If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.
If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.
Because in June when a large number of people suddenly had no day job and no income at all they couldnt afford (nor would it be sensible) to deliberately stop the few hundred/thousand dollars they'd get from SS just to make a point...
You need money to pay rent and buy food, not likes.
SS timing for them was either very lucky or very deliberate and i cant decide which.
If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.
Reality. With so many people or their spouses out of work due to pandemic, some people simply cannot afford to close of any avenue of income-- it can mean the difference between being able to eat or not.
You can bet SS knew that and used the timing to their advantage.
That being said, earnings on SS are pathetic. Sales with low earner agencies now overtaking SS. I just had 1 sale on new to me agency---that sale alreadhy more than made on SS this month.
I am not uploading new work to SS. As soon as sales with new agencies add some income, wil lbe ditching SS.
If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.
...
So it’s better to get much less over a period of years than to sacrifice two weeks of royalties once?...
Instead of losing two weeks’ pay, you’re losing 13 weeks’ pay if you had a 50% royalty decrease for the second half of 2020. And in 2021 it will be much worse, because the vast majority of people won’t get back to their “old” royalty rate, which is still 50% lower than it used to be, for months, if ever.
So it’s better to get much less over a period of years than to sacrifice two weeks of royalties once? If you disabled your port for the second half of June, at worst you’d lose 4% of your Shutterstock income for 2020 (actually less, since you made higher royalties the first half of the year and June is usually a slow month). Instead most people stayed and are reporting 30-50% royalty decreases, which will only get worse in January.
Instead of losing two weeks’ pay, you’re losing 13 weeks’ pay if you had a 50% royalty decrease for the second half of 2020. And in 2021 it will be much worse, because the vast majority of people won’t get back to their “old” royalty rate, which is still 50% lower than it used to be, for months, if ever.
It doesnt work like that. For some people once june hit, suddenly, their June dayjob income became 0. Nothing. Zilch.
Suddenly SS became their only source of income. So the choice of getting a few hundred or more dollars a month where you can actually pay the rent, electricity and food vs guaranteed 0 where you can do none of that isnt a hard choice - you'll take some income and survival over zero income.
We're not talking of income averaged annually here, its real world income for this particular month.
There's also the fact that SS had planned all this and there is no way in hell they'll go back on it regardless of people disabling profiles. There are always uploaders, always new recruits and the bigger, important studios they'd have done private deals with anyway. All planned, wargamed and accepted before they introduced it.
The fact is that if most people had disabled their ports on June 15 things would have turned out very differently. Their library would have shrunk tremendously. Buyers would have been completely frustrated. Investors would have been asking what the heck happened. They would have had a massive loss of sales and would not have met or exceeded profit expectations. SSTK would have dropped instead of rising. They would have been forced to roll back the royalty cuts, and everyone might very well have regained their temporary loss when buyers either came back or switched to other sites for the assets they needed.
So it’s better to get much less over a period of years than to sacrifice two weeks of royalties once? If you disabled your port for the second half of June, at worst you’d lose 4% of your Shutterstock income for 2020 (actually less, since you made higher royalties the first half of the year and June is usually a slow month). Instead most people stayed and are reporting 30-50% royalty decreases, which will only get worse in January.
Instead of losing two weeks’ pay, you’re losing 13 weeks’ pay if you had a 50% royalty decrease for the second half of 2020. And in 2021 it will be much worse, because the vast majority of people won’t get back to their “old” royalty rate, which is still 50% lower than it used to be, for months, if ever.
It doesnt work like that. For some people once june hit, suddenly, their June dayjob income became 0. Nothing. Zilch.
Suddenly SS became their only source of income. So the choice of getting a few hundred or more dollars a month where you can actually pay the rent, electricity and food vs guaranteed 0 where you can do none of that isnt a hard choice - you'll take some income and survival over zero income.
We're not talking of income averaged annually here, its real world income for this particular month.
There's also the fact that SS had planned all this and there is no way in hell they'll go back on it regardless of people disabling profiles. There are always uploaders, always new recruits and the bigger, important studios they'd have done private deals with anyway. All planned, wargamed and accepted before they introduced it.
The op had their payout set to $100. So disabling their port for 2 weeks would have cost them around 50 bucks. We all know the vast majority of SS contributors make very little there.
Yes, there are other uploaders, but even with the relatively small number of people disabling their ports it took weeks for SS to scrounge up some new people to upload a bunch of almost identical vectors or a load of bad snapshots to try to make up the loss. You can’t instantaneously replace all those files. It would have taken time, and their 2nd quarter announcement would have happened too quickly.
Yes, this was all planned in advance...but even so, SS failed to forsee all the tweeting that casued them to close social media accounts. They’re not infallible.
missed minimum payout for the first time in 8 years (bar first few months), have my minimum set at $100, first time in 8 years no pay out, $93 for july, awesomeness
my best month on ss was $800, oh how the mighty have fallen
Not even worth the effort!
Not even worth the effort!
I'd have to correct you there and say it's not even close to worth the effort!
From the "your mileage may vary" file:
Somehow despite the SS changes (because of?) I have been making more -- compared to 2018 and 2019 -- each month since May. Yes I'm getting a lot of .10 subs but I'm also seeing many more than 1.00 each. Have they also messed with search around the time of the royalty shift?
I had taken a wait and see approach and so far I'm glad I did. Of course, come January if I see a huge drop like we are all expecting i may still stop uploading or even yank the port.
(FWIW I've been at this 10+ years, have a five figure port and a four figure monthly income at SS.)
I wonder If they could pull out paying 5 or even 1 cent per download in the future. Actually I even hope they will try. To charge hosting to contributors is also an idea worth considering. There is space for huge discounts plans for those who sell a lot.
From the "your mileage may vary" file:
Somehow despite the SS changes (because of?) I have been making more -- compared to 2018 and 2019 -- each month since May. Yes I'm getting a lot of .10 subs but I'm also seeing many more than 1.00 each. Have they also messed with search around the time of the royalty shift?
I had taken a wait and see approach and so far I'm glad I did. Of course, come January if I see a huge drop like we are all expecting i may still stop uploading or even yank the port.
(FWIW I've been at this 10+ years, have a five figure port and a four figure monthly income at SS.)
Some people, like you, are doing better. Some are doing worse, like me. But the people I've heard from, that I trust, like you, and who had high quality collections, and made money, are all doing the same or better. This is during a terrible business downturn.
So the impression and conclusion, shouting and protests, that "everyone" is making less, is not supported. Plus, while I'm not a SS agent, employee or secret paid forum disinformation specialist (as sometimes is claimed if anyone says anything reasonable), and I'm NOT defending the 10c minimum download promise. Just that the facts and flow of angry posts, are not supported by actual data of what's going on.
I'm pretty much getting, in round numbers, 30% of what I used to on SS. I don't have a premium collection or top material for Microstock. I'm getting what I deserve. No I'm not uploading and yes I'm disappointed and find no motivation to add anything new.
I'm pretty much getting, in round numbers, 30% of what I used to on SS. I don't have a premium collection or top material for Microstock. I'm getting what I deserve. No I'm not uploading and yes I'm disappointed and find no motivation to add anything new.
Looking at the actual cost of the subs, for buyers, we are getting higher than the level percentages with the 10c minimum. In the past, some of these subscriptions, we were getting paid more than the buyer paid. So judging from what most of my downloads are now, most of my downloads in the recent past, were costing SS money, to my credit.
missed minimum payout for the first time in 8 years (bar first few months), have my minimum set at $100, first time in 8 years no pay out, $93 for july, awesomeness
my best month on ss was $800, oh how the mighty have fallen
Looking at the actual cost of the subs, for buyers, we are getting higher than the level percentages with the 10c minimum. In the past, some of these subscriptions, we were getting paid more than the buyer paid. So judging from what most of my downloads are now, most of my downloads in the recent past, were costing SS money, to my credit.
In other words, SS is offering our images way below a reasonable cost. If a buyer wants an image, he would gladly pay a dollar or two for it. It would be still a bargain.
When sales go down, don´t fix the blame on Shutterstock only. Maybe the portfolio is out of date by now, which may happen any time.
SWhen sales go down, don´t fix the blame on Shutterstock only. Maybe the portfolio is out of date by now, which may happen any time.
artwork is not a supermarket product but your opinion seems to sound like one.
what you think is "old" in SS will be NEW in other avenues.
Looking at the actual cost of the subs, for buyers, we are getting higher than the level percentages with the 10c minimum. In the past, some of these subscriptions, we were getting paid more than the buyer paid. So judging from what most of my downloads are now, most of my downloads in the recent past, were costing SS money, to my credit.
In other words, SS is offering our images way below a reasonable cost. If a buyer wants an image, he would gladly pay a dollar or two for it. It would be still a bargain.
I'd agree. In fact I think the prices have been too low from the start. Now I've lost 30% of my more recent income. Also people were willing to work and create images, for 25c a download, flat rate, no levels, just 25c a download. Doesn't that seem wrong as well?
But what I pointed out that seems to be ignored, no business can survive by losing money on a majority of the big subscription package sales. They can raise the prices and lose the income from many customers, or run in the red, and lose money.
"Reasonable Prices" is a reflection of the competition and the market. For the basic economics of a business, they also need to consider, supply and demand and the cost of the products that are sold.
Looking at the actual cost of the subs, for buyers, we are getting higher than the level percentages with the 10c minimum. In the past, some of these subscriptions, we were getting paid more than the buyer paid. So judging from what most of my downloads are now, most of my downloads in the recent past, were costing SS money, to my credit.
In other words, SS is offering our images way below a reasonable cost. If a buyer wants an image, he would gladly pay a dollar or two for it. It would be still a bargain.
I'd agree. In fact I think the prices have been too low from the start. Now I've lost 30% of my more recent income. Also people were willing to work and create images, for 25c a download, flat rate, no levels, just 25c a download. Doesn't that seem wrong as well?
But what I pointed out that seems to be ignored, no business can survive by losing money on a majority of the big subscription package sales. They can raise the prices and lose the income from many customers, or run in the red, and lose money.
"Reasonable Prices" is a reflection of the competition and the market. For the basic economics of a business, they also need to consider, supply and demand and the cost of the products that are sold.
A long time ago I was told by a seasoned businessman that the worst mistake you can make when starting a business, is to price your products too low. Well, SS is not starting a new business, but they are trying their best to ruin their existing agency. They have definitely ruined livelihood of many of their contributors.
Another issue that doesn't seem to be touched on is the standard customer "base".
Reading Trustpilot and the end user Facebook/stock groups a *lot* of these people subscribe to the 1 month trial with no intention of ever paying for it after that. They take what they need and that's it.
Dangling a carrot to lure people in is one thing but its counterproductive if everyone takes the carrot and never comes in.
Long term wise for a business, thats not good.
.....
A long time ago I was told by a seasoned businessman that the worst mistake you can make when starting a business, is to price your products too low. Well, SS is not starting a new business, but they are trying their best to ruin their existing agency. They have definitely ruined livelihood of many of their contributors.
.....
A long time ago I was told by a seasoned businessman that the worst mistake you can make when starting a business, is to price your products too low. Well, SS is not starting a new business, but they are trying their best to ruin their existing agency. They have definitely ruined livelihood of many of their contributors.
that's only true if you're selling widgets or services, but not for commodities - pork bellies or stock images -- for the latter, when supply meets of exceeds demand, lower prices will win
.....
A long time ago I was told by a seasoned businessman that the worst mistake you can make when starting a business, is to price your products too low. Well, SS is not starting a new business, but they are trying their best to ruin their existing agency. They have definitely ruined livelihood of many of their contributors.
that's only true if you're selling widgets or services, but not for commodities - pork bellies or stock images -- for the latter, when supply meets of exceeds demand, lower prices will win
The commodities argument is true only for genuinely common images - like tomatoes, ducks or girls on the phone. Unfortunately in the current scheme of SS catalog structure, many unique and exceptional images are treated and priced in the same way as the former group.
So sorry for you. I've pulled all my work from them and went exclusive for video at Pond5 as a way to try and stave off canibalising cheap video sales at SS rather than full priced sales at other agencies.very wise decision!
.....
A long time ago I was told by a seasoned businessman that the worst mistake you can make when starting a business, is to price your products too low. Well, SS is not starting a new business, but they are trying their best to ruin their existing agency. They have definitely ruined livelihood of many of their contributors.
that's only true if you're selling widgets or services, but not for commodities - pork bellies or stock images -- for the latter, when supply meets of exceeds demand, lower prices will win
The commodities argument is true only for genuinely common images - like tomatoes, ducks or girls on the phone. Unfortunately in the current scheme of SS catalog structure, many unique and exceptional images are treated and priced in the same way as the former group.
that's an artist's POV - for buyers & the agencies, images are a commodity not fine art
It will take time though, for now SS continues to be in the top 3 per month with pond5 and Adobe contributing more to monthly income and SS dropping fast.
The scary part will be the coming few months where monthly income will go down
It will take time though, for now SS continues to be in the top 3 per month with pond5 and Adobe contributing more to monthly income and SS dropping fast.
The scary part will be the coming few months where monthly income will go down
Have stopped uploading to SS, but its not evident that Pond5 or Arobe have been doing really well with this new stuff content that only gone to them...
To this day, I don't understand why the agencies don't take the approach of inching up prices on strong selling images (and of course to proportionally pass the increased earnings on to the photographer). Surely they have enough data and modeling to make this work both for them and the contributor. I just don't get the only solution being to continue to lower prices....and cut commisions
@Uncle Pete Why didn't you continue the count down?
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnsDnMvv/2-days-left.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbfL8CWQ/stirpot.gif)
@Uncle Pete Why didn't you continue the count down?
I don't understand why the agencies don't take the approach of inching up prices on strong selling images (and of course to proportionally pass the increased earnings on to the photographer).