MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 8.40$ for Enhanced License at shutterstock  (Read 5163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

spc

« on: July 16, 2020, 05:31 »
0
I got 8.40$ for an enhanced download a few days ago.

I just checked the enhanced packs and the cheapest option is 67.96 per image. Isn't my comission supposed to be calculated based on the price per image? I'm in level 5 and 8.40 is even less than 15%. Am I missing something?

Did anyone else get this amount for enhanced downloads?


« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2020, 05:55 »
0
I have never a EL on SS

$8,40 seems a bit low, maybe a discount action?

« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2020, 07:42 »
+7
I got 8.40$ for an enhanced download a few days ago.

I'm old enough and have been around the stock photography world long enough to remember when $28 was SS's royalty for an EL. And from my first days there in 2009, even with a much smaller portfolio I somehow managed to get a good many of them.

Then, a few years ago, SS dropped its EL royalty to $18, and with that drop came a decrease in the number of ELs showing up.

So now, based on your report, it seems to be down another ten bucks. Like everything else at SS, totally not worth the bother.

I left iStock in 2011 when they began playing these games. Sad to see SS going the same route, but it sure as heck does feel good to be outta there now.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2020, 08:01 by marthamarks »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2020, 08:37 »
+2
I got 8.40$ for an enhanced download a few days ago.

I just checked the enhanced packs and the cheapest option is 67.96 per image. Isn't my comission supposed to be calculated based on the price per image? I'm in level 5 and 8.40 is even less than 15%. Am I missing something?

Did anyone else get this amount for enhanced downloads?

Without knowing the inside details, the math says: The buyer paid $24 for the EL, you got $8.40

You get your percentage from what the buyer actually pays, not the advertised starting price. Some buyers make deals and get a lower price, so we get a lower commission, ##% of a smaller starting number. This is where commissions based on percentages, instead of the former flat value figures, will change what we make.

What's been happening is, SS has offered us a flat pay for sales. Take a subscription and the artist gets 38 cents. At the same time, competition has driven down the prices and SS has dropped prices, so each time they made a sale, they made less. Part of subscriptions in the past was, buyers paying a fee and then not using all their subscriptions. The agency made 100% profit on that, because they did have to pay us anything, for unused downloads.

Also the market has changed and SS has moved over to more and more API partners and distributors. They get what they pay for, they don't pay for a subscription and leave downloads unused, that they paid for in advance. But they pay a lower subscription price.

By changing to percentage, we are only going to get a part of the ACTUAL price.

Level 1, <= 100 = 15%
Level 2, 101 - 250 = 20%
Level 3, 251 - 500 = 25%
Level 4, 501 - 2,500 = 30%
Level 5, 2,501 - 25,000 = 35%
Level 6, > 25,000 = 40%

Minimum is 10 cents, which means if some big buyer has a deal and pays, 25c an image, instead of us getting .075 we get 10c. No that's not anything to cheer about, but that also means SS is paying us more than our true commission when a buyer gets a extremely low price for images.

It's difficult for me to understand how some buyer would pay less than 25c a download or use, so that people on level 6 are still getting only 10c commission. But that's what the numbers say? I think there's some Facebook deal where they use images for advertising and pay on a contract,which could be lower than 25 a use, we'll all get 10c a use for those.

I just got an OD for less than I was getting before June. I also get those 10c subs like everyone else and yesterday I got a .50 sub and a .72 sub, both higher than the value I used to get. The problem is, not enough of these to make up for the 10-11-12 subs? So some are better and others are lower.

No I haven't had an EL in a long time.

« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2020, 10:20 »
+1
I had no enhanced licence sale since SS introduced the new payment structure, but before that I already had an EL for as low as 9,51$ in 2019, so at least that's nothing new.

« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2020, 05:07 »
+3

Minimum is 10 cents, which means if some big buyer has a deal and pays, 25c an image, instead of us getting .075 we get 10c. No that's not anything to cheer about, but that also means SS is paying us more than our true commission when a buyer gets a extremely low price for images.


In most cases this is not true. Don't forget that most clients do not download all images in their subs-plan, but SS pays us % only of the downloaded images. They keep 100% for the ones the buyer did not download.


It's difficult for me to understand how some buyer would pay less than 25c a download or use, so that people on level 6 are still getting only 10c commission. But that's what the numbers say? I think there's some Facebook deal where they use images for advertising and pay on a contract,which could be lower than 25 a use, we'll all get 10c a use for those.


Very simple: image pack with 9000 downloads for $1999 (=0.22 per image).

« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2020, 11:21 »
+1
Once upon a time. SS paid me over 100 bucks for what i think we're  Enhanced Licence. I may have the name wrong but back in the day i got maybe 40-50 of those EL over 100 bucks. i think the highest was around 170.00..Those were the days.....Now I am just an old man....gumming my porage. 

« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2020, 15:11 »
0

Minimum is 10 cents, which means if some big buyer has a deal and pays, 25c an image, instead of us getting .075 we get 10c. No that's not anything to cheer about, but that also means SS is paying us more than our true commission when a buyer gets a extremely low price for images.


In most cases this is not true. Don't forget that most clients do not download all images in their subs-plan, but SS pays us % only of the downloaded images. They keep 100% for the ones the buyer did not download.


It's difficult for me to understand how some buyer would pay less than 25c a download or use, so that people on level 6 are still getting only 10c commission. But that's what the numbers say? I think there's some Facebook deal where they use images for advertising and pay on a contract,which could be lower than 25 a use, we'll all get 10c a use for those.


Very simple: image pack with 9000 downloads for $1999 (=0.22 per image).

How many buyers use their whole pack and how many don't? .22 per image, 9000 pack, would be losing .24 per image. $2160 lost when the buyer downloads 9000. That doesn't seem very smart. If the buyer uses half their subscription, SS loses $1080 makes $990 for no download, which is a net loss of $90. Who buys a 9000 subscription and only downloads half?

Shutterstock is not an artists charity.

« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2021, 10:09 »
0

Minimum is 10 cents, which means if some big buyer has a deal and pays, 25c an image, instead of us getting .075 we get 10c. No that's not anything to cheer about, but that also means SS is paying us more than our true commission when a buyer gets a extremely low price for images.


In most cases this is not true. Don't forget that most clients do not download all images in their subs-plan, but SS pays us % only of the downloaded images. They keep 100% for the ones the buyer did not download.


It's difficult for me to understand how some buyer would pay less than 25c a download or use, so that people on level 6 are still getting only 10c commission. But that's what the numbers say? I think there's some Facebook deal where they use images for advertising and pay on a contract,which could be lower than 25 a use, we'll all get 10c a use for those.


Very simple: image pack with 9000 downloads for $1999 (=0.22 per image).

How many buyers use their whole pack and how many don't? .22 per image, 9000 pack, would be losing .24 per image. $2160 lost when the buyer downloads 9000. That doesn't seem very smart. If the buyer uses half their subscription, SS loses $1080 makes $990 for no download, which is a net loss of $90. Who buys a 9000 subscription and only downloads half?

Shutterstock is not an artists charity.

Sorry, I know this is old, but I just found your reply. You seem like talking down to me, but really, it's just simple math.  SS pays $900 (out of $1900) to artists, if the client downloads all 9000 files. (9000 x $0.1 = $900). I don't see where their loss is. If the client downloads less, SS gains even more. 

« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2021, 09:52 »
+4
Oh, my God! You still uploading to this abomination. Forget about this site.

« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2021, 10:49 »
+3
People like to be screwed by Shitterstock, i think! ::)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2021, 12:15 »
0

Minimum is 10 cents, which means if some big buyer has a deal and pays, 25c an image, instead of us getting .075 we get 10c. No that's not anything to cheer about, but that also means SS is paying us more than our true commission when a buyer gets a extremely low price for images.


In most cases this is not true. Don't forget that most clients do not download all images in their subs-plan, but SS pays us % only of the downloaded images. They keep 100% for the ones the buyer did not download.


It's difficult for me to understand how some buyer would pay less than 25c a download or use, so that people on level 6 are still getting only 10c commission. But that's what the numbers say? I think there's some Facebook deal where they use images for advertising and pay on a contract,which could be lower than 25 a use, we'll all get 10c a use for those.


Very simple: image pack with 9000 downloads for $1999 (=0.22 per image).

How many buyers use their whole pack and how many don't? .22 per image, 9000 pack, would be losing .24 per image. $2160 lost when the buyer downloads 9000. That doesn't seem very smart. If the buyer uses half their subscription, SS loses $1080 makes $990 for no download, which is a net loss of $90. Who buys a 9000 subscription and only downloads half?

Shutterstock is not an artists charity.

Sorry, I know this is old, but I just found your reply. You seem like talking down to me, but really, it's just simple math.  SS pays $900 (out of $1900) to artists, if the client downloads all 9000 files. (9000 x $0.1 = $900). I don't see where their loss is. If the client downloads less, SS gains even more.

I'm not sure what they are saying but, maybe something like this.



I don't see a 9000 pack? Oh well, the 9,000 divided by 12, is 750 a month, and the annual prepaid plan I'll guess? That seems to fit the worst case.

SS gets 22 cents a download, which would be $1900, I think you said that. And at the old rate, we'd get as a new person, 25c a download or cost the company $350. The total for contributors at the top old level 38 cents would earn them $3,400 at the cost of $1,520 for the company. That's a loss of somewhere between $350 and $1,520 with the old levels.

Now if we make a percentage commission and it would have been .033 cents using the above chart, they still lose money, but promise to pay us 10c instead of 3.3 cents at 15%. Anything in the pink, should work out that the company is losing money, but paying us, over our actual percentage.

I'm generally unhappy about the annual reset, which could have been a rolling average, calculated each year or something more reasonable than, Go Back to Start, thank you for your diligent efforts supplying us with great images. (sarcastic no thanks)

I can understand they have people who stopped uploading years ago, that are at the highest rate, and just resting. But if the images sell, what's wrong? The claim is SS wants to reward the people who are working hard now. Does that matter? If I make $500 selling old images or $500 selling new images, what's the difference? So I find their claim that this is to reward us, is just pouring on the syrup to make some sour dealings look sweet.

Anyway if I understood the math and argument right, old system, SS was losing money with the pay scales and levels, because they cut the subs packs or because they were always losing money on those, under the assumption that buyers would seldom use the whole pack. If they raise prices, buyers will leave and go someplace else. That leaves the last resort, the bottom of the food chain, which is unfortunately us.

Check my math.  :) I've been known to look deep into things and miss the obvious that right on top.

No I don't like the cut, or the reset, I'm just looking at what happened and why.

« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2021, 17:36 »
+3
Ultimately they cut their prices so much they couldnt afford to pay the commissions.
Then decided the only way to go is cut those and continue to reduce end user price.

Its pretty much the identical thought process to iStock.

Ultimately it all comes down to them mispricing their product.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2021, 18:13 »
+3
Ultimately they cut their prices so much they couldnt afford to pay the commissions.
Then decided the only way to go is cut those and continue to reduce end user price.

Its pretty much the identical thought process to iStock.

Ultimately it all comes down to them mispricing their product.


It seems to me there's no such thing as "mispricing" their product, their bean counters are way too savvy to make a rookie mistake. More likely it was a ploy to create market dominance with attractive stunt prices and then rake in the actual rewards by cutting our commissions.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2021, 11:20 »
0
Ultimately they cut their prices so much they couldnt afford to pay the commissions.
Then decided the only way to go is cut those and continue to reduce end user price.

Its pretty much the identical thought process to iStock.

Ultimately it all comes down to them mispricing their product.

True but another part of that is they were under pricing the product - subscription downloads, from the start. The idea was always stated that they based that on buyers not using the entire purchase. Even at 25c for us, some of the income from subs was lower than the cost.

Remember the scheme or at least the math calculation, that someone could buy a subscription, download every image, and make a profit. That was true back before 2010, so the price has always been below the commissions.

This isn't mis-pricing, it's the result of being forced into competitive pricing.

Lets say SS decides to be kind and go back to paying us a minimum of a crummy quarter. They can either give us 25% of every dollar or 15% of $1.66 an image. Currently that's roughly the 50 image, annual package price. The cost per image for the 350 is 57c at best and 750 33c for a single seat.

Lets look at the competition a little?

DT = 750 $2,028 USD/12 months 9,000 images cost per image .225 cents
IS charges $1,992 for the same which is 22c an image. Minimum is 2 cents for a DL for us by the way.
123RF charges 90c an image, how are they doing for you in sales and income?

But you want SS to charge $1.66?

SS charges $2,388 for the same annual sub pack that DT or IS do above and that's 27c an image.

Who's under pricing? Maybe all of them. But the simple point it, if SS charges $1.66 an image, so they can pay us 25 cents, we'll have no buyers and they will go out of business and we'll be out of the market selling through SS.

Check my math please. SS is actually charging more, but people are so angry they don't take the time to look at the real market or what the competition is charging.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
5144 Views
Last post July 06, 2007, 09:02
by GeoPappas
10 Replies
5407 Views
Last post May 07, 2008, 12:17
by strikerx98
3 Replies
2997 Views
Last post July 31, 2008, 11:48
by rene
11 Replies
4137 Views
Last post August 14, 2008, 17:43
by Dreamframer
5 Replies
2278 Views
Last post March 13, 2015, 13:44
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle