MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS #OptInWhenTheyPayUp  (Read 37152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2016, 04:33 »
+2
spamowanka,  how can you be content with missing out on 20 dollar?


« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2016, 04:45 »
+15
I will not opt out, it was a good change for some of us. Before I had +/- one EL a week and 4 last days got me 4 ELs $28 $28,50 $17,93 $18,88. You do the maths, I prefer to take photos.

This is purely a random thing. Prices of EL packages haven't been changed yet (?). So, increase in sales you see is not due to royalty cut.
You do the maths, you already lost $18.69 my friend.

« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2016, 04:50 »
+3
In my opinion is better to get $93 a week for ELs with missing $20 than getting $28 a week without $20 missing.

« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2016, 04:51 »
+9
you are missing the point, you would have gotten 112 dollar

« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2016, 04:59 »
+4
In my opinion is better to get $93 a week for ELs with missing $20 than getting $28 a week without $20 missing.

OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.

« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2016, 05:03 »
+3
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.

In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.

So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.

« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2016, 05:04 »
0
If this is a random thing as you suggest I will update you about my missing $$ in a few weeks.

« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2016, 05:31 »
+3
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.

In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.

So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.

But SS haven't done that yet. So, how can it explain already increased downloads that spamowanka gets?

« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2016, 06:48 »
+3
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.

In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.

So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.


It was my understanding that the price for an EL to the buyer wasnt changing, only contributors were getting the shaft (again). Did i misunderstand?

« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2016, 06:56 »
+2
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.

In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.

So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.


It was my understanding that the price for an EL to the buyer wasnt changing, only contributors were getting the shaft (again). Did i misunderstand?
Thats the trouble with corporate goobledegook I don't understand either but reduced cost to customers is implied

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2016, 07:29 »
+4
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.

In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.

So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.

But SS haven't done that yet. So, how can it explain already increased downloads that spamowanka gets?

Random chance.

« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2016, 07:39 »
+1
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit.  And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations. 

« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2016, 07:43 »
+2
I am not opting out, my enhanced licenses are so rare that I would like to first see if there is an improvement in sales. If there is no improvement, then I will look at the money I am getting and decide if a protest on something that rarely ever happens is that important for me.

I understand if people are getting daily or weekly enhanced licenses that a significant part of your income is affected, but in my case these are so rare, that maybe now it will get  better.

It is also not a sneaky underhanded deal like the dollar photo club or the Getty google deal. with the rarity of these sales, I simply dont feel strongly affected by these changes.

But the opt out is there to make everyone comfortable, so Shutterstock has a built in option to keep control how your files are licensed.

I opted out, but I am going to opt back in. Reasons:
1. I am all for trying to get agencies to listen, but with the millions of contributors, and with SS now being controlled by investors, even 1000 contributors opting out will not change their minds when it comes to $$$. They are concerned with their bottom line, not ours. I believe the watermark complaints worked because it didn't directly involve $$. There just aren't ever enough contributors (or the top selling contributors) jumping into the protest to make it work.
2. I am in the same situation as cobalt. I only sold a few last year, and they were towards the end of the year. I would like to see if this brings more EL sales (which I doubt it will, for reasons jsnover mentioned.) And I would also like to see just how much $ they drop (I am in the top tier).

If my cut is substantially lower than before, I will be opting out again. If I don't get any ELs, then it won't matter one way or another. Which it doesn't to SS anyway.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2016, 07:50 »
+7
complaining because the el passed form 28 to 18 when u sell most of the photos and earn 0,25?
i mean if you wanted to really make something you should ditch micro stock, and try to earn serious money with quality work....but it's very difficult this way.
personally i accept everything they give me for my collection, i upload only garbage photos to every agency, just to make things alive and pull my download, but don't expect nothing, 60 million images...how can you really expect anything from this situation?

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2016, 07:53 »
+4
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit.  And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.

third world country photographer, who live where you can live with 4 500 dollar, are saturating all this agency. that's the real big problem....if you want to live with micro you can't do in western world...maybe moving to thailnd or ukraine could be a good business...earning 1200 dollar and living good....and 1200 dollar are still lot of money to be made nowadays for 99% f micro stock photographer. it's 3000 4000 download month...150 day...

Chichikov

« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2016, 08:15 »
+2
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit.  And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.

third world country photographer, who live where you can live with 4 500 dollar, are saturating all this agency. that's the real big problem....if you want to live with micro you can't do in western world...maybe moving to thailnd or ukraine could be a good business...earning 1200 dollar and living good....and 1200 dollar are still lot of money to be made nowadays for 99% f micro stock photographer. it's 3000 4000 download month...150 day...

You really think to live well in Ukraine with $1200 a month if you are a foreigner? lol

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2016, 08:33 »
+4
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit.  And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.

third world country photographer, who live where you can live with 4 500 dollar, are saturating all this agency. that's the real big problem....if you want to live with micro you can't do in western world...maybe moving to thailnd or ukraine could be a good business...earning 1200 dollar and living good....and 1200 dollar are still lot of money to be made nowadays for 99% f micro stock photographer. it's 3000 4000 download month...150 day...

You really think to live well in Ukraine with $1200 a month if you are a foreigner? lol

well if you live in ukraine you are not a foreigner anymore:)
i know ukraine pretty well...sure you not live a luxury life but a good live yes....comparision you live like in western country with 4000 euro....i am in ukraine most of year and moving there for summer.....gryvan 28 euro....taxi 1 euro....pizza 3 euro...good restaurant 15 20 euro...rentin is the only thing that cost a bit,...400 600 dollar...but with 1200 dollar good luck renting anything or eating a pizza in western world...leaving aside the cost of shooting...a perfect studio with profoto light? 10 euro or less hour....model? you can stop girl in the street for few photos and some euro and voila you have a model, in ukraine i'd say 50% of people can work as stock model...
also if you can't live as foreigner with 1200 how can people live there earning 200 dollar or 300 like many people do?
1200 dollar: 600 rent apartment with everything included
600 dollar : 18000 gryvna.....pizza in center with taxi from house back...270.....yes i think i can live as foreigner...


and we are talking about kiev the most expensive...go kharkiv or lviv you can live even better.


« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2016, 08:34 »
+9
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2016, 08:37 »
+2
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.

everything is referred to the thread...if you sell and earn 0,25 scent per foto complaining because el went from 25 to 18....considring that they went this way cause probably the sold low in the last year, i was used to have 4 5 at month and even more, in the last 8 month 2 El only, is nitpicking in my way.
even complaining is nitpicking...we created all this situation and we must accept everything. photography is worth less than any jobs in the world in these days. it's tremendous to accept but it's the truth

« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2016, 08:48 »
+2
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.

everything is referred to the thread...if you sell and earn 0,25 scent per foto complaining because el went from 25 to 18....considring that they went this way cause probably the sold low in the last year, i was used to have 4 5 at month and even more, in the last 8 month 2 El only, is nitpicking in my way.
even complaining is nitpicking...we created all this situation and we must accept everything. photography is worth less than any jobs in the world in these days. it's tremendous to accept but it's the truth

So your answer is to give in and die a little. Thanks for your discouragement, but I get enough of that from directly Shutterstock.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 14:48 by obj owl »

dpimborough

« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2016, 08:55 »
+5
Anyway back to the original thread

I ALREADY OPTED OUT  ;D plus three other contributors who wish to remain anonymous  8)

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2016, 08:55 »
+4
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.

everything is referred to the thread...if you sell and earn 0,25 scent per foto complaining because el went from 25 to 18....considring that they went this way cause probably the sold low in the last year, i was used to have 4 5 at month and even more, in the last 8 month 2 El only, is nitpicking in my way.
even complaining is nitpicking...we created all this situation and we must accept everything. photography is worth less than any jobs in the world in these days. it's tremendous to accept but it's the truth

So your answer if to give in a die a little. Thanks for your discouragement, but I get enough of that from directly Shutterstock.

any discouragement...when you see an agency accepting 700 thousand images every week, and every other do the same, i think the last problem is the EL at 18...maybe they will sell more EL so instead of earning 0 af 25 they sell 2 at 18 and it's a profit of 36 instead of 0.
the problem is where is going the industry. cobs sold to chinese, macro selling for 0,14 even less than micro, 1000000 of amateur selling photos earning 50 dollar year and diluting the profit for every real photographer....in my opinion the only way to change is really go stocks or minimum a 500 pix stock , at least you reran more than 50 dollar per sale...but the problem is  always the same...nobpdy is leaving, cause everybody think :" if leave and the other not i will only lose more".
that's it. my suggestion put the worst photo in micro and try sale rights managed the best. maybe this will improve the situation

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2016, 08:57 »
+2
Anyway back to the original thread

I ALREADY OPTED OUT  ;D plus three other contributors who wish to remain anonymous  8)

how much EL you sold last year?

« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2016, 09:41 »
+3
You can now stop with this off-topic crap. Where is admin when you need one?

« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2016, 09:46 »
+5


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
5869 Views
Last post July 06, 2007, 09:02
by GeoPappas
Tag Searches Enhanced

Started by zymmetricaldotcom Zymmetrical.com

1 Replies
4943 Views
Last post May 10, 2008, 20:34
by yingyang0
8 Replies
3415 Views
Last post February 05, 2011, 01:55
by the808state
5 Replies
3875 Views
Last post February 21, 2013, 23:00
by stockastic
9 Replies
2555 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 10:43
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors