Congratulations! As a super Level 6 contributor, you will now earn a whopping 10 cents per image!

They should include that in the email. 

While moving up a level might not have a massive impact on your earnings (although it will to some extant... that is how the levels work after all!) if you're getting over 25,000 downloads in a year, then I can pretty much guarantee that it will make a difference in your earnings if you're planning to close your account!

Just received a email titled:- Congrats, you climbed to a higher level as an image contributor!

I haven't uploaded since their criminal behaviour started.

It makes no difference in my earnings, I will, as soon as I can shut my Port down.

don't worry about this: in 2 months you'll be back at the worst level existing, as every one else in SS.

Well just 1 download needed to make it from level 4 to level 5 ~ so with only 1 month and 9 days left I'll be on 35% or 10 cents per image download.


Then get sent back down the snake to level 1 15% on January 1st.

.

Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

Shutterstock, microstock ... It's not my fault, it's my choice. I don't feel guilty of anything.


Moving from level 5 to 6 on SS a few weeks ago, I didn't notice any significant difference in total earnings.

And, if you are at level 5 now, you should be back to this level sometime in February.

Oringer and the other guy are very greedy, capable of selling their souls to the devil for money. Their greed is going to end up undermining what is called microstock. Sad for those whose primary source of income is the microstock. You have to think about a plan A, B, C, D ... Because the days of microstock are numbered, as many have said around here.

I guess everyone is still celebrating the deal years ago, Getty taking us all to15%? While at least SS offers some levels? Did everyone forget that or the percentage of a cent connect credits? This month:  0.07$ iStockphoto ILLUSTRATION. Dreamstime, yeah there's a great place, 35 cents, but I only get about six downloads a year. Pond 5 doesn't sell photos, or if they do, that's rare. 123RF no reviews, no pay, the site is hacked and buggier than the rain forest. Deposit licenses your image to themselves, as a minimal pay sub, and resells for higher prices. Bigstock is just as bad as SS and their 25� subs aren't very pretty and limited.

Look at the broader market and competition. Don't forget how many people supplied the terrible low paying, low life agencies, that had the same method of attracting buyers, "We sell for less". Hardly anyone stood up then and said any of the same things you do now, to attack ShutterStock? That seems odd. I guess blame is easy when you ignore the whole system and broader Microstock market that's crashing around us.

But it seems almost everyone here is blaming ShutterStock and calling them names for creating a new commission system, to compete in the market against the rest of the predatory agencies. They didn't start this, they are just adjusting to the competition who stole from us in the first place.

Someone who's shouting out with anger at SS please defend the 15% flat rate at IS? Announced for 2017 and the wonderful minimum, which was at the same time, 2 cents. Their subscription package that directly competes with Shutterstock�s main offering (until the new SS system) of 750 monthly downloads is paying 17 cents per download. While SS was paying us 38 cents and losing money on those commissions.

Never more.  SS now beats that for low with .10 to .19 for level 4 or .10 to .22 for level 5. But don't get lost. The minimum from IS is 2 cents!

Adobe is the only site with any respect for artists.

Just remember the only reason you get 0.10c per download at the highest level is because you allow it. It's not the fault of Shutterstock, it's your fault. Blame nobody but yourself.

Exactly! Just some people still can't understand that.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 26, 2020, 14:22

But it seems almost everyone here is blaming ShutterStock and calling them names for creating a new commission system, to compete in the market against the rest of the predatory agencies. They didn't start this, they are just adjusting to the competition who stole from us in the first place.

So instead of blaming Shitterstock we should admire them? Not me.

Nope, but you should be reasonable and stop blaming them for everything or stop ignoring that IS is paying us a flat 15% with no levels and offering a minimum of 2 cents. Where's all the anger, hate and never ending messages for that?

Again Shutterstock is not paying 15%. They just say they are.

You just said in another thread that subs have "nothing to do with the percentages", I have addressed that over there. See my other post and please stop spreading misinformation about a pay structure you clearly don't understand.

Thanks for bring this together in one place, that makes more sense than two threads on the same issues.

I clearly don't understand I guess? Subs are not paid at 15% for the minimum. Which just for the facts, we are paid over the 15%.  If the commission is less than 10c, we get a crappy 10 cents. (unrelated to the level percentage)

When the earnings are more than 10c, we get the percentage for that level. All others: OD, SO, EL we get a minimum of 15% for level 1 and more for each level.

What don't I understand? What's the misinformation in that.

Can you explain, any sale, where they aren't paying 15% or more?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 27, 2020, 08:20

...
What don't I understand? What's the misinformation in that...

My point is that they aren't paying anything like the true percentage of what a buyer pays. That would be honest and it is how other agencies calculate it (see Canva etc.). Their email said they were. That is what I mean.

We know that buyers use a tiny fraction of their large subscription packages where most of our downloads come from.

The restrictions are basically there just to prevent abuse (like a buyer downloading the whole collection). We know that because they made a lot of their profits just on these margins. If a buyer used their full allowance (or near it) they wouldn�t be making any money when they were paying us 38c and turns out they were actually managing to bag 80% (check out the stock holders meeting where Jon said 20% to contributors was the sweet spot/ minimum to keep us producing).

So a real world example, as a level 6 contributor (topic of this thread) when a buyer buys an image as part of a 750 image billed monthly pack Shutterstock pay me:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 40%= 10c/dl

Lets imagine the same buyer uses 50% of their downloads (I strongly believe this is extremely generous on my part given what I said about SS previous profits) what 40% would actually be:

$199/325 images= .61c per image 40%= .25c/dl

So in this example they are in fact paying out 16(ish)% to level six contributors when they claim 40%. So less than half what they claim.

Nice hypothetical based on reasonable assumptions. But you are imagining and making up numbers, not using factual, absolute data. I mean what if someone uses their whole package? Is SS supposed to lose money on every download, because it's all about me?

Show us where in real numbers, your claim, SS is paying under the promised rate.

Again Shutterstock is not paying 15%. They just say they are.

You just said in another thread that subs have "nothing to do with the percentages", I have addressed that over there. See my other post and please stop spreading misinformation about a pay structure you clearly don't understand.

10c subs, and what they pay us for those, have nothing to do with percentages, because they are paying us OVER the promised percentage. That's not misinformation. In any case they are paying us the minimum, which is over the promised percentage at any level not the actual percentage.

Now show me in real numbers where SS isn't paying us the promised percentages? If not, then there's the misinformation.

Shutterstock is not paying 15%.

Show me?