Agency Based Discussion > Shutterstock.com

Missed minimum payout for the first time in 8 years

(1/11) > >>

Microstockphoto:
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

CommuniCat:
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.

Does it not bother you that all those sales at SS now needed to make just $90 may be wasted and that you may actually earn far more in the long run by just dropping them completely and working with a few select agencies?

We had a single sale yesterday on P5 where we earned $48. I can't help thinking that if we stuck it out at SS we would still be annoyed at them instead of just moving on and making plans elsewhere.

Your experience of going from $800 to less than $100 would indicate to me that it makes no sense to sell at SS at all. At worst you are probably looking at parity by ditching them completely. All this before your New Year's gift in January.

Shelma1:
For me, the sheer anger that any of my sales at Shutterstock just help make Oringer a billionaire keeps me from selling there. Of course, the reason he’s successful is that most people would not make a temporary financial sacrifice in June in order to reverse the direction things were going. Instead people stayed, the library size remained 300 million, and the stock price shot up.

If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.

gnirtS:

--- Quote from: Shelma1 on August 18, 2020, 11:13 ---
If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.

--- End quote ---

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.

Shelma1:

--- Quote from: gnirtS on August 18, 2020, 11:56 ---
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on August 18, 2020, 11:13 ---
If you and everyone else had disabled your ports on 6/15, how different things would be today.

--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version