Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

eyefull · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:05 pm

If the average number of downloaded images per month per subscriber is more than 499 then Shutterstock will start to lose money. What would happen in this case? Would the subscription increase or would the payout decrease?

I realize there are similiar posts but none of them really answer this specific question.

theodor38 · Joined: 09 Nov 2004 Posts: 96

this question has been asked and answered many times over. please take a glance at other threads before starting new one with same content. but to answer your question: some designers may downlaod more than others and some download less.. in the end it all evens out. not all designers are after a massive collection of stock phtography. most have very busy lives with jobs to be finished before deadline,. and this place is a wonderfull place to be for them for they can come here and find what they need quick.. and they dont have to worry about how many they have downloaded or what not. much better than paying hundreds of dollars for each individual stock photography..
and i am quoting another answer from another thread where shutterstock admin said if something as you suggested were to happen than the subscription price would be the first thing to be tweaked.. shutterstock has created a great community and a marketplace for photographers and designers and from what i conclude has a very good idea of how to keep a business going. and shutterstock seems to be protective over the photographers. so i would have no fear personally of payout level being decreased.

eyefull · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:03 pm

I have read the other posts. They seem to all be talking about scams. What if we download our own stock and what if friends download. I did not see anything specific to the question I asked. Maybe I have overlooked them, but I DID look before posting.

theodor38 · Joined: 09 Nov 2004 Posts: 96

your scepticism is understandable. i was sceptic at first too.
here is an article talking about jon who is the founder of shutterstock.

http://www.surfsecret.com/media/entrep041403.html

just hang around a bit. talk to people. talk to jon. i am sure you will feel comfortable about this concept eventually..[/url]

GeneralE · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:31 pm

periwinkle · Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 40 Location: West Haven, CT

Respectfully, I think that what eyeful is wondering, is if a person who subscribes to shutterstock downloads more than 499 images per month (499 * 0.20 = $99.80), that shutterstock will have to pay out more in royalties than it will make in the sale of the subscription (1 month costs $99.99). That's roughly 16-17 images a day.

Eyeful, some history might be helpful here. Based on other threads (and my fairly limited understanding of the matter), Shutterstock started out as a private stock agency, but wanted to gain a wider breadth of images in a quicker fashion. Fairly recently (end of October?), they decided to allow photos by other photographers on a royalty basis. I'd suspect that many of the most popular images are owned by Shutterstock - and they won't have to pay royalties to themselves.

Additionally, it's been stated in some of the other threads that currently, it more than balances out. This isn't too surprising to me, if they are in currently in the process of building the library. I'm sure that if they were losing money, that they'd make appropriate changes.

shutterstock · Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 1881 Location: New York, NY

We aren't losing money - and we dont plan to lower the payout to photographers. This is a new system - and changes may have to be made.

If we start to lose money - or want to start spending more on marketing - we will increase the subscription price.. But this will help you guys.. since the money will be spent back on the site anyway.

i have no problem charging $129 or $149 for a month of unlimited downloads... And I dont think other people will have a problem paying for that.

And if you download your own photos, we will not pay you. It's just not going to work if people do that.

Jon

periwinkle · Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 40 Location: West Haven, CT

Cheers, Jon!

shutterstock · Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 1881 Location: New York, NY

Cheers periwinkle!

eyefull · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:27 pm

Thank you Jon, that was exactly the answer that I was looking for.

I don't believe theodor38 and GeneralE understand what I am trying to say, but thankfully you do.

GeneralE · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:13 pm

eyefull · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:29 pm

GeneralE · Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:02 pm

I see what you mean : )

... I do think Jon has also addressed the issue of hyper-downloading, but I can't remember where -- could even have been on a forum at another site. I think he also mentioned somewhere that their system prevents the use of an automated downloading systems, so that someone can't simply harvest the entire site in a month.

Overall, though, I'm happy to leave that aspect of these things in his hands ... I've more than enough to do trying to take some saleable pictures.