The form is here: https://forms.gle/YqpTCREUodA4iTz98

It's completely anonymous and even I can't see any of your details. (the form is hosted on Google Forms)

Like the subject of this thread and the description of the form say - this is to determine what our collective demands are and to see how much bargaining power we have.

Please share it so that people who don't frequent this forum can fill it out as soon as possible. We need to act quickly.

Thanks!

One of my principle concerns isn't addressed by the form (unless I misread or overlooked it).

Percentages MUST be based on an actual percentage of what the buyer paid for the image (subscription fee/ actual images downloaded) not on the total possible number of downloads.

If we do end up on a percentage based system I foresee this having perhaps the biggest impact on our income.

I didn't include it for clarity's sake. If more people choose the option to apply levels to subscription-based content, then it can be discussed.

The problem with this approach is that I think it might be a logistical nightmare. First of all, that means - no real time $ reporting for subs. Secondly, not everyone's subscription plan will begin on the 1st of the month, so this means a sale would be reported 30/31 days after the sale has been made in order to account for that. Someone who licensed one of your images on April 24, but started the plan on April 21 means that you would see the $ on May 21st at the earliest. Right?

In any case, if you can help me phrase the question clearly and explain what would that mean in a sentence or two, I can add it to the form in a minute.

How about:
"
In any pay rate system percentages must be based on an actual percentage of what the buyer paid for the image (subscription fee/ actual images downloaded) not on the total possible number of downloads.
Yes
No
"

The logistics is up to them to handle. As I previously suggested, it should be easy enough to pay us the minimum on download (i.e. the level they would like to get away with always paying) and the remainder as a bonus in the following months when they know how many dls have been utilised. Sites offering unlimited DLs manage this (much smaller sites with less resources than SS). Isn't it what Canva just implemented too?

I know this is a slightly more complicated issue but the devil's in the detail here. I fear this is actually a big part of how they are using the new scheme to divert a LOT of money from us to them.

Form updated.

Some numbers - so far we have 21 respondents and 170000 assets!

Please share the poll to other places - shutterstock forums and microstock.ru forum!

The problem with this approach is that I think it might be a logistical nightmare. First of all, that means - no real time $ reporting for subs. Secondly, not everyone's subscription plan will begin on the 1st of the month, so this means a sale would be reported 30/31 days after the sale has been made in order to account for that. Someone who licensed one of your images on April 24, but started the plan on April 21 means that you would see the $ on May 21st at the earliest. Right?

It reminds me the situation at iStock : no live datas on earnings, royalties statement released every 20th of the following month...

Sorry, I feel churlish seemingly sniping from the sidelines when someone else has made an effort but the questionnaire does not address my concerns.

•    I don�t shoot video and there is no N/A answer or the option to skip.
•    Not resetting after 12 months is better than resetting after 12 months but I would not consider that change a victory. It�s the wrong pitch with which to begin a negotiation.
•    Percentages/subscription blah blah. That�s the mechanics. The question for me is what is the absolute minimum I would accept for a photograph to be licensed and that is probably $0.33, same as Adobe and a couple of cents less than DT.

Sorry, I feel churlish seemingly sniping from the sidelines when someone else has made an effort but the questionnaire does not address my concerns.

•    I don�t shoot video and there is no N/A answer or the option to skip.
•    Not resetting after 12 months is better than resetting after 12 months but I would not consider that change a victory. It�s the wrong pitch with which to begin a negotiation.
•    Percentages/subscription blah blah. That�s the mechanics. The question for me is what is the absolute minimum I would accept for a photograph to be licensed and that is probably $0.33, same as Adobe and a couple of cents less than DT.

I added the "I don't know" options for video-based questions.

If you select "no", you will be taken to the next page to enter what you would consider minimum baseline guarantee in the new scheme.

That's what it says in the description of the question.

I added the "I don't know" options for video-based questions.

If you select "no", you will be taken to the next page to enter what you would consider minimum baseline guarantee in the new scheme.

That's what it says in the description of the question.

Thanks - form submitted. Maybe it's just me but until you explained the subscription question I had taken "leave subscriptions alone" to mean leave them as they are now, i.e. pre 1 June, so would have answered "yes".

I filled out the form, but there are a couple of things I couldn't say.

1. Any levels-based scheme should be based on $$ not downloads. They don't report revenue and profit to shareholders in units and we don't get paid in units. Even with that change, I have severe reservations about having annual sales targets because t means that if the agency becomes very poor at selling our content, they get rewarded with a bigger share of each sale. We then have to fund their decline or quit.

I mention this because I gave 123rf's rolling 12-month scheme a try - remember how they promised it would increase sales for us? What happened (and I was actively uploading to them at the time) was that content selling briskly on Shutterstock and others did nothing much on 123rf. When the inevitable happened and I dropped down a level in royalties I closed my account. It was clear (from my portfolio's performance at other agencies at the same time) that that problem was with them, not my content. But they get rewarded and my royalties would have been reduced.

We want a system where both the agency and we have a way to thrive together. The biggest motivator to upload is sales. The reason that SS has become less and less interesting (from a contributor point of view) is that with over 320 million images, adding over a million a week, there's no way to keep up as a producer and they can't grow the business fast enough to do that either.

They want to discount subscriptions more to try and grow the business but can't afford to, even given that they keep the "extra" for undownloaded allotments. The last quarterly report, the e-commerce business was growing and the enterprise segment shrinking. I expect they'll dig their heels in on flat rate subscription royalties and try to fiddle with the formula for levels or making it rolling.

If I really thought they could fix the enterprise business - where all those lovely SOD royalties came from, I think - I'd be concerned about the percentages more. But I think the nuts and bolts of this is keeping the flat subs royalties. Perhaps we should ask for a new subs tier above 38 cents?

Why even bother trying to salvage anything with this company? It's like trying to get an abusive spouse to promise to stop beating you. What is the point? SS is junk and we really don't need them.

The form is here: https://forms.gle/YqpTCREUodA4iTz98

It's completely anonymous and even I can't see any of your details. (the form is hosted on Google Forms)

Like the subject of this thread and the description of the form say - this is to determine what our collective demands are and to see how much bargaining power we have.

Please share it so that people who don't frequent this forum can fill it out as soon as possible. We need to act quickly.

Thanks!

if you have a non-google form, I'll fill it in. google is NOT anonymous, despite whatever they say. especially when tehy say "you MUST sign into google, with your verified phone account, before we will let you fill in this form"...

Not interested in any of the options you give in the survey. I am not going again on a hamster wheel. Today they might backtrack and make a rollover to next year. But i tell you that, those targets are going to be worse and worse as the years pass by.

My rule is simple. Everyone that pays under 30% gets no content from me. The only agencies that are fair are those that pay a reasonable fixed percentage (the higher the better) and share the risk and success with you, that percentage can be different depending if you are exclusive or not.

Don't fall into the yearly target trap. It will bite you back very hard.

if you have a non-google form, I'll fill it in. google is NOT anonymous, despite whatever they say. especially when tehy say "you MUST sign into google, with your verified phone account, before we will let you fill in this form"...

That's just to prevent spam and/or people filling out the form multiple times. 

100 responses - preliminary results

• Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.

92% YES
8% NO

Why do you think levels have to be re-evaluated at all ?