thailand before 3 years, I am sure there arent enough people who can buy nice camera and take good photos. I dont know why they are listed as one of the bigger contributor countries.
Isn't Thailand a top destination for nomad type westerners bootstrapping their businesses? I think there is quite a community of young Western designers and illustrators that work from Thailand to keep costs down.
I can see thats a possibility but still think its a stretch to think they are no 1.
 

« Reply #69 on: February 05, 2017, 08:20 »
+1
Is the population of Andora (79,000) totally comprised of photographers? ...14th in the table They took a relatively small small sample I suspect some kind of bias has crept into it.

If 176 out of 79,000 equals 100% to you, then yes... Naturally, the answer is no.
I was being a bit sarcastic but its still an extraordinarly high proportion of the population don't you think? Tax reasons maybe.

« Reply #70 on: February 05, 2017, 08:51 »
0
Also I can't speak about Thailand, but I know equipment is a lot cheaper in many other countries than it is in the UK (and at least one where it is, or at least was, much more expensive!). Partly due to taxes, partly because it seems that manufacturers price according to the market.

Well, brand equipment is rarely cheaper than Hong Kong or the US. It's just that there are more knock-offs in certain countries.

That being said, even in so called "poor" countries (which Thailand isn't really), there are plenty of rich people, and plenty of middle-class people able to afford whatever middle-class people in the UK can afford. The countryside is a different story.

niktol

« Reply #71 on: February 05, 2017, 09:49 »
0
Despite of a couple of apparent statistical outliers (where the fact that only about 10% of people creating an account with a few keystrokes can be bothered with uploading anything really isn't), the main point which started the discussion remains IMO pretty valid. The US isn't the largest supplier of active stock contributors. This isn't surprising at all. The major theme of this (English language) forum is doom and gloom.

We can ask Irina Anosova if Russians feel the same about stock photography or they are much more optimistic about it.

Perhaps being "poor" is a relative and sometimes subjective term. If defined as the purchasing power of discretionary income, could the photographers living in the West be considered to be the ones who are poor?

« Reply #72 on: February 05, 2017, 10:17 »
0
Despite of a couple of apparent statistical outliers (where the fact that only about 10% of people creating an account with a few keystrokes can be bothered with uploading anything really isn't), the main point which started the discussion remains IMO pretty valid. The US isn't the largest supplier of active stock contributors. This isn't surprising at all. The major theme of this (English language) forum is doom and gloom.

We can ask Irina Anosova if Russians feel the same about stock photography or they are much more optimistic about it.

Perhaps being "poor" is a relative and sometimes subjective term. If defined as the purchasing power of discretionary income, could the photographers living in the West be considered to be the ones who are poor?

maybe not poor, but poor-ly paid. yes... definitely. if you consider that 38 cts to 2.50 or whatever
is your pay for the use of your photo, definitely poorly paid.
it's much like the other commodity, coffee beans, clothing, flip-flop, etc..
you pay pennies to a worker in the third world and get the same product as someone in USA
or UK paid enough in one day which the third world worker could do well in a week or whatever.

going global does not benefit the first world. even MacDonald's, telemarketing etc know that in the first world, when they hire a third world refugee and get a happy smiling worker serving customers,
as opposed to a 3rd generation immigrant itizen, who "belongs" there who sulks over being paid minimum wage even if both are equally educated with high school and no experience.

microstock is the result of going global. it's been ages since i was paid 150 dollars for a session
, when i was then, a mere apprentice using a view or medium format film camera.
today, with decades of experience, i don't even get what i use to pay for coffee. LOL
when they hire

niktol

« Reply #73 on: February 05, 2017, 10:27 »
0
The difference between a stock photographer in a big city, USA, and a stock photographer in Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, etc. isn't necessarily that the latter ask for less. They just get it for less.

The subject of purchasing power disparity isn't something new. If I remember correctly Mark Twain addressed this subject in his "Connecticut Yankee". That's 19th century economics.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 10:35 by niktol »

JimP

« Reply #74 on: February 05, 2017, 11:13 »
0
Actually US contributors make up less than 5% of contributors

Shutterstock relies on Thais, Russians and Ukrainians

http://www.microstock.top/index.phtml
Thats interesting but those stats don't really pass the sniff test...they just don't look plausible to me. I could be wrong of course


Those stats are gleaned from the Shutterstock site itself.


From Shutterstock itself makes me believe it's accurate to the point that 25% are unknown. Poverty and cost of living can make an investment very difficult to get started. Artists do not need a camera.

« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2017, 14:37 »
+3
Despite of a couple of apparent statistical outliers (where the fact that only about 10% of people creating an account with a few keystrokes can be bothered with uploading anything really isn't), the main point which started the discussion remains IMO pretty valid. The US isn't the largest supplier of active stock contributors. This isn't surprising at all. The major theme of this (English language) forum is doom and gloom.

We can ask Irina Anosova if Russians feel the same about stock photography or they are much more optimistic about it.

Perhaps being "poor" is a relative and sometimes subjective term. If defined as the purchasing power of discretionary income, could the photographers living in the West be considered to be the ones who are poor?
Yes I agree with that I would just be wary about using those particular stats.....I may be jaundiced but in my past life I've seen too many people using dodgy data to support their conclusions and dismissing credible data that doesn't align with their argument.

« Reply #76 on: February 08, 2017, 15:57 »
+1

I think the "danger" is that the higher-royalty on demand downloads get replaced with these new packs. At the 30% tier I get $2.85 for an OD (2/$29, 5/$49, 25/$229).

Why would you buy 2 images for $29 (or 5 for $49) when you could buy 10 for $49? The only thing you (currently) get extra for paying $29 for 2 is one year to use your downloads vs. one month).

I would get paid $1.47 for a download  under the trial scheme, a 48% cut in my royalty. That's if they pay by the month. It's worse if they buy an annual subscription, but that's a less obvious substitute for the OD packs.

It's a mistake to think that subscriptions are the royalties with which to compare for the one month packs. For an annual subscription, it's possible that the current 350 a month deal customers will switch to 50, and 60 cents a download vs. 38 cents would be a nice increase. Whether that makes up for how we get scr*#ed with the team subscriptions, I'm not sure :)

As the Premier Select segregation has all but removed SOD sales (of decent size) for me, zapping the OD income would be yet another cut.

Given the earnings call is coming up and given the attention last quarter to the slowdown in their paid download growth, SS will want to say they're doing something about lower downloads. I'm guessing this is it.

I posted a comment in the SS forum thread on this topic

You were right, my on demand sales fall more than 50% than usual
people will choose $29/month for 10 images instead of $29/year for 2 images
I'm so frustrating, hope SS will cancel their new pricing plan


« Reply #77 on: February 08, 2017, 18:11 »
+1
think like this, someone needs a few images, like 3-5 or so, he can either spend 60 dollar to get 4 images, or pay a subscription plan for 350 images, its all too cumbersome and expensive and overkill, so he goes to canstock and buy the 4 images and pay $24 with his credit card.

but now, he can buy 10 images for 29 dollar, so he buys his 5 images, and get another 5 for the next blog.

In scenario 1 you would have gotten 0 dollar, and in scenario 2 you would get $8.70

« Reply #78 on: February 08, 2017, 18:45 »
+10
No one cares about CanStock.

It's Adobe Stock that SS is worried about. Their 10 image pack/subscription/whatever is priced the same as Adobe's. If someone goes to Adobe and buys, I get a 33% royalty; at SS I get 30%, so I'd be quite happy if they want to Adobe Stock

I'd rather they kept buying the On Demand at SS where I collect $2.85, but if that goes away, then I'm better off if the customer buys at the competition.

« Reply #79 on: February 09, 2017, 01:59 »
0
i think i didn't make my point clear enough then

« Reply #80 on: February 09, 2017, 03:32 »
0
No one cares about CanStock.

It's Adobe Stock that SS is worried about. Their 10 image pack/subscription/whatever is priced the same as Adobe's. If someone goes to Adobe and buys, I get a 33% royalty; at SS I get 30%, so I'd be quite happy if they want to Adobe Stock

I'd rather they kept buying the On Demand at SS where I collect $2.85, but if that goes away, then I'm better off if the customer buys at the competition.
Yes but I can understand why SS wouldn't be so pleased. I'd rather they didn't do it but its hardly the death of Microstock plenty of worse deals for us out there.

« Reply #81 on: February 09, 2017, 03:40 »
0
And at FT/Adobe for 5 pics I'd be likely to get about $1.25 in total at my pathetic royalty rate.
:(

« Reply #82 on: March 16, 2017, 14:01 »
+4
Apparently the new plans are permanent as SS deemed the trial a success in bringing in new subscribers.

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/?p=1601776

If the first half of March vs. February is any sort of guide, my dribs-and-drabs SODs, all of which I assume are some sort of subscription dressed up with a special name, are right now 3x the whole of February's SODs, but as that amounts to just under $13, I'm not going to get too excited -  that's one bad day's subscriptions, so woo yea... :)

« Reply #83 on: March 17, 2017, 14:25 »
+1
Apparently the new plans are permanent as SS deemed the trial a success in bringing in new subscribers.

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/?p=1601776

If the first half of March vs. February is any sort of guide, my dribs-and-drabs SODs, all of which I assume are some sort of subscription dressed up with a special name, are right now 3x the whole of February's SODs, but as that amounts to just under $13, I'm not going to get too excited -  that's one bad day's subscriptions, so woo yea... :)

Feb was my WM in 3 yrs, while Mar is on track for BME.  so much for consistency -- in both cases largely due to OD & single sales and older images

« Reply #84 on: March 18, 2017, 14:29 »
0
february rocked, march sucks ass.so much for consistency

« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2017, 12:09 »
0
Haven't seen a $2.38 'standard' SOD for days. But quite a few at 58, 77 and 90 c. 
OK, better than some sites but still  :(

« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2017, 14:05 »
0
This month's On Demand numbers (so far) are about the same as January and about half February's.

The new packages - that produce 0.87, 1.47; 0.59,  0.75 - are marginally more, but it's a dribble that's essentially a rounding error in the month's totals.

I happened upon this thread that gives a clue as to the prices Shutterstock charges for their Premier accounts. It really sucks that only a subset of their contributors get to play in that sandbox...

https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/4wmxij/shutterstock_pricing_i_dont_even_know_what_to_say/



derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2017, 14:32 »
+1
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.

Shelma1

« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2017, 14:59 »
0
This month's On Demand numbers (so far) are about the same as January and about half February's.

The new packages - that produce 0.87, 1.47; 0.59,  0.75 - are marginally more, but it's a dribble that's essentially a rounding error in the month's totals.

I happened upon this thread that gives a clue as to the prices Shutterstock charges for their Premier accounts. It really sucks that only a subset of their contributors get to play in that sandbox...

https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/4wmxij/shutterstock_pricing_i_dont_even_know_what_to_say/

Wow. That's a low price. When I was freelancing in an ad agency 2 years ago their Premier prices were $250 for web and $500 for print. That's back when we were getting the big SOD's. They must be offering special low prices now. Which would explain why SOD royalties have plummeted.

« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2017, 16:01 »
0
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2017, 18:39 »
+2
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that?

Must be on the 'historical breakdown of total monthly SS sales by country' page... which I'm yet to find.

« Reply #91 on: March 28, 2017, 02:32 »
+3
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that?

Must be on the 'historical breakdown of total monthly SS sales by country' page... which I'm yet to find.
Or their "punishment" list.....people who sell too much and are capped, people from certain countries that SS don't like and people that SS are out to get cos they just don't like them.Considering they seem barely able to keep the site running I'm very impressed with these algorithms they produce that do all this and still keep customers supplied with images they want to buy.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #92 on: March 28, 2017, 03:55 »
0
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that?

Must be on the 'historical breakdown of total monthly SS sales by country' page... which I'm yet to find.
Or their "punishment" list.....people who sell too much and are capped, people from certain countries that SS don't like and people that SS are out to get cos they just don't like them.Considering they seem barely able to keep the site running I'm very impressed with these algorithms they produce that do all this and still keep customers supplied with images they want to buy.

Well whats the cost of living in these three countries? possibly a quarter of our costs in Europe or the US. So SS throws these countries $.10-$.20 bucks a day and its a small fortune. In return they shoot anything millions and millions of files and uploading like crazy some 50 times more then we can do. These countries are creating BIG assets for SS and that is whats its all about. When your dealing with shareholders then assets and profits is all that matters.

I might be completely wrong of course and they are simply doing this from the good of their hearts.

« Reply #93 on: March 28, 2017, 04:24 »
0
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that?

Must be on the 'historical breakdown of total monthly SS sales by country' page... which I'm yet to find.
Or their "punishment" list.....people who sell too much and are capped, people from certain countries that SS don't like and people that SS are out to get cos they just don't like them.Considering they seem barely able to keep the site running I'm very impressed with these algorithms they produce that do all this and still keep customers supplied with images they want to buy.

Well whats the cost of living in these three countries? possibly a quarter of our costs in Europe or the US. So SS throws these countries $.10-$.20 bucks a day and its a small fortune. In return they shoot anything millions and millions of files and uploading like crazy some 50 times more then we can do. These countries are creating BIG assets for SS and that is whats its all about. When your dealing with shareholders then assets and profits is all that matters.

I might be completely wrong of course and they are simply doing this from the good of their hearts.
Lifes not fair get used to it ;-)

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #94 on: March 28, 2017, 04:26 »
0
Steady decline since new year! for western people that is. This business is booming in Russia Poland and Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that?

Must be on the 'historical breakdown of total monthly SS sales by country' page... which I'm yet to find.
Or their "punishment" list.....people who sell too much and are capped, people from certain countries that SS don't like and people that SS are out to get cos they just don't like them.Considering they seem barely able to keep the site running I'm very impressed with these algorithms they produce that do all this and still keep customers supplied with images they want to buy.

Well whats the cost of living in these three countries? possibly a quarter of our costs in Europe or the US. So SS throws these countries $.10-$.20 bucks a day and its a small fortune. In return they shoot anything millions and millions of files and uploading like crazy some 50 times more then we can do. These countries are creating BIG assets for SS and that is whats its all about. When your dealing with shareholders then assets and profits is all that matters.

I might be completely wrong of course and they are simply doing this from the good of their hearts.
Lifes not fair get used to it ;-)

haha!  " never give a sucker an even break"  W.C. Fields!

« Reply #95 on: March 28, 2017, 08:18 »
0
Apparently the new plans are permanent as SS deemed the trial a success in bringing in new subscribers.

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/?p=1601776

If the first half of March vs. February is any sort of guide, my dribs-and-drabs SODs, all of which I assume are some sort of subscription dressed up with a special name, are right now 3x the whole of February's SODs, but as that amounts to just under $13, I'm not going to get too excited -  that's one bad day's subscriptions, so woo yea... :)

Feb was my WM in 3 yrs, while Mar is on track for BME.  so much for consistency -- in both cases largely due to OD & single sales and older images

That's been my experience exactly - Jan was the worst in more than two years, Feb only a little better and March a BME by quite a bit with some still to go.  This month I am getting something besides a sub every 5.5 DLs while in Jan it was one out of ten.  SODs have ranged from $0.87 to $75 and even had a couple of ELs.  RPDL so far this month is $2.58 so can't complain.  Without the high-value (including clip) sales though it would be bad as overall volume is about 35% below what it was a couple years ago.  Last time I had a BME on SS was March of 2015 so this month is quite something.  I am happy while it lasts but am assuming it is a statistical fluke and will get back to normal next month.  I don't think the new pricing plan has had any effect as only two of the SODs were below $2.

nicksimages

  • contact : nicksimages.com
« Reply #96 on: April 07, 2017, 07:30 »
0
I too can confirm very bad Jan and Feb, and very good March which is my BME
The difference is significant


« Reply #97 on: April 07, 2017, 08:10 »
+1
March very much on the low end at SS for me.  The SOD's are make or break and even harder to get with decent money. Been seeing a lot of very small SOD's. Overall subs way down, and video is down as well. Sure does seem like something changed.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #98 on: April 07, 2017, 13:56 »
+2
Feels like my port has been shut off in search, I have fewer sales and it's mostly older files.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5649 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 15:40
by Adeptris
11 Replies
4424 Views
Last post May 06, 2011, 08:07
by fotografer
7 Replies
1942 Views
Last post March 07, 2015, 13:11
by pixel8
38 Replies
8127 Views
Last post May 17, 2015, 02:16
by dpimborough
51 Replies
8483 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 13:52
by PixelBytes

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results