MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Price, Royalty and Royalty Rate lowered for Single On Demand sales?  (Read 11867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2015, 09:06 »
+1
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. 


« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2015, 09:22 »
+2
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.

« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2015, 09:24 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 09:44 by tickstock »

« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2015, 09:37 »
+9
We need an exorcist here.

« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2015, 10:52 »
+3
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?

« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2015, 10:53 »
+4
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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 11:02 by tickstock »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2015, 11:26 »
+1
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.

« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2015, 11:28 »
+3
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 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 11:39 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

Shelma1

« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2015, 12:04 »
+13
Broken freakin record that just keeps going round and round.

« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2015, 12:06 »
+3

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?

« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2015, 12:09 »
+2
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.

« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2015, 12:14 »
+2

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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 12:20 by tickstock »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2015, 12:21 »
+2
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 »
+11
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.

« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2015, 12:48 »
+6
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.  ;D

Shelma1

« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2015, 12:54 »
+6
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.  ;D

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!


« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2015, 13:50 »
+1
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

« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2015, 14:03 »
+1
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. 

« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2015, 09:16 »
+4
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/Fotolias 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 Shutterstocks third quarter sales are reported in November.


« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2015, 09:28 »
+1
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/Fotolias 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 Shutterstocks 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 »
+1
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.

« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2015, 11:05 »
+1
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.  ;D

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!

:)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 11:16 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2015, 11:10 »
0
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 »
+5
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?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4083 Views
Last post August 17, 2011, 20:42
by velocicarpo
2 Replies
2450 Views
Last post August 26, 2012, 14:58
by fritz
76 Replies
10697 Views
Last post January 03, 2013, 02:12
by BaldricksTrousers
9 Replies
2510 Views
Last post April 10, 2013, 15:59
by microstockphoto.co.uk
50 Replies
11918 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 13:52
by gclk

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results