Viewpoint
On 26 May, Shutterstock sent out an email announcing a new earnings structure ‘to re ect changes in the market for creative content, help to create fair opportunities, and reward performance with greater earnings potential’.
It didn’t take long for furious contributors to launch the hashtag #boycottshutterstock in response, and for many of them to start removing their portfolios from Shutterstock’s website. The new minimum royalty of $0.10 per download was introduced on 1 June.
The fact that a billion-dollar-company was rolling this out amid a pandemic only added to the fury.
Arbitrarily cutting royalties is nothing new – both Getty and Alamy have reduced contributor earnings in recent years in order to grow revenue in an increasingly competitive market place, but the timing of this announcement couldn’t be worse.
But why should Shutterstock or anyone in the advertising or marketing community care? It’s unlikely that a website of 200 million images will be too adversely affected by a few disaffected contributors. Plus there will inevitably be some poor naive young photographers who will only be too happy to join the queue to earn $0.10 per download.
Why should image buyers care that contributors are shafted as long as they can buy cheap stock imagery?
The reason is that the quantity of quality content will drop, especially when it comes to creative model released images and footage. There is no point in investing any signi cant time or cash in producing high-quality material if they’re going to earn as little as $0.10. Production will have to be as cheap and as high-volume as possible.
So what’s likely to happen next? A few sensitive creatives might experience a small prick of conscience when they next download an image for a campaign that will pay the contributor $0.10. But that’s unlikely to last – rather like the supply of fresh high-quality creative model released content.
The #boycottshutterstock campaign will gradually zzle out, as spouting fury on social media every day can be just too exhausting and unproductive. Most contributors will probably decide just to grin and bear it, but there are alternative options out there. For example, Pond5 offers a 60% royalty split for exclusive content as well as the capability for contributors to set their own pricing.
But the reality is that for the vast majority of artists, it is no longer possible to make a full-time living as a stock photographer. Some contributors may even decide that it’s time to quit stock photography altogether and become a tness instructor or a life coach. On the other hand, if you’re a stock photographer with a genuine passion for your hobby, a market still exists for you to pro t from it. That’s because despite the aforementioned challenges, it can be a brilliant side hustle. Will it provide a full-time income? Unlikely, but it can still pay some bills if you approach it in the correct way.