MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS #OptInWhenTheyPayUp  (Read 37148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chichikov

« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2016, 10:01 »
+3
you are missing the point, you would have gotten 112 dollar
you are missing the point, (maybe) you could have gotten 112 dollar

Better to have than could have "Could have" does not pay the bills


jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2016, 10:06 »
+1
You can now stop with this off-topic crap. Where is admin when you need one?

crap?
or crack?
nitpicking 18 vs  25 dollar when most of sales bring 0,33 cents? we should also be serious?
come on. luck that still there is 18 dollar sometimes, who are 54 download at 0,33 cent, to be made.

« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2016, 10:17 »
+8
why do all these threads need to be derailed? you start to wonder if they are on a payroll. Tyler could you remove off topic comments please.

« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2016, 10:20 »
+6
jonbull you are talking nonsense, but following your logic, why do we have to accept a paycut of 26 subs per EL? i cant even phantom why you would defend the agency over this. your in the wrong playground for that.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2016, 11:40 »
0
jonbull you are talking nonsense, but following your logic, why do we have to accept a paycut of 26 subs per EL? i cant even phantom why you would defend the agency over this. your in the wrong playground for that.

why we started to accept 0,25 for photo is the point....if you don't want accept the lost of 7 dollar and you opt out, they will sell other photos not yours and your payroll will be less and less...if every photographer in micro accept to eliminate their account now , the agency will be forced to change everything, but it's impossibile this.
i have any agenda believe me. it's only noisense to opt out because you lose 7 dollar, and probably they discounted the el because they are selling few and few., while you earn 0,33 per sale. if you don't understand this is your problem. i don't rely on micro stock anymore from 4 years, only uploading junk photos, junk for me not for reviewers, and earning some dollars who help buy stuff pay travel and taxes.

« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2016, 12:07 »
+5
I opted out.
Today I opted out to make me feel better.
Who knows maybe if many persons do it simultaneously the red light will start blinking in SS office. But the probability is low. But I am sure if we don't even try there is no chance they change enything.
To be honest I think I will opt in in few month...

« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2016, 12:11 »
+10
I have opted out for the following reason:

If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)

You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.

This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.

dpimborough

« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2016, 12:13 »
+3
I have opted out for the following reason:

If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)

You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.

This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.

 Probably explains why I saw earnings drop like a stone this week immediately after the announcement.
 >:(

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2016, 12:26 »
0
I have opted out for the following reason:

If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)

You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.

This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.

i don't understand. what i'm doing is simply not opting out. cause in this kind of market every penny counts. for me real photography is not this. but i understand that fo those who still think they will have a living with micro stock it can be symbolic

« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2016, 12:36 »
+7
jonbul, i never signed up for 25 cent downloads, i signed up for 20 cent downloads and 20 dollar els, but that is not the point either, we just got a price cut from an agency that hadnt cut royalties before (except referrals), and you are defending it because we accept 25 cent downloads in the first place. noticing you are talking about 33 cent makes me believe you havent been in the game longer than a year.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2016, 13:23 »
+1
jonbul, i never signed up for 25 cent downloads, i signed up for 20 cent downloads and 20 dollar els, but that is not the point either, we just got a price cut from an agency that hadnt cut royalties before (except referrals), and you are defending it because we accept 25 cent downloads in the first place. noticing you are talking about 33 cent makes me believe you havent been in the game longer than a year.

sorry i take 0,38 cent per photo maybe i am a leve superior.....i never check...just end of month watch how much i did....as i said in my opinion accepting from beginning micro stock it's clear you accepted a cheap situation who in the long run will bring everything down , and in my opinion even no it's a good situation.
personally  i see the el trendy finished in my portfolio and i have 60-80 el years...in 2015 probably less than 20
i'm not defending anything, simply opt out is useless and in my opinion you only lose money, you, better 36 dollar than 0.

dpimborough

« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2016, 13:24 »
0
Just Opt Out Jonbull you know it makes sense  ;D

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2016, 13:27 »
0
Just Opt Out Jonbull you know it makes sense  ;D

ahahah no way...i repeat i try to ,milk the cow thill i can...i have more than 10000 photos ready i will upload , i will not even complaint about rejection , is totally useless, i just send all stuff it 's in my hard disk without any interests...my best works photos and energy are aimed at RM, prints, show, assignment and editorial for magazine right now...it looks 4 years but is working...i probably would have earned more with micro in the last 4 years, but for me was mostly boring, and as i said it's a creative nightmare, think and photo like a micro stock only means you are cutting all your creativity to zero.
so no i not opt put, anyway it would be useless i have not a el in the last 4 months.

« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2016, 13:31 »
+36
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).

The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.

I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:

"I realize you dont set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but  I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.

It is a shame - Id like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If youd like to explain to Paul Brennan that Id happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps hed reconsider?"

« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2016, 13:50 »
0

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

i think there is a silver lining in this dark cloud if we are willing to shift with the tide...
eg.
-at least ss gives you the option to out if you do not like the new plan
- everyone has its own comfort level and satisfaction...
  no one wants to be so proud as to announce to the world, "hey i am with ss the #1 microstock agency in the world, then to get to respond to the question , "ya, how much you make ???"...
"duhhh, um, 28 to 32 cents each dl !!!" :'(

yes, living in the super metros of the world is getting a bit ridiculous.. whether it is boston or nyc, or vancouver toronto.. or rdj or sampa... or even singapore or taipei or beijing or paris, london, durban, etc..
so we , as most of us are retired, perharps it is time we look to move to ukraine.
and make ukraine the new mecca .

only do it quickly before it gets to expensive, then we will all have to move back to boston or nyc or wherever we came from  8)

what i mean is, we have priced ourselves out of the life we can afford ...
by being unwilling to budge . so jon may hit on something harsh but reality..

if you move, you will be happy with the money you earn as a microstock photographer with ss.
if not, move your portfolio to where you are happy to make ...
either zero with big promises of bigger %age..(everyone with single digit or less than 30% to the right column here below ss)...
or move to the ukraine.

thx mate, it does sound flippant but i am not...
i believe you are right... too many of us are just unwilling to shift like a relic
at stonehenge  8)

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2016, 13:55 »
+3
The other thread on SS's royalty cut has gotten buried in a pile of off topic p*ssing contests, so I thought I'd start something on what action we can take if we don't like SS's recent cash grab.

This morning I opted out of ELs

Go to the contributor (submit...) home page and Account Settings is under your name - top right, between the earnings menu and the language drop down....

Whatever Jo Ann Snover says, I think it is best to do it!  :D

I just selected and saved Opt-Out ELs too (easy process). I get a few per year. But I sent them a complaint message too.

Let's tell them they can screw us so they can give their employees Pizza Fridays and gym passes on OUR BACKS.  :P

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2016, 13:57 »
+3
BRAVO!  ;D

I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).

The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.

I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:

"I realize you dont set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but  I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.

It is a shame - Id like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If youd like to explain to Paul Brennan that Id happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps hed reconsider?"


« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2016, 13:57 »
+21
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).

The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.

I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:

"I realize you dont set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but  I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.

It is a shame - Id like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If youd like to explain to Paul Brennan that Id happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps hed reconsider?"

You should ask them to put the buyer in touch with you to negotiate a price, from which you'd happily pay Shutterstock a 25% commission.

« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2016, 14:12 »
+3
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).

The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.

I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:

"I realize you dont set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but  I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.

It is a shame - Id like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If youd like to explain to Paul Brennan that Id happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps hed reconsider?"

Nice move!
Maybe SS should redesign the EL opt-out button to something like: opt-out if my commission is below $xx, where $xx can be set to $28, or whatever each individual considers acceptable.

« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2016, 14:22 »
+1
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).

The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.

I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:

"I realize you dont set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but  I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.

It is a shame - Id like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If youd like to explain to Paul Brennan that Id happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps hed reconsider?"

Wow
Props to you JoAnn
Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, there are just waaaaayyyyy too many noobs and even old-time contributers who are just going to take whatever comes along and have the "$17 EL sale , better than none" mentality.

I think this may have me seriously consider trying to get into RM sites and living with a few sales, but at least feeling like the work is valued

« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2016, 14:42 »
+7
...Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, ...

And it may well be a futile effort, but we'll never know if we don't give it a shot. And in a year (or whenever those who want to wait and see decide this isn't working out) it'll be way too late to make a difference.

I am under no illusions about the importance of one part time contributor to Shutterstock. SS management only give lip service to being concerned with contributor wellbeing - we're a cost to be managed. Investors care even less - we're just a risk factor listed among many as to why their investment could fail.

But there is a minuscule chance if a few of these "no" answers to customers happen together that someone will go talk to Paul Brennan and ask if he realizes what's going on. Or possibly that it'll happen to a larger customer without one of the SOD contracts and they'll call up someone to complain.

Or they may find a marijuana picture to license and be perfectly happy without mine :)

« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2016, 14:53 »
+5
...Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, ...

And it may well be a futile effort, but we'll never know if we don't give it a shot. And in a year (or whenever those who want to wait and see decide this isn't working out) it'll be way too late to make a difference.

I am under no illusions about the importance of one part time contributor to Shutterstock. SS management only give lip service to being concerned with contributor wellbeing - we're a cost to be managed. Investors care even less - we're just a risk factor listed among many as to why their investment could fail.

But there is a minuscule chance if a few of these "no" answers to customers happen together that someone will go talk to Paul Brennan and ask if he realizes what's going on. Or possibly that it'll happen to a larger customer without one of the SOD contracts and they'll call up someone to complain.

Or they may find a marijuana picture to license and be perfectly happy without mine :)

And now we know what happens if a buyer wants your image: Shutterstock contacts you about offering an Extended License.

So if we all opted out, Shutterstock would have to pay additional employees to either conduct a search and offer alternative images to buyers or reach out to contributors to make their image available, which means a financial impact for Shutterstock, however small. So I suggest we all opt out and offer to negotiate a the price, with SS getting a 25-30% commission. Turnabout is fair play.

« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2016, 15:07 »
0
...Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, ...

And it may well be a futile effort, but we'll never know if we don't give it a shot. And in a year (or whenever those who want to wait and see decide this isn't working out) it'll be way too late to make a difference.

I am under no illusions about the importance of one part time contributor to Shutterstock. SS management only give lip service to being concerned with contributor wellbeing - we're a cost to be managed. Investors care even less - we're just a risk factor listed among many as to why their investment could fail.

But there is a minuscule chance if a few of these "no" answers to customers happen together that someone will go talk to Paul Brennan and ask if he realizes what's going on. Or possibly that it'll happen to a larger customer without one of the SOD contracts and they'll call up someone to complain.

Or they may find a marijuana picture to license and be perfectly happy without mine :)

congrats Jo Ann ,

but what if they are pulling one of those "buy you out" strategy ???
like the auto business buying out the battery cars...
and the tobacco business buying out the researchers on danger of nicotine
a long long time back in the 80-90s
to silence you ??? 8)

like even for months now, i suspect some of the biggest loudest anti-ss activists are actually
the biggest ss inside workers painting a whitewash to "expose the bad apples from the
marijuana" ;)
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 15:09 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2016, 15:14 »
+2
Like others have said, SS is the ultimate subs site. I submit content with the expectation to get less than 40 cents per download. Probably 95% of my sales are subs (didnt check it, maybe it is 85%, who knows).

Content that I believe is interesting enough to get more money, let's say from 5 dollars to several hundred dollars, will simply not go to SS.

So for me it really is very simple, all the higher licenses are the lucky bonus. They are completely random in which files they hit, I cannot find a pattern and specifically produce only enhanced license content...

Unlike Fotolia, where half my sales are not subs and where I can commit exclusive content.

If higher priced sales were a reliable reality, maybe I would send them other stuff, but for me SS is not stocksy, or Westend, or 500 pix. Or Getty or Corbis..

So until they come up with a higher priced collection and enhanced licenses happen just a few times a year, I see no point in arguing over something that for me doesnt exist and: is not the reason I am submitting  content to them in the first place.

But everyone has a different strategy, for me sorting content by style and expected download price determines what I send where. If I am wrong, I remove it and send it elsewhere.

So yes, for the below 1 dollar per download / but higher volume content, I can easily live with a lower enhanced license sale. And I do believe there is very reasonable opportunity to actually sell more of these licenses.

Content that can command higher prices will always go elsewhere.

I wish you all the best whatever distribution concept you use for your files.

« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2016, 15:43 »
+4
Like others have said, SS is the ultimate subs site. I submit content with the expectation to get less than 40 cents per download. Probably 95% of my sales are subs (didnt check it, maybe it is 85%, who knows).

I just took a look at my all time totals at SS (and I did have 3 years away while I was exclusive, which may have altered things) and if I add up all the non subscription totals it is only about $500 less than I've earned from subscriptions. So although you can't necessarily see those percentages every month, half my income from them is non subscription.

I don't believe that there is anything special about types of images that get ELs or SODs at SS, but it is really hard to know. It probably does make more of a difference when you're at the 30% tier, especially with the SODs, but I think SS used to be a subs site and now is a stock agency trying hard to take business from Getty from corporate clients, using profits from the subs business to keep things going while they try to be the amazon of the stock marketplace.

I realize that everyone's circumstances are different, but I do firmly believe that if you have any concerns about agencies reducing royalties for contributors, you effectively signal that you're OK with that when you let cuts pass with no reaction.

When an agency is dominant, it knows it has the upper hand and can generally get contributors to accept whatever it offers - when you're effectively operating a company town, people don't have to like you to continue doing business with you.


 

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
4942 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
3874 Views
Last post February 21, 2013, 23:00
by stockastic
9 Replies
2554 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 10:43
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors