Author Topic: Price, Royalty and Royalty Rate lowered for Single On Demand sales? (Read 31906 times)

tickstock · « **on:** August 25, 2015, 12:56 »

Looks like Shutterstock dropped the price of single On Demand sales from 2 for $29 to $9.99 for 1. It appears like they also changed the category of Single On Demand sales from 30% to $2.85, effectively lowering the royalty from $4.35 to $2.85 and the royalty rate from 30% to 28.5%.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2015, 13:13 »

It's still too much to pay for a photograph. Also those royalty rates are insane. Who in their right mind would want to earn $2.85 per photo, It's far too much to pay as a royalty. If anything they should lower the royalty to something like 0.25c or less. If you give photographers an inch they will want a mile. Next to follow suite will be Istock, always the slow child in the race to the bottom.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2015, 23:15 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 25, 2015, 12:56

Looks like Shutterstock dropped the price of single On Demand sales from 2 for $29 to $9.99 for 1. It appears like they also changed the category of Single On Demand sales from 30% to $2.85, effectively lowering the royalty from $4.35 to $2.85 and the royalty rate from 30% to 28.5%.

I can see the price changes on the US site - $9.99 an image or $9.80/$9.16 versus $14.50 and you had to buy a two-pack. The 5 and 25 pack prices are unchnaged:

http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe

I have been paid either $1.24 (sm/med) or $2.85 (any size) for the On Demand sales (Single and Other Downloads is something else entirely) since I started earning 38 cents for subscriptions. According to the earnings page that's still the case

http://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts

It's possible that hasn't updated.

The terminology they use on the contributor side of things is On Demand for the items sold as Image Packs. Where do you get the lowered royalty form $4.35 to $2.85 from?

SOD - Single and Other Downloads - earn from 38 cents to $120 (for me; no idea if others may have had higher) and you can't tell the royalty rate because you have no idea what the license sold for.

tickstock · « **Reply #3 on:** August 26, 2015, 06:17 »

If you were at the 30% level you would have earned $4.35 for single On Demand sales. 2 images for $29 is $14.50 each and 30% of that is $4.35. The old earnings schedule had "Single/Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" listed as 30% of sale price now it's been changed to say "Custom Image".
https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

I'm not 100% sure that Single On Demand sales aren't included in the Custom Image category but from the change of language I would guess they've changed categories which means a lower royalty rate.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2015, 12:58 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 06:17

If you were at the 30% level you would have earned $4.35 for single On Demand sales. 2 images for $29 is $14.50 each and 30% of that is $4.35. The old earnings schedule had "Single/Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" listed as 30% of sale price now it's been changed to say "Custom Image".
https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

I'm not 100% sure that Single On Demand sales aren't included in the Custom Image category but from the change of language I would guess they've changed categories which means a lower royalty rate.

Contributors were never paid on a percentage basis for On Demand sales. Those have always been a fixed amount based on your earnings tier and the two size brackets.

Shutterstock talks about their overall payout being around a certain percentage, but they don't pay on a percentage basis except for the Corporate deals - called Single and Other Downloads in the contributor interface and Custom Images on the earnings page.

tickstock · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2015, 13:00 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 26, 2015, 12:58

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 06:17
If you were at the 30% level you would have earned $4.35 for single On Demand sales. 2 images for $29 is $14.50 each and 30% of that is $4.35. The old earnings schedule had "Single/Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" listed as 30% of sale price now it's been changed to say "Custom Image".
https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

I'm not 100% sure that Single On Demand sales aren't included in the Custom Image category but from the change of language I would guess they've changed categories which means a lower royalty rate.

Contributors were never paid on a percentage basis for On Demand sales. Those have always been a fixed amount based on your earnings tier and the two size brackets.

Shutterstock talks about their overall payout being around a certain percentage, but they don't pay on a percentage basis except for the Corporate deals - called Single and Other Downloads in the contributor interface and Custom Images on the earnings page.

Did you look at the link (from last month), the far right column labeled "Single/Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" wouldn't that be for the 2 image On Demand sales?
Here's the link to the sales page with 2 image packs, aren't those Two Image On Demand sales? https://web.archive.org/web/20150620202559/http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe

Shelma1 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2015, 13:54 »

As of today I'm still getting $2.85 per ODD, with SOD's varying depending on the license, as Jo Ann stated. I think the 30% figure (or 28% or whatever) is an average. On Demand cost ranged from $14.50 to just under $10 if you bought a larger pack. So far it looks like they lowered the price of entry for ODD but did not lower our royalties.

(As opposed to iStock, who pay you less when they charge buyers less).

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2015, 14:23 »

@tickstock. I gather you're not a SS contributor so it's perhaps puzzling to sort out given the different labeling for products across various parts of the SS interface, but I can only tell you what I see, which is the same as it has been for years in terms of royalties.

I don't see any column with the label you mentioned on the page you linked. On this page, I do see that label, but that has nothing to do with the Image packs which are paid out as On Demand

https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

tickstock · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2015, 16:57 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 26, 2015, 14:23

@tickstock. I gather you're not a SS contributor so it's perhaps puzzling to sort out given the different labeling for products across various parts of the SS interface, but I can only tell you what I see, which is the same as it has been for years in terms of royalties.

I don't see any column with the label you mentioned on the page you linked. On this page, I do see that label, but that has nothing to do with the Image packs which are paid out as On Demand

https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

A couple things. First what is meant by Two Image On Demand if not the 2 image on demand packs? Second. I think SOD doesn't stand for single on demand it stands for single/two image on demand as stated in the earnings schedule. Third if SS was paying the rates you think then the two image packs would only be paying 12.9%-19.6% royalty rates while the 5 image packs were paying 18.8-28.5% royalty rates. It doesn't seem right that they paid the same royalty for $10 sale as a $14.50 sale but paying between 20-30% would seem fair.

If you're right and two image on demand sales weren't counted as two image on demand sales then you got a nearly 50% royalty rate increase on those sales.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2015, 18:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 16:57

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 26, 2015, 14:23
... It doesn't seem right that they paid the same royalty for $10 sale as a $14.50 sale ...

SS isn't the only agency to do this, but they do it all the time. Payment to them by the buyer varies, for ELs and image packs. Payments to contributors are fixed for both. The deal is better or worse for the contributor depending on how the buyer pays. Even with subscriptions, SS gets more or less depending on how much of the buyer's allowance they actually download.

You may or may not like the deal, but as with other agencies, you choose to contribute to them or not. It's a package of terms and rates and not a percentage based system.

And even when there is a system ostensibly percentage based - as with iStock or Fotolia credit sales - there have been numerous games played with currency conversions that can change the contributor's percentage wildly.

You can choose to believe what you want, but I'm just telling you what we get paid for various sales. SOD is Single and Other Downloads, not Single on Demand as you stated.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2015, 18:24 »

You still haven't answered the most obvious question what is a two image on demand sale if not a two image on demand sale? They list those for sale and on the earnings schedule but you say they aren't the same thing? I think you're mistaken on that and they show up under the sod column. I don't believe shutterstock was paying less than 13 % for those sales. They changed the category from two image on demand etc.. to custom images when they made the price about the same as the other ODs. It seems pretty clear what happened, SS was not paying 13% for those sales.

wordplanet · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2015, 21:42 »

Jo Ann is correct.
On Demand (ODD in shutterstock lingo) pays a fixed amount depending on size and the contributor's tier.

Single and Other Downloads (SOD in shutterstock lingo) pays anywhere from the single subscription rate for FB downloads to $120 or more.

We're with shutterstock. We know what we are being paid and it hasn't changed. If buyers are paying more or less for certain image packs, that does not affect what we get. Just like we get the same amount for every subscription whether a buyer downloads one image or 750. The only payment that is affected by what the buyer pays is when it comes to a custom SOD, hence you can earn up to $120 and in the rare case even more. To date, my highest SOD is $80. This month's SOD's for me range from the FB subscription rate to $15; all my other downloads this month - both subscription and ODDs - are based a fixed amount based on my tier, which has been consistent since I hit the current level and has not changed this month despite changes in the price buyers pay for image packs.

If a buyer pays for a two image On Demand, we get paid a fixed rate for each one of those two images the buyer downloads based on our tier, so whether they buy a 5-pack or a 2-pack, our royalty for each ODD is still the same and it is not dependent on what the buyer paid.

What part of this don't you understand?

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2015, 21:53 »

Quote from: wordplanet on August 26, 2015, 21:42

Jo Ann is correct.
On Demand (ODD in shutterstock lingo) pays a fixed amount depending on size and the contributor's tier.

Single and Other Downloads (SOD in shutterstock lingo) pays anywhere from the single subscription rate for FB downloads to $120 or more.

We're with shutterstock. We know what we are being paid and it hasn't changed. If buyers are paying more or less for certain image packs, that does not affect what we get. Just like we get the same amount for every subscription whether a buyer downloads one image or 750. The only payment that is affected by what the buyer pays is when it comes to a custom SOD, hence you can earn up to $120 and in the rare case even more. To date, my highest SOD is $80. This month's SOD's for me range from the FB subscription rate to $15; all my other downloads this month - both subscription and ODDs - are based a fixed amount based on my tier, which has been consistent since I hit the current level and has not changed this month despite changes in the price buyers pay for image packs.

If a buyer pays for a two image On Demand, we get paid a fixed rate for each one of those two images the buyer downloads based on our tier, so whether they buy a 5-pack or a 2-pack, our royalty for each ODD is still the same and it is not dependent on what the buyer paid.

What part of this don't you understand?

Look at the link from last month, then look over to the right side column, read it. It says this "Single/Two Image On Demand & Any Products Not Listed" along with the other two columns for On Demand images.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

You can look back through the history of the earnings schedule, it's kind of interesting. They used to list OD royalties under "Images: Multi-Image On Demand" and also had a column for Images:
"Single Image On Demand and Any Products Not Listed Above" which evolved into what it is now. They dropped the wording for multi image packs but kept the single and two image packs in a separate category, which disproves Jo Ann's earlier statement that On Demand images never paid a percentage.

wordplanet · « **Reply #13 on:** August 26, 2015, 22:03 »

The multi-image packs are the ODDs where our royalties are not based on a percentage, but on a fixed rate. The Single/two image on demand you're referring to are the custom licenses where we get a percentage of the license which varies by whatever deal SS makes and the contributor earns anywhere from a few dollars to over $100. So the ODD rates that Jo Ann quoted you, and the 2-pack, 5-pack and 25-pack deals do not apply to the Single/two image on demand licenses. Again, Jo Ann is correct. It's really quite straight-forward.

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** August 26, 2015, 22:07 »

Quote from: wordplanet on August 26, 2015, 22:03

I believe the multi-image packs are the ODDs where our royalties are not based on a percentage, but on a fixed rate. The Single/two image demand you're referring to are the custom licenses where we get a percentage of the license which varies by whatever deal SS makes and the contributor earns anywhere from a few dollars to over $100. So the ODD rates that Jo Ann quoted you do not apply to the Single/two image on demand licenses.

I know you and Jo Anne believe that, the question is why? What would you call a Two Image On Demand pack if not a Two Image On Demand pack? It is listed in the earnings schedule just like that. I find it hard to believe that Shutterstock is negotiating 2 image deals with companies, that seems a bit far fetched doesn't it?

I really don't believe Shutterstock would pay less than a 13% royalty rate for Two Image On Demand sales but you seem pretty sure of it, is there some evidence that they were paying that little?

wordplanet · « **Reply #15 on:** August 26, 2015, 22:14 »

They pay 20% to 30% depending on your tier, as the schedule you linked to attests, not 13% or less. I never said that. Here's the schedule you linked to earlier. https://web.archive.org/web/20150728180651/https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

I can't explain it any more simply than Jo Ann and I already have. If you want to twist what I said, then I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it.

Goodnight!

tickstock · « **Reply #16 on:** August 26, 2015, 22:18 »

Quote from: wordplanet on August 26, 2015, 22:14

They pay 20% to 30% depending on your tier, not 13%.

I can't explain it any more simply than Jo Ann and I already did.

Goodnight!

Not according to you and Jo Ann. Two Image On Demand packs cost $29 or $14.50 for each sale. You said they pay $1.88 to $2.85 for those that makes the percentage for the Two Image On Demand sales 12.9% to 19.6%.

I'm saying (and the earnings schedule says) you get paid 20-30% for those sales.

When they lowered the price of Two Image On Demand sales from $14.50 to $10 each they lumped them in with the other On Demand sales which is why they changed the category from Two Image On Demand and other sales to Custom Image. Now Single and Two Image On Demand sales fit in with the others, they didn't a month ago when they were priced higher.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #17 on:** August 26, 2015, 22:28 »

If you're not a current Shutterstock contributor, you can't see the data we can see daily for our royalties. We're trying to tell you what we receive and you are arguing about it.

As stated above by wordplanet, the good news and the bad news is that when there are multiple prices for an item, EL or Image Packs, based on the quantity the buyer purchases at one time, we get a fixed royalty, not a percentage.

This has been this way for years. It hasn't changed with the recent price changes.

Some of these price changes have been very favorable to SS - decreasing our share of the price paid. It appears that this one has swung the other way and we're getting the same amount of royalty for an item that decreased in price (increasing our share for that item).

We do not earn a percentage of the sales for anything but the Single and other downloads category (which is the corporate stuff that's eating Getty's lunch).

You may think things should be handled differently, but that's a separate discussion.

I suggest you find someone who is a Shutterstock contributor who's willing to let you look at their earnings so you can see for yourself.

tickstock · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2015, 22:32 »

I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right? I'm saying that your Two Image On Demand sales go in that column while your other On Demand sales go in the On Demand column. It should say Single/Two Image On Demand And Other Downloads but that's a bit too long to fit but that is how it's written in the earnings schedule.
Looking at your SODs won't tell you if something is a Two Image On Demand sale or a Facebook sale, you might be able to guess by the amount though.

I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why? Have you seen an admin post that Two Image On Demand sales do not get filed under the Two Image On Demand category? Have you seen something that says each and every sale filed under SODs is pre-negotiated or have you seen that pre-negotiated sales go under the SOD category?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2015, 00:13 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 22:32

I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right? I'm saying that your Two Image On Demand sales go in that column while your other On Demand sales go in the On Demand column. It should say Single/Two Image On Demand And Other Downloads but that's a bit too long to fit but that is how it's written in the earnings schedule.
Looking at your SODs won't tell you if something is a Two Image On Demand sale or a Facebook sale, you might be able to guess by the amount though.

I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why? Have you seen an admin post that Two Image On Demand sales do not get filed under the Two Image On Demand category? Have you seen something that says each and every sale filed under SODs is pre-negotiated or have you seen that pre-negotiated sales go under the SOD category?

My stats match with JoAnn and Worldplanet.

Why does this matter to you so much?

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2015, 00:28 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 22:32

I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right?

One if "On Demand", the other is "Single & Other". It's quite simple once you understood it. Obviously you are not understanding it, most likely not even willing to understand it even when it is being explained to you by several people with far more experience in this matter than you have.

I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2015, 01:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 22:32

...I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why?

The Image Packs predated (by many years) the Single and Other Downloads category. We know where the image pack royalties went because at the time there was no where else (other than subs, ELs, Backup CDs) but On Demand. See this pricing page from February 2009

https://web.archive.org/web/20090208220926/http://shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml

They have played around with the sizes of the packs over time - there was an option of one image for $19 at some point, then the two for $29

Single and Other Downloads is a relatively recent addition.

Ploink · « **Reply #22 on:** August 27, 2015, 02:02 »

In unrelated news: As of now (GMT: 07:00) the contributor site shows me an HTTP 500 error, the customer site seems to be fine...

tickstock · « **Reply #23 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:00 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 27, 2015, 00:13

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 22:32
I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right? I'm saying that your Two Image On Demand sales go in that column while your other On Demand sales go in the On Demand column. It should say Single/Two Image On Demand And Other Downloads but that's a bit too long to fit but that is how it's written in the earnings schedule.
Looking at your SODs won't tell you if something is a Two Image On Demand sale or a Facebook sale, you might be able to guess by the amount though.

I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why? Have you seen an admin post that Two Image On Demand sales do not get filed under the Two Image On Demand category? Have you seen something that says each and every sale filed under SODs is pre-negotiated or have you seen that pre-negotiated sales go under the SOD category?

My stats match with JoAnn and Worldplanet.

Why does this matter to you so much?

I'm not sure what that means? Your stats don't say where a sale in the SOD column is from. How are you judging that your stats say Two Image On Demand sales are going into the On Demand column instead of the SOD column?

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:02 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 27, 2015, 01:20

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 22:32
...I understand that you believe what you are saying my question is still why?

The Image Packs predated (by many years) the Single and Other Downloads category. We know where the image pack royalties went because at the time there was no where else (other than subs, ELs, Backup CDs) but On Demand. See this pricing page from February 2009

https://web.archive.org/web/20090208220926/http://shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml

They have played around with the sizes of the packs over time - there was an option of one image for $19 at some point, then the two for $29

Single and Other Downloads is a relatively recent addition.

Thanks for posting that, have a look at these two archived pages from 2012:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120615063135/http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml
https://web.archive.org/web/20120821145231/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

Multi image On Demand sales pay at a set rate while Single Image On Demand pay at the percentage rate.

tickstock · « **Reply #25 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:06 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on August 27, 2015, 00:28

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 22:32
I can see earnings on Shutterstock. If I understand correctly you see the column listed as Single & Other Downloads and have concluded that Two Image On Demand sales don't go there, is that right?

One if "On Demand", the other is "Single & Other". It's quite simple once you understood it. Obviously you are not understanding it, most likely not even willing to understand it even when it is being explained to you by several people with far more experience in this matter than you have.

I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?

If you are right and I'm wrong then Shutterstock looks much much worse than I thought. What I'm saying is they lowered the minimum royalty rate for Single/Two Image On Demand from 20% to 18.8% while you guys are arguing that for years Shutterstock paid less than 10%. See the 2012 royalty rate schedule. If they paid $1.88 on $19 sales then you got less than 10%.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120615063135/http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml
https://web.archive.org/web/20120821145231/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

Look at these and tell me that it's not clear that Shutterstock was paying a percentage for Single Image On Demand.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #26 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:22 »

There was a one year (ish) period, from about June 2012 to June 2013 where they offered the single image sale. And I can see $5.70 royalties during that period in my SOD column as you said. And the customer price for the single image is shown in the price list ($19 on the US site).

Before that it was 5 and 25 packs; after that it went back to 5 and 25 packs. Some time later (wayback machine servers are having a problem right now so I can't see) the 2 pack was introduced.

I do have SODs for $4.35 - which is 30% of $14.50 (the price per image from the 2 pack), but as you say I don't know where the $4.35 comes from.

tickstock · « **Reply #27 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:24 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 27, 2015, 09:22

There was a one year (ish) period, from about June 2012 to June 2013 where they offered the single image sale. And I can see $5.70 royalties during that period in my SOD column as you said. And the customer price for the single image is shown in the price list ($19 on the US site).

Before that it was 5 and 25 packs; after that it went back to 5 and 25 packs. Some time later (wayback machine servers are having a problem right now so I can't see) the 2 pack was introduced.

I do have SODs for $4.35 - which is 30% of $14.50 (the price per image from the 2 pack), but as you say I don't know where the $4.35 comes from.

Those were most likely Two Image On Demand sales. Looks like they added Two Image On Demand to the earnings schedule in June 2013 and the Two Image On Demand packs for sale in June 2013.

So can we agree on this point now and move on?

Dumc · « **Reply #28 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:37 »

We need an exorcist here.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #29 on:** August 27, 2015, 10:52 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 09:06

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on August 27, 2015, 00:28
I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?
...[fill in useless stuff]...

Is there a reason why you reject giving an answer to a direct question in return for all the information you are getting to all your questions?

tickstock · « **Reply #30 on:** August 27, 2015, 10:53 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on August 27, 2015, 10:52

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 09:06
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on August 27, 2015, 00:28
I am wondering and would like to ask you: Are you getting paid by an entity connected to Getty Images for your efforts to discredit competitors whenever you get the chance to?
...[fill in useless stuff]...

Is there a reason why you reject giving an answer to a direct question in return for all the information you are getting to all your questions?

Oh I ignored that because it was silly. No I'm not getting paid by Getty, that's ridiculous. I think you can look at Jo Ann's last response and see that I might actually be correct on this.

I'm keeping up on what's happening at Shutterstock and Adobe because it directly affects me, when SS or Adobe drop prices or royalties I expect it to affect other sites. We've just seen DepositPhotos do it. On the video side we've seen Dissolve react to VB. We saw it when iStock introduced monthly subs. We saw it when Adobe set the max price for photos to $10. I like to understand what's happening so I can plan for the future. The information is only useless if you don't care about what you're getting paid and have no desire to understand how it is now or will be in the future. Turning this into a personal thing rather than looking at the actual information does you no favors.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #31 on:** August 27, 2015, 11:26 »

Interesting how you have to submit your work to get paid a very low amount to understand that you are gettng paid a low amount and if you don't submit your work you don't understand just how low the amount is. I am confused. So can anyone please put the low amount you are getting paid into clarity and true perspective??? I am thinking of submitting my work to SS and would like to know the real answer as to how little I am going to make.

tickstock · « **Reply #32 on:** August 27, 2015, 11:28 »

I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #33 on:** August 27, 2015, 11:37 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 11:28

I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.

I have in the past quoted the 0.25c - 0.38c that is posted on the website for royalties and have many times been told this simply is not true. Why is SS taking so long to update the "true" royalty rates on their site? I keep hearing from the loyalists that the "true" royalty rates are so much more, but you have to submit your work to understand it. That in itself scares me away. I don't agree to anything that I don't understand, and the posted royalties and sales rates turn me completely off. From what I see posted it's pretty clear I don't want to understand it, my work is worth more, and I can't afford to sell my work for so little.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:04 »

Broken freakin record that just keeps going round and round.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #35 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:06 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 09:00

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 27, 2015, 00:13

My stats match with JoAnn and Worldplanet.

Why does this matter to you so much?
I'm not sure what that means? Your stats don't say where a sale in the SOD column is from. How are you judging that your stats say Two Image On Demand sales are going into the On Demand column instead of the SOD column?

Everyone who contribute to SS understands what that means. It means I have always got a flat $1.24 or $2.85 for the category that reads On Demand Downloads, and that hasn't changed.

For Single and Other Downloads, there is a separate section and those sales have always fluctuate wildly between .38 (Facebook ads) on up to a couple of hundred $ each.

I answered your question. Now you answer mine - Why do you care so much?

tickstock · « **Reply #36 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:09 »

The point of this thread isn't so much that Shutterstock pays a low amount it's more that Adobe Stock is affecting what Shutterstock is paying. When they started selling Single Images On Demand at Adobe, Shutterstock dropped the price and changed the category they are paid under reducing royalties and slightly reducing the royalty rate those sales paid. It's clearly a direct result of what's going on at Adobe. Adobe charges $50 dollars for 10 images while Shutterstock is charging $50 for 5 images. There will likely be price reduction for those sales along with a change to royalties to match.

tickstock · « **Reply #37 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:14 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 27, 2015, 12:06

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 09:00
Quote from: PixelBytes on August 27, 2015, 00:13

My stats match with JoAnn and Worldplanet.

Why does this matter to you so much?
I'm not sure what that means? Your stats don't say where a sale in the SOD column is from. How are you judging that your stats say Two Image On Demand sales are going into the On Demand column instead of the SOD column?

Everyone who contribute to SS understands what that means. It means I have always got a flat $1.24 or $2.85 for the category that reads On Demand Downloads, and that hasn't changed.

For Single and Other Downloads, there is a separate section and those sales have always fluctuate wildly between .38 (Facebook ads) on up to a couple of hundred $ each.

I answered your question. Now you answer mine - Why do you care so much?

Look at Jo Ann's response. In 2012 On Demand images paid out in two separate columns Multi Image On Demand paid out the On Demand rates you list and Single Image On Demand packs paid out under the SOD column. In 2013 they introduced Two Image On Demand packs and the same month changed the earnings schedule from Single On Demand and other sales to Single/Two Image On Demand and other sales. Those Two Image On Demand sales went into the SOD column just like the Single Images On Demand sales did the previous year. This month they changed the pricing of the Single On Demand images to be the same as the multi image On Demand sales and at the same time dropped the Single/Two Image On Demand and other sales category from the earnings schedule replacing it with Custom Images. New sales of Single On Demand images will show up in the On Demand category going forward instead of in the SOD column like they used to.
I answered your question in response to MichaelJay.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:21 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 27, 2015, 12:04

Broken freakin record that just keeps going round and round.

Never a truer word spoken. A few people trying to sell a bill of goods for a site that clearly says otherwise and you have to submit to understand. If it is so clear you would think SS would be transparent about it. Either way, I can't afford to sell my work for so little. If you are comfortable selling your work for so cheap, good for you, but not this cowboy. I place more value on my work. Too bad your broken record keeps going round and round selling yourself short.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:44 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 27, 2015, 12:21

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 27, 2015, 12:04
Broken freakin record that just keeps going round and round.

Never a truer word spoken. A few people trying to sell a bill of goods for a site that clearly says otherwise and you have to submit to understand. If it is so clear you would think SS would be transparent about it. Either way, I can't afford to sell my work for so little. If you are comfortable selling your work for so cheap, good for you, but not this cowboy. I place more value on my work. Too bad your broken record keeps going round and round selling yourself short.

If you don't want to license your work at SS, that's fine with me. Less competition. But for the rest of us, SS pays way more than any other microstock site. I earn more on SS than the average U.S. annual full time salary, drawing pictures in my dining room extremely part time...about 2 hours a day. I spend my summers lounging by the pool instead of sitting in rush hour traffic and being trapped in an office all day. It's very relaxing. But yeah, don't upload there. It svcks, totally.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:48 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 27, 2015, 12:44

If you don't want to license your work at SS, that's fine with me. Less competition. But for the rest of us, SS pays way more than any other microstock site. I earn more on SS than the average U.S. annual full time salary, drawing pictures in my dining room extremely part time...about 2 hours a day. I spend my summers lounging by the pool instead of sitting in rush hour traffic and being trapped in an office all day. It's very relaxing. But yeah, don't upload there. It svcks, totally.

LOL! So true! If you don't upload to SS, you should not even give it any consideration. If you do upload there, you should stop immediately so I can get more sales.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:54 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 27, 2015, 12:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 27, 2015, 12:44
If you don't want to license your work at SS, that's fine with me. Less competition. But for the rest of us, SS pays way more than any other microstock site. I earn more on SS than the average U.S. annual full time salary, drawing pictures in my dining room extremely part time...about 2 hours a day. I spend my summers lounging by the pool instead of sitting in rush hour traffic and being trapped in an office all day. It's very relaxing. But yeah, don't upload there. It svcks, totally.

LOL! So true! If you don't upload to SS, you should not even give it any consideration. If you do upload there, you should stop immediately so I can get more sales.

Yes, everyone please stop uploading there. It's really a terrible place; you make no money and prostitute your art, as my life drawing professor put it when I was in college.

Also, let me know what categories you usually work in, so I can start to cover those. Thanks!

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2015, 13:50 »

I'd say, if the earnings would have been changed, this forum would have exploded. FWIW, I am still having all earnings as expected, I dont care so much what they're called. I think it is safe to say, earnings havent changed. Yet

tickstock · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2015, 14:03 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 27, 2015, 13:50

I'd say, if the earnings would have been changed, this forum would have exploded. FWIW, I am still having all earnings as expected, I dont care so much what they're called. I think it is safe to say, earnings havent changed. Yet

It was only recently changed, I'm not sure of the exact date but within one month. My guess is that the Two Image On Demand sales were not terribly common because it wasn't too much more to get a 5 image On Demand pack. It seems a lot of people didn't know what they were getting paid from Two Image On Demand sales either, it's rather opaque, it would just show up mixed in with your other SODs. You could go back and check how many you've possibly had depending on your level you would have received $2.90 at the 20% level, $3.62 (or $3.63, the actual number is $3.625) at the 25% level, $4.06 at the 28% level and $4.35 at the 30% level.

Pickerell · « **Reply #44 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:16 »

It is my understanding from Shutterstock that this $9.99 price is simply one of the many “tests” they regularly run with small segments of their customer base. Such tests are designed to determine if certain strategy modification have customer appeal and are likely to result in increased downloads and revenue. Many of these tests are never implemented across their entire customer base.

Nevertheless, this certainly indicates that given Adobe/Fotolia’s lower price offering Shutterstock is considering the possibility of needing to lower prices somewhat. So far we have no indication that the Adobe offering has impacted Shutterstock sales. If there is an impact, we may get some indication of how much when Shutterstock’s third quarter sales are reported in November.

tickstock · « **Reply #45 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:28 »

Quote from: Pickerell on August 28, 2015, 09:16

It is my understanding from Shutterstock that this $9.99 price is simply one of the many “tests” they regularly run with small segments of their customer base. Such tests are designed to determine if certain strategy modification have customer appeal and are likely to result in increased downloads and revenue. Many of these tests are never implemented across their entire customer base.

Nevertheless, this certainly indicates that given Adobe/Fotolia’s lower price offering Shutterstock is considering the possibility of needing to lower prices somewhat. So far we have no indication that the Adobe offering has impacted Shutterstock sales. If there is an impact, we may get some indication of how much when Shutterstock’s third quarter sales are reported in November.

I don't think this is a test. When they got rid of the Two Image On Demand sales they also changed the earnings schedule and dropped Two Image On Demand sales from that too, it seems like that is gone forever. I wouldn't be surprised if they are testing other things but that change looks permanent.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 28, 2015, 10:08 »

I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #47 on:** August 28, 2015, 11:05 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 27, 2015, 12:54

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 27, 2015, 12:48
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 27, 2015, 12:44
If you don't want to license your work at SS, that's fine with me. Less competition. But for the rest of us, SS pays way more than any other microstock site. I earn more on SS than the average U.S. annual full time salary, drawing pictures in my dining room extremely part time...about 2 hours a day. I spend my summers lounging by the pool instead of sitting in rush hour traffic and being trapped in an office all day. It's very relaxing. But yeah, don't upload there. It svcks, totally.

LOL! So true! If you don't upload to SS, you should not even give it any consideration. If you do upload there, you should stop immediately so I can get more sales.

Yes, everyone please stop uploading there. It's really a terrible place; you make no money and prostitute your art, as my life drawing professor put it when I was in college. Also, let me know what categories you usually work in, so I can start to cover those. Thanks!

Ha, ha, this is great!

However, be careful what you wish for. There is probably a break-even point.
Long/medium term, if a lot of good contributors leave, the overall database quality will decrease and some customers will eventually leave as well => your income can drop.
If you are competitive, selling alongside other great contributors can help your sales, too!

But then, the agency will probably have to increase commissions to attract the defectors back!

So, I vote for this!

tickstock · « **Reply #48 on:** August 28, 2015, 11:10 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 28, 2015, 10:08

I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.

I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2015, 11:28 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 28, 2015, 11:10

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 28, 2015, 10:08
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.

So?
Don't most sites constantly test and refine?

tickstock · « **Reply #50 on:** August 28, 2015, 11:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 28, 2015, 11:28

Quote from: tickstock on August 28, 2015, 11:10
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 28, 2015, 10:08
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.

So?
Don't most sites constantly test and refine?

Are you saying no one should post when a site changes pricing and royalty rates?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #51 on:** August 28, 2015, 12:01 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 28, 2015, 11:10

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 28, 2015, 10:08
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.

They'll test, and if it makes more money for them, they'll roll it out. At least they test first, instead of just haphazardly making sweeping changes that eventually result in a 30% drop in revenue.

tickstock · « **Reply #52 on:** August 28, 2015, 12:09 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 28, 2015, 12:01

Quote from: tickstock on August 28, 2015, 11:10
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 28, 2015, 10:08
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.

They'll test, and if it makes more money for them, they'll roll it out. At least they test first, instead of just haphazardly making sweeping changes that eventually result in a 30% drop in revenue.

I don't disagree that they are doing this because they think it will make them more. If buyers switch to Adobe then Shutterstock loses 100%, if they drop the price and royalty rate they lose less than that. If Adobe didn't price their Single Image On Demand sales that low I think it is safe to say Shutterstock wouldn't be "testing" this. I'm not saying Shutterstock is a bad company for dropping prices (although I think an unannounced royalty rate drop isn't the best policy but that too is expected since the pricing is the same as other ODs now, it probably should be paid at the same rate) these things happen when contributors support competition that undercuts pricing.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #53 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:19 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 11:28

I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.

I know exactaly what I'm getting paid. I click on earnings and it shows. All time 60c is my average RPD. I don't need to know every detail and pick apart everthing like you. I am a photographer on SS you aren't.

tickstock · « **Reply #54 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:22 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 31, 2015, 10:19

Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 11:28
I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.

I know exactaly what I'm getting paid. I click on earnings and it shows. All time 60c is my average RPD. I don't need to know every detail and pick apart everthing like you. I am a photographer on SS you aren't.

Good for you, you're one of the few on here then. If you don't want to know every detail of how and what you are getting paid you can ignore the details, that's completely your choice. Personally I like to know the details, they seem important to me.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #55 on:** August 31, 2015, 22:39 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 31, 2015, 10:22

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 31, 2015, 10:19
Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 11:28
I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.

I know exactaly what I'm getting paid. I click on earnings and it shows. All time 60c is my average RPD. I don't need to know every detail and pick apart everthing like you. I am a photographer on SS you aren't.
Good for you, you're one of the few on here then. If you don't want to know every detail of how and what you are getting paid you can ignore the details, that's completely your choice. Personally I like to know the details, they seem important to me.

You can't see what we make and what we see because you aren't a photo contributor. Why are you so concerned about my business, when you aren't a photo contributor?

tickstock · « **Reply #56 on:** August 31, 2015, 22:48 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 31, 2015, 22:39

Quote from: tickstock on August 31, 2015, 10:22
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 31, 2015, 10:19
Quote from: tickstock on August 27, 2015, 11:28
I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.

I know exactaly what I'm getting paid. I click on earnings and it shows. All time 60c is my average RPD. I don't need to know every detail and pick apart everthing like you. I am a photographer on SS you aren't.
Good for you, you're one of the few on here then. If you don't want to know every detail of how and what you are getting paid you can ignore the details, that's completely your choice. Personally I like to know the details, they seem important to me.

You can't see what we make and what we see because you aren't a photo contributor. Why are you so concerned about my business, when you aren't a photo contributor?

I can see everything you can see, there is no secret hidden information. I'm not concerned about your business per se, I'm concerned when one of the big companies drops prices and royalty rates because in the end it will affect me but I posted this because no one else had and Shutterstock didn't see it as necessary to tell contributors that pricing and the earnings schedule were changed (they still haven't mentioned it as far as I know). I see Jim has written a blog post about it as well so I know some people care about what is happening at Shutterstock even if you're happy being ignorant of it. It does say a lot about you that you are so passionately arguing that you don't want to know about changes to your earnings.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Price, Royalty and Royalty Rate lowered for Single On Demand sales? (Read 31906 times)

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors