0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.

If its about footage anyway, pay out is 19 dollar

Quote from: shudderstok on April 23, 2013, 22:54

0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.

Nobody really wants to sell their images at such a low price but being as so many of the buyers are at SS it would be foolish not to sell our images there.  Most of us get the biggest payout from SS. Personally SS brings me in 2 - 3 times what IS does, double what FOT does and nearly double what DT does. Yes of  course I'd rather sell at Dt where the Rpd is over 4 times that of SS but the reality is that the buyers go to SS.

Nobody wants to sell their images at such low prices but they do, nobody wants to sell their images at such low prices but you do.
I refused to sell my images on SS when I started with microstock late in 2006, simply because I deemed my work to be worth a hell of a lot more than 0.25c per download and I still refuse to submit to them.
To each his own for sure, but if no photographers supplied/supported the sites like SS, then nobody would be going there to purchase/support purchasing images for such pathetic amounts.

Quote from: noodle on April 23, 2013, 18:13

Quote from: tickstock on April 23, 2013, 18:08

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 23, 2013, 17:58

Quote from: dingles on April 23, 2013, 17:27

Ha, yes lol. How do you like Shutterstock outside of that?

I can't talk about video as I don't do it, but ss on the whole is a well-oiled machine. They seldom don't produce for contributors. Introducing 25 cent subs on BS though sets off alarm bells. Will they one day do an IS and get greedy.

It will be a dark day when Shutterstock introduces 25 cent subs.

ummm..... they do 25c subs, and then you go up the tier as your sales increase

Oh so they already pulled an Istock and got greedy by introducing 25 cent subs.  I wonder how long ago they pulled an Istock?  2004 I think it was, right? 
That has to be one of the most bizarre comments I've read in awhile.

huh??  They didn't introduce subs, they've always had it.  It's the only thing they had when they started.  They also haven't ever reduced the payout to photographers - only increased the payout levels.

0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.

It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are an ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to.

Quote from: shudderstok on April 23, 2013, 22:54

0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.

It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are a ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to.

Don't rise to the bait, just don't 

I'm pretty sure the usual suspects know the royalty structure at SS perfectly well, but just can't resist to have another go at it. Nevermind, that it's 0.25$ to 0.38$ (and not cents), that the average RPD is more like 0.75$ thanks to non-subscription sales, and that 0.08$ sales happen at IS, too...

You are making stuff up, do the calculation. Come on do it. You know you are going to find out you are wrong. The fact that a buyer doesnt use his full quota doesnt mean SS is paying me less per image.

Do the hard numbers, cost of an image and my royalty. Come on do it.

I'll do it, since you will never admit it.

199 dollar subscription package. 750 images. An image downloaded from me cost 0.265 cent, I get 0.33 cent. 124%

I haven't seen such naive comment since I read the last news from TASS agency.
With your aptitude for math, what do you think, how many buyers fulfill their full contingent of 750 images each month?
 

.

.

.

A train on the tracks rolling along gets derailed and has an accident needing to be corrected, cleaned up and put back on the tracks in the direction it was originally headed when it first started.

FYI:
overall earnings/ number of images
istock: 1,18
ss: 0,54

istock is not relevant anymore and ss has raised to 0,68 per image in April 2013

so all talk of 0,25 cents at shutterstock is not applicable.

There was no announcement. But for all practical purposes, it works out that way,