Author Topic: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image (Read 17772 times)

Artist · « **on:** April 03, 2012, 00:08 »

I guess you got my point... what if shutterstock gave you 1$ per image instead of 0.25, 0.33 and 0.38

Kngkyle · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2012, 00:49 »

They probably wouldn't be in business much longer?

nicku · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2012, 01:48 »

Quote from: Kngkyle on April 03, 2012, 00:49

They probably wouldn't be in business much longer?

+1

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2012, 02:27 »

They could only do that successfully if they owned all the microstock sites. That might seem like a good idea for us but with no competition, they could set commissions much lower than they are now.

PinnacleAnimates · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:18 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 02:27

They could only do that successfully if they owned all the microstock sites. That might seem like a good idea for us but with no competition, they could set commissions much lower than they are now.

or if they offer exclusivity..... with all contributors migrating to there site and not uploading to any-other websites

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:30 »

Just checked my stats from yesterday and I made $0.96 per download without an EL. So they aren't far off 1$ per image some days.

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:38 »

Yes, offering exclusivity, special deals and with a near perfect search, they would be an outright winner, nobody else would stand a chance. Not only woudl it attract the best oif the best, buyers would que up in droves.

One upon a time there was such an agency, sadly they ruined everything with worthless collections and a halfassed best match.

nicku · « **Reply #7 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:41 »

Quote from: Pinnacleanimates on April 03, 2012, 03:18

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 02:27
They could only do that successfully if they owned all the microstock sites. That might seem like a good idea for us but with no competition, they could set commissions much lower than they are now.
or if they offer exclusivity..... with all contributors migrating to there site and not uploading to any-other websites

looool SS exclusivity will kill a big number of stock agencies. in the present SS is earning 65% of all my microstock income. A possible SS exclusivity program will be very appealing.

wut · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: nicku on April 03, 2012, 01:48

Quote from: Kngkyle on April 03, 2012, 00:49
They probably wouldn't be in business much longer?

+1

Sometimes it seems some of you worry more about the agencies and their earnings than yours $:-\$

rubyroo · « **Reply #9 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:56 »

That's because if they go out of business our earnings are kaput.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 03, 2012, 07:58 »

sorry but this is just absurd, not only because that´s 2x more what they are paying off but also if you do some maths you will see they would be on the negative, they would be gone basically.. so honestly leave it that way

wut · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:03 »

Quote from: rubyroo on April 03, 2012, 05:56

That's because if they go out of business our earnings are kaput.

I think if the owners (I'm talking generally) would be a little less greedy that wouldn't be a problem. SS could easily up the prices a bit, after all they're market leaders, leading to increase of RPD. As someone said his RPD is almost a dollar anyway, mine was around 70c in March and is currently way over a dollar for instance (many ODs, EL today etc). So they would even have to lower the cut to a handful of contributors, not up it much for some and up it considerably for most, but as I said, with increased prices and royalties, it wouldn't be a problem. Not that I'm complaining, since I'm not greedy, I'm satisfied with the way things are

. I'm just saying if they made some changes and were able to let go a fraction of their profit, it wouldn't jeopardize their business at all.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:14 »

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

Obviously they aren't going to pay that much without doubling their plan cost, which would likely lose half their buyers, so you might as well ask what if they paid $5 a dl.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

Obviously they aren't going to pay that much without doubling their plan cost, which would likely lose half their buyers, so you might as well ask what if they paid $5 a dl.

exactly, this is like dreaming of winning the lottery

(most certainly will never happen or perhaps to the guy next door)

wut · « **Reply #14 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

Obviously they aren't going to pay that much without doubling their plan cost, which would likely lose half their buyers, so you might as well ask what if they paid $5 a dl.

It's obviously not going to happen. I just said it could and more importantly that they wouldn't go bust if they did it. And if we're looking at it realistically (upping the prices), they wouldn't have to double them, since most contributors earn over 60c/DL, so increasing the price by 50% would be enough. After all, IS has increased the prices by what in the last 6 years? Surely the credit prices went up by at least 50%, not to mention the number of credits needed to DL a file, especially a larger one. XL used to cost 4 or 5 cr back in 05 from what I've heard, now it costs 15+ cr, then there's + collections, A/V, leading up to a few hundred percent price rise in 6 years or so.

stockastic · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:28 »

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

wut · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:31 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

Exactly! Very well put. That's what I'm trying to get through some of the thick skulls in this msg board. Capitalism has really brainwashed many ppl...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:32 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

seriously I am lost here.. where do you get for a subcription plan over 1$? it have never happened and for sure never will or are you planning to do anything for REAL?

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:53 »

Often when sites raise prices, they combine it with a commission cut and my earnings go down. I hope SS stick with their current prices and commissions, I had a BME last month. Istock raised prices a lot and my earnings are nowhere near the levels they used to be.

I don't understand people that would prefer 100 sales at $1 to 300 at $0.38.

Tabimura · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:01 »

Last time I checked I was doing well over a dollar on SS. Some say it has to do with ODs and ELs.

rubyroo · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:18 »

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 11:31

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28
Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

Exactly! Very well put. That's what I'm trying to get through some of the thick skulls in this msg board. Capitalism has really brainwashed many ppl...

I really don't know what you two are talking about.

1) 33 cents isn't the lowest rate around for subs, so why are you picking on SS?
2) SS has a tiered system that allows you to climb to higher income bands.
3) As others have pointed out, the average on SS is much higher with ODs, SODs and ELs thrown in.
4) SS has to be competitive with the other agencies, and historically has given annual pay rises to contributors when possible.

I don't think referring to people as 'thick skulls' who are 'brainwashed' is very helpful. It's a free world where people can disagree on the basis of their own experience and perspective.

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

cthoman · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:26 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 11:53

Often when sites raise prices, they combine it with a commission cut and my earnings go down. I hope SS stick with their current prices and commissions, I had a BME last month. Istock raised prices a lot and my earnings are nowhere near the levels they used to be.

I don't understand people that would prefer 100 sales at $1 to 300 at $0.38.

I'd actually prefer 10 sales at $10, but I understand your point.

stockastic · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:57 »

It's about price erosion and the lost perception of 'value'. 100 sales at $1 are better than 300 sales at .33 because there's a more of a FUTURE at a price of $1.

Subscriptions are all smoke and mirrors anyway, there's no way to know what a buyer actually paid for an image because the cost is all in up-front fees - mediated by countless plans, promotions and packages. The payment to the photographer is just a token, a scrap of bread tossed out the back door. They're still plumbing the depths, cutting payments and trying to find the point at which images stop flooding in. That point, as many have guessed by now, is zero.

wut · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: rubyroo on April 03, 2012, 12:18

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 11:31
Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28
Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

Exactly! Very well put. That's what I'm trying to get through some of the thick skulls in this msg board. Capitalism has really brainwashed many ppl...

I really don't know what you two are talking about.

1) 33 cents isn't the lowest rate around for subs, so why are you picking on SS?
2) SS has a tiered system that allows you to climb to higher income bands.
3) As others have pointed out, the average on SS is much higher with ODs, SODs and ELs thrown in.
4) SS has to be competitive with the other agencies, and historically has given annual pay rises to contributors when possible.

I don't think referring to people as 'thick skulls' who are 'brainwashed' is very helpful. It's a free world where people can disagree on the basis of their own experience and perspective.

First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image (Read 17772 times)

Artist

Kngkyle

nicku

sharpshot

PinnacleAnimates

sharpshot

lagereek

nicku

wut

rubyroo

luissantos84

wut

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

wut

stockastic

wut

luissantos84

sharpshot

Tabimura

rubyroo

lisafx

cthoman

stockastic

wut

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors