MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Envato => PhotoDune => Topic started by: fritz on February 06, 2017, 19:35
-
After more than 5 years being contributor and according to their site still among the top 50 authors,sold more than xx.000$, became top 20 authors of the month with an item that was trending,port size with more than 14k items, today I received mail from PD:
"As part of our library-wide assessment of photos on PhotoDune, we’ve done a review of your portfolio. Unfortunately, the sample we looked through resulted in a very high number of photos that did not meet our new library standards.Over the coming weeks we’ll be removing your PhotoDune portfolio as part of our clean up process"
Guess they need images from the moon with signed property release form!
I'll survive without Envato :) but one day if I go to the moon I'll be happy to upload more images from space
Wish you all the best and see you in the next life ENVATO!
-
Yup, me too, although I didn't do as well, I think I was in the top few hundred. I'm glad I didn't spend any time trying to figure out their new system.
-
Yup, me too, although I didn't do as well, I think I was in the top few hundred. I'm glad I didn't spend any time trying to figure out their new system.
Oh great, I've gotten some stuff from Envato but based on the reference they looked like Spam so I deleted unread. Wonder if I'm in or out.
If you've been booted, can you tell by looking at your profile page? My hard drive died and I lost my password so I haven't been able to login. Wondering if it's worth the hassle to try and get back on the site. I'd at least like to know if I'm still a member!
-
As far as I could tell there was no notice on the site, just the e-mail. Maybe they are booting everyone to change the TOS a ton?
I was going to change all my image prices to $100 or more, but it wasn't immediately obvious how to do that.
-
Me too! What a ingratitude! Bljaaaah! :'(
Twice, my images were in their "Bundle" and whole other badges! Badges, what a shits!
This clearly show what we are for them (all agencies), and that we need our contributor site whole the time...
-
Lol, looks like their CEO will be searching for a new job quite soon. :D
-
Lol, looks like their CEO will be searching for a new job quite soon. :D
Haha, not likely. PhotoDune was always their worst earner (and 3D), earning practically nothing compared to ThemeForest.
-
Awesome, I've had "featured image" badge, "image of the week" badge, above 4.5 rating and now I am kicked out :D
I remeber 4-5 years ago I used to have $30/month with 500 images, recently I've had normally $10-$15/month with over 5000 images.
I hope their customers will find my images somewhere else, in some descent agency :)
-
Lol, looks like their CEO will be searching for a new job quite soon. :D
Haha, not likely. PhotoDune was always their worst earner (and 3D), earning practically nothing compared to ThemeForest.
Well I have a feeling they are going to have hard times ahead. Still reading all the comments under their announcement is quite an entertaintment. ;)
-
First the EU-Vat platform bull.sh.it than the "we are a american company" relaunch and now they kicking there best contributors.
I think they have massive problems with the tax authorities.
-
Lets hope all crumby agencies go into oblivion
-
Add me to the list. I was a good seller there with several badges also, but got the boot like everyone else.
When you read the possible reasons for being dumped, there are the low quality ones like lighting, commercial value, etc., but they also list too many similars. Having seen who their top sellers were (pretty much the same as other sites) they all had lots of similars. I know I did. They never told us NOT to upload similars, and eagerly accepted them all.
So who's at fault here? Even DT kept contributors on when they started no similars policy. They just changed acceptance criteria going forward. And we know how successful that policy was for them. ;)
My guess, Envato are getting out of microstock altogether. Maybe learning they couldn't force us into paying their taxes on their share of earnings took the fun out of it for them.
-
I think they have massive problems with the tax authorities.
No... They have just run out of space on their HDD... ;D
-
I think they have massive problems with the tax authorities.
No... They have just run out of space on their HDD... ;D
I believe you're right. I think they underestimated the difference in all the resources microstock requires, compared to their other marketplaces. Not just storage but providing good search capabilities for large volumes of assets, and of course all the reviewers required by a large and growing collection. They had no concept of the scale they would face, and now they're backing off. Dropping so much content will reduce their expenses; question is whether it won't also wipe out their income from this market.
-
Well I have a feeling they are going to have hard times ahead. Still reading all the comments under their announcement is quite an entertaintment. ;)
The thing is that PhotoDune is not significant for Envato as a company at all, so they can afford to experiment.
The top author on PhotoDune makes around $1,000 per month. Guess what the top ThemeForest author makes? A whopping $372,000 per month.
ThemeForest is at least 300 times (probably 500-1000) more valuable than PhotoDune. They could shut down PhotoDune today and not blink, but instead they are trying to create something else so they don't compete directly with the other microstock agencies.
-
ThemeForest is at least 300 times (probably 500-1000) more valuable than PhotoDune. They could shut down PhotoDune today and not blink, but instead they are trying to create something else so they don't compete directly with the other microstock agencies.
Or perhaps they realised that their management of PhotoDune has been a total failure, but prefer not to admit it openly by closing it completely.
-
Or perhaps they realised that their management of PhotoDune has been a total failure, but prefer not to admit it openly by closing it completely.
Well, that is also true, and there is much to improve with search and reviewers. They failed doing the microstock volume way, so now they want to try something else.
That it's not a significant financial loss makes it a lot easier to just shut down and try something else.
-
Or perhaps they realised that their management of PhotoDune has been a total failure, but prefer not to admit it openly by closing it completely.
Well, that is also true, and there is much to improve with search and reviewers. They failed doing the microstock volume way, so now they want to try something else.
That it's not a significant financial loss makes it a lot easier to just shut down and try something else.
Yes it would make more sense to close it down completely and start again than go through this farce...or just shut it down
-
I´m in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess it´s fine if that can help up the overall quality :)
-
I´m in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess it´s fine if that can help up the overall quality :)
Nice port I can see you are bang "on trend"
-
I also got dumped.
-
bang on trend - indeed, great portfolio, although i have never high fived in the office like that, no matter how big the achievement, lol
-
I´m in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess it´s fine if that can help up the overall quality :)
Are you happy that your images will now be available as unlimited downloads for $49 a month?
-
bang on trend - indeed, great portfolio, although i have never high fived in the office like that, no matter how big the achievement, lol
Haha true that! But it´s a business so gotta shoot what sells right ;)
-
I´m in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess it´s fine if that can help up the overall quality :)
Are you happy that your images will now be available as unlimited downloads for $49 a month?
Nope im not. I´m checking up on the prices/terms within the next couple days, and if 49$ get´s unlimited downloads we´re out of there :-)
-
I´m in - But got about 20% of my port deleted. Guess it´s fine if that can help up the overall quality :)
Are you happy that your images will now be available as unlimited downloads for $49 a month?
Nope im not. I´m checking up on the prices/terms within the next couple days, and if 49$ get´s unlimited downloads we´re out of there :-)
From their forum:
Q: Will inclusion in Elements be mandatory? Selling unlimited subscriptions for $49 / month is insane, that's just undercutting all other markets and will only lead to further erosion of photographers income.
A: At this stage, yes.
https://forums.envato.com/t/adjusting-our-focus-a-new-approach-for-photos-at-envato/73708/19?u=dirk-r
-
war pf poor against poor.
no more no less.
-
DICKR - Well that´s it then. I´m giving them 24 hours to answer our mail, and if they dont comply our specific terms we are deleting our account there :-)
Did the same when Depositphotos tried to be smart, and so did a lot of other pro´s. Now they only have crap images at Deposit 8)
-
DICKR - Well that´s it then. I´m giving them 24 hours to answer our mail, and if they dont comply our specific terms we are deleting our account there :-)
A) Isn't 24 hours a bit short notice, given that the 'powers that be' probably won't be at work for 16 of those 24 hours?
B) What are your terms?
C) It's not exactly 'unlimited' downloads. At Videoblocks you can download whatever you want, whenever you want, and you can use it whenever you want... even if your subscription has expired.
For Elements, you need to have an active subscription when you use the item. You also need to register the use of the item, by documenting how you are using it, in what project. So you can't just download anything and everything, and you can't make up what you're using it in. So if you say you're using the image in a cat video, and you actually use it in a dog brochure, you don't have a valid license to use the image... so you're breaching copyright.
Yes, that's not going to stop those who want to cheat the system, but I'd like to think most people play by the rules... otherwise, nobody would ever buy extended licenses or multiple licenses! And if somebody is out to cheat the system, then it's unlikely they're going to want to pay $49 a month for the pleasure... they'll find a way to get images for $0 a month.
Anyway, I'm not saying Element is good or bad for photo types, as it's too early to say. Worth a try though!
-
maybe its good for people to know you work for envato, so they can take that into consideration when they read your comments.
-
I don't work for Envato, I moderate on their forums in a voluntary capacity. And I use the same username here as I do there, so I'm not exactly hiding it.
There's no benefit to me if Elements succeeds, or if it doesn't... I'm just the voice of reason, the optimist, and the devil's advocate in a world of stock photographers that think the world is ending, everyone is out to get them, and their work is so amazingly fantastic that anybody who thinks otherwise is obviously an idiot.
If Elements turns out to be s**t for stock photo revenue, then I'll gladly admit that it's s**t for stock photo revenue... but seeing as they haven't launched photos there yet, it's maybe a bit too soon for people to dismiss it. Can't be worse than iStock, right?!
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.
-
DICKR - Well that´s it then. I´m giving them 24 hours to answer our mail, and if they dont comply our specific terms we are deleting our account there :-)
Did the same when Depositphotos tried to be smart, and so did a lot of other pro´s. Now they only have crap images at Deposit 8)
Your images are so good! Please don't accept less. You deserve more. I deleted my port with DP as well...
-
DICKR - Well that´s it then. I´m giving them 24 hours to answer our mail, and if they dont comply our specific terms we are deleting our account there :-)
Did the same when Depositphotos tried to be smart, and so did a lot of other pro´s. Now they only have crap images at Deposit 8)
Your images are so good! Please don't accept less. You deserve more. I deleted my port with DP as well...
Thank you :) And we won´t ;)
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.
1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.
2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.
3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.
We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.
Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.
Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.
-
If I may add, I don't mean any offense by my posts. I believe we are (contributors) all on the same side and need to gain more ground over the stock companies and the culture they've had the power to shape into squeezing our share of the pie into near nothing. I do like a healthy debate though. But much like politics, we are inclined to get caught up arguing with each other on minutia and not focusing on the obvious problems, and unfortunately, in many cases our adversaries are the stock companies themselves. When you upload somewhere, you essentially "vote" for that companies existence. Everyone should be treating these choices we have to sell our content that way, and there might eventually be some bending back in our favor for once.
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.
1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.
2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.
3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.
We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.
Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.
Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.
1. They've been around for ten years and it's not like there's been a massive rush at SS or iS to drop HD files to $8. The market is big enough for multiple sites to exist at multiple price points.
2. The list price is the price that the item is sold for. The item price is the list price, minus the buyer's fee. It's not the clearest structure, but it's not exactly hidden either. The fact the pie chart shows $36 from a $100 sale demonstrates that. 'Confusing' would probably be more accurate than 'misleading', but all the information is there.
3. Maybe a valid point, but maybe a fresh start is what they needed. Their experiment with Unstock showed that a different approach could result in a massive increase in revenue per image, both for Envato and for the authors.
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.
1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.
2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.
3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.
We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.
Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.
Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.
1. They've been around for ten years and it's not like there's been a massive rush at SS or iS to drop HD files to $8. The market is big enough for multiple sites to exist at multiple price points.
2. The list price is the price that the item is sold for. The item price is the list price, minus the buyer's fee. It's not the clearest structure, but it's not exactly hidden either. The fact the pie chart shows $36 from a $100 sale demonstrates that. 'Confusing' would probably be more accurate than 'misleading', but all the information is there.
3. Maybe a valid point, but maybe a fresh start is what they needed. Their experiment with Unstock showed that a different approach could result in a massive increase in revenue per image, both for Envato and for the authors.
LOL. That sounds like every canned statement an agency makes when they are lowering prices or cutting commissions; "we expect this to result in Shangri-La for everyone".
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.
1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.
2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.
3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.
We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.
Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.
Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.
I was thinking exactly like you until last May and I always refused to upload to agencies that pay less than $25 commission to artists.
Now things have dramatically changed: Pond 5 has introduced their bloody membership plan where excellent files are given away for almost nothing. 200.000 files wisely chosen cover almost every subject and what is more, without garbage and without repetitions.
Artists non participating have been squeezed out by P5, as they have pushed participating ones to the top of the search engine, so it is impossible to get any sales or even any views. Sales in the marketplace area of P5 are disappearing very quickly and even some of the participating artists are feeling the pain, in spite of being rid of the competition of non participating.
Sales of footage in other agencies have gone down, as customers move more and more to the all you can eat buffet of P5 membership.
Very soon SS and FT will have to respond by offering similar prices. The new normal for price of footage is going to be single digit in 2017.
P5 has started the race to the bottom, while we could have enjoyed another 3-4 years of decent prices in the video stock market. The only hope is that will widen the market a bit by attracting a few bloggers.
In other words, thanks to P5 membership, footage market is going to be very similar to still images very soon and Envato/Videohive is very well positioned.
At the moment, rather than uploading new files in P5, where I get absolutely no visibility, I am rather concentrating in uploading my portfolio everywhere, even for $1 for file
-
Artists non participating have been squeezed out by P5, as they have pushed participating ones to the top of the search engine, so it is impossible to get any sales or even any views.
You really refuse to let this go... They DO NOT, and HAVE NOT changed the search placement in relation to being part of the membership program or not.
-
mantis, dont put any weight on comments from people working for an agency, they wont be critical of their employer, regardless if the work is voluntary or not
any agency rep is going to give a positive spin on whatever crap the agency comes out with
-
mantis, dont put any weight on comments from people working for an agency, they wont be critical of their employer, regardless if the work is voluntary or not
any agency rep is going to give a positive spin on whatever crap the agency comes out with
I think it has more to do with liking agencies that give you $$$ to buy cameras and travel all year...
-
Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.
What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.
Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.
1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.
2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.
3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.
We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.
Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.
Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.
1. They've been around for ten years and it's not like there's been a massive rush at SS or iS to drop HD files to $8. The market is big enough for multiple sites to exist at multiple price points.
2. The list price is the price that the item is sold for. The item price is the list price, minus the buyer's fee. It's not the clearest structure, but it's not exactly hidden either. The fact the pie chart shows $36 from a $100 sale demonstrates that. 'Confusing' would probably be more accurate than 'misleading', but all the information is there.
3. Maybe a valid point, but maybe a fresh start is what they needed. Their experiment with Unstock showed that a different approach could result in a massive increase in revenue per image, both for Envato and for the authors.
Ok, here's my thoughts again, with further clarification from a Videohive staff member's input applied:
1. They have been around for 10 years and still their only "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process. For example, Pond5 HAS introduced a membership program to counter the lowball companies like Envato. And while no, Pond5 does not favor those member clips, it's a clear response to the value of video being driven down.
2. They are intentionally misleading confusing potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.
3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library. This may result in a massive increase in revenue per image, for Envato, because unless you've been under a rock for the last 10 or so years, the stock companies (especially the less reputable ones) ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION tilt the scales only further in their favor, not ours. Because we let them and defend them without deeper thought.
There are good companies and there are bad. Some of us didn't educate ourselves before submitting to the bad companies in the first place, got into bed with them, and then become complacent seeing pennies pouring in from lowball sales or 15% commissions and became too stubborn to consider how this is affecting the market as a whole. Good for you. But being a PR rep for them and trying to dupe less savoy new contributors into buying into their BS, that's gonna make it necessary for me to continue to reply to that nonsense and clarify. For whatever little good that can do.
-
I don't need to wait my email. I close my account today. Not be able to upload images since november is just not serious to me. I won't lose my time anymore also it's my lowest learner. But it's awful how they treat good contributor. I don't want to be a part of this agency again. I have pretty good vector selling very good and they never approved them anyway... Good luck Envato !
-
They do give e $$$ to buy cameras and travel, but not directly. They send me decent sums of money every month for my sales, with which I use to buy cameras and travel.
When it comes to Pond5 introducing subscriptions... isn't it more likely that they've introduced subscriptions in response to other sites introducing subscriptions? Just a thought.
While on the subject of Pond5... my sales have been steadily increasing, before and after the subscriptions were introduced (apart from a bit of a lull in December and January - to be expected). I don't think that would be possible if the search results had been rigged to make sure I was near the bottom every time.
On this point: "ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION tilt the scales only further in their favor, not ours."
The item prices and commision rates have increased at least twice since VideoHive has been running. Neither of them have ever dropped. If they're implementing changes without dropping prices or reducing commissions, then it stands to reason that any changes that benefit Envato, will also benefit Envato authors. Not individuals, or groups, but the entire author community as a whole.
Like a change in search results for example... some people are going to lose out. Some people are going to win. But it should bring a few more sales in total. If it doesn't, then they'd probably change it back.
And on this point: "we expect this to result in Shangri-La for everyone".
Well, for starters, people always interpret those statements incorrectly. They never say it will result in Shanri-La for everyone... they usually say that it might result in Shangri-La for the community as a whole, or overall sales, or total revenue... or something like that. Not everyone is automatically going to benefit.
But still... this 'canned response' is based on a one year test that did result in Shangri-La for all included in the test. That makes me optimistic. If they were announcing a cut in prices or commissions, then not so much.
-
The item prices and commision rates have increased at least twice since VideoHive has been running.
So they "raised" their prices, two times even, to get allll the way up to $8? And they "raised" artist share waaaay up to 36%? Wow, super impressive. I stand corrected.
Price and commissions were even lower in the past, and people still submitted there? I'd say that's unbelievable, but then I'd be the naive one to become shocked by how poorly some contributors value themselves.
-
The item prices and commision rates have increased at least twice since VideoHive has been running.
So they "raised" their prices, two times even, to get allll the way up to $8? And they "raised" artist share waaaay up to 36%? Wow, super impressive. I stand corrected.
Price and commissions were even lower in the past, and people still submitted there? I'd say that's unbelievable, but then I'd be the naive one to become shocked by how poorly some contributors value themselves.
Well of course it's going to be $1 increments on a base price of $6. That's a 17% increase. If Shutterstock did the same then it would be $92 instead of $79. A $13 increase might work on a $79 clip, but it's going to be a tough pill to swallow on a $6 clip.
And yes, it's waaay up to 36%... but you do realise that that's more than Shutterstock and much more than iStock? And if you're exclusive then it's 50% to 70%, so it's not exactly bleeding contributors dry.
I hear this a lot... about people poorly valuing themselves. Personally I think it's nonsense... some made up stance that people have which doesn't really correlate that well with the world of stock footage and stock photography. If I 'valued myself better' (i.e. didn't upload anything to VideoHive) then I'd make about $2,250 less a month.
Stock is a business and not an art. Yes, you use the medium of art, and the principles that go with it, to create an end product... but it's a business selling that product. And as with any business, the main thing is usually the bottom line. People rarely sell stock for fun. I'm not that concerned if I'm getting $5 a clip, or $99 a clip... or I'm getting 15% a sale or 70% sale, as long as my net earnings are pretty much where I want them to be. 50% on a $100 sale is lovely, but 50% on 20 $8 sales is even better.
The way I see it, there's room for both types of agencies in the market. Film, tv and advertising people are happy to pay the $79, as that's what they've always paid, and that's what they can afford. Youtube people aren't happy to pay $79 as they're not doing films, tv and advertising, and they need large amounts of content that is affordable. Sure, both sites will sell to whoever wants to buy their stuff, but I think there are two distinct types of buyers. VideoHive caters to one of those types.
I'm happy to cater to both, as that increases my overall profits. Bank managers, landlords and off-license staff don't care about what percentage you get, or how much a clip sells for... they care about cold, hard, filthy dollars.
If you want to value yourself, then you're probably best setting up a photography studio, only taking high-end clients who can see the magnificent brilliance within your work, and having a gallery where you can spend the days explaining to your visitors how you feel the white background of the tomato represents the eternal struggle between fruit and vegetable, a void if you will... and also the purity of its essence as the one true king of foodstuffs. Maybe you could sell prints for $1000 a go?
What you need to understand is that this is an industry that has minimal barriers to entry, where a decent enough camera, combined with a bit of common sense, business savvy, and an eye for a decent shot is pretty much all you need to get started. Combine that with time and more common sense and more business savvy accrued over that time... and it'll probably result in at least a reasonable amount of money coming in every month. It's no longer the domain of the elite photographer, slaving away in their darkroom, with their full format cameras... endlessly telling anyone who will listen about how their parents had old film cameras and you found them so fascinating etc etc.
The business savvy and common sense parts are pretty 'static' commodities, with a long shelf life, but everything else is getting cheaper, quicker, better... so why shouldn't the output from that work also be cheaper?
Even when the photographers who value their work are living on park benches from stubbornly sticking to their lofty sense of self-importance.... I imagine that their cardboard sign will say "can you please spare $50 for a cup of tea" when all the other homeless dudes will say "can you please spare $2 for a cup of tea".
But still, those who have a decent camera, time, common sense and business savvy are still relatively thin on the ground, surprisingly... so there's still hope for those that do have those attributes. You'll be fine for now Daryl, don't worry, but I'm sure we can start a Kickstarter to help out the poor impoverished photographers and keep the ancient art of 'tomatoes on white backgrounds' and 'businessmen shaking hands' alive.
And to be fair... isn't everything that I'm saying probably the same kind of thing that RF people were telling RM people about ten years ago? Surely everybody here is undervaluing their work and contributing to the downfall of stock, by uploading to any of the micro agencies? If you're happy to go with micro over macro, then isn't it slightly hypocritical to diss people who are going with nano over micro?
-
Well said SSF.
The most important attribute you can have working in almost any industry is the ability to accept and adapt to change, and open your eyes to the world around you.
I'm willing to bet most "old pros" know and care little about the biggest market in the world for stock music, footage, and AE templates: it's called YouTube. And the buyers are independent creators. That's 19-year-old Adam who wants to do things legally but under no circumstance can pay $790 for 10 stock clips to use in his YouTube video. There are thousands (tens of thousands) of Adams for each company happy to pay $199 for a 4k clip.
If you don't adapt you will be the last guy selling physical CDs for $19.99 wondering why everyone is listening to music through tiny white earbuds.
Shouldn't you be more mad that you're getting $24 for a clip from Shutterstock used in Doctor Strange with a budget of $165 million?
-
Well said SSF.
The most important attribute you can have working in almost any industry is the ability to accept and adapt to change, and open your eyes to the world around you.
[...]
If you don't adapt you will be the last guy selling physical CDs for $19.99...
I am adapting. I am working on an exit strategy from stock.
-
I am adapting. I am working on an exit strategy from stock.
If you have something that brings you more fun and better income that is the right choice.
-
Well said SSF.
The most important attribute you can have working in almost any industry is the ability to accept and adapt to change, and open your eyes to the world around you.
I'm willing to bet most "old pros" know and care little about the biggest market in the world for stock music, footage, and AE templates: it's called YouTube. And the buyers are independent creators. That's 19-year-old Adam who wants to do things legally but under no circumstance can pay $790 for 10 stock clips to use in his YouTube video. There are thousands (tens of thousands) of Adams for each company happy to pay $199 for a 4k clip.
If you don't adapt you will be the last guy selling physical CDs for $19.99 wondering why everyone is listening to music through tiny white earbuds.
Shouldn't you be more mad that you're getting $24 for a clip from Shutterstock used in Doctor Strange with a budget of $165 million?
Good points.
And it is not only Adam the youtubber.
Once P5 started to offer excellent clips for single digits, even the professional buyers are little by little moving to the membership thingy. They were happy to pay $400 for an excellent clip, but why pay that much when now you can have one almost as good for $5?
-
The recession probably helped sites like VideoHive, and hindered high-priced sites like Shutterstock (relative to VH anyway) as well.... tightening belts, looking for cheaper options etc. For the massive advertising agencies, that may just mean one less shark in the fish tank at reception. For the middle of the road agencies and smaller end setups, that probably means actually cutting costs of production.
I mean, there's some quality stuff at VideoHive. Although surprisingly overlooked for Oscar nominations, 'London Has Fallen' used an AE template from VH in their titles.
-
"They were happy to pay $400 for an excellent clip, but why pay that much when now you can have one almost as good for $5?"
Bingo.
Love the theory that since there are youtubers who want to make their millennial videos and don't have the budget or the understanding of the value of video clips, that it's called "adaptation" to cater to them and practically give them your content. Let them create their own content if they can't afford to buy quality. I don't care how big the budget of the customer is, MY CLIP has value, to me. So I charge a fair price. So go ahead and keep making it rain with pennies. I'll prefer to keep making dollars as long as I can.
-
Love the theory that since there are youtubers who want to make their millennial videos and don't have the budget or the understanding of the value of video clips, that it's called "adaptation" to cater to them and practically give them your content. Let them create their own content if they can't afford to buy quality. I don't care how big the budget of the customer is, MY CLIP has value, to me. So I charge a fair price. So go ahead and keep making it rain with pennies. I'll prefer to keep making dollars as long as I can.
It's not a theory... It's what the market looks like. And it's a relatively new market. And it's absolutely enormous.
Let's take stock music for example. 10-20 years ago it cost you $500-20,000 to license a track.
Why? Because:
1. Not that many could afford to have a home studio -> supply was not that big.
2. Mostly big productions like movies and commercials needed to license music.
Today, millions of tracks are licensed for YouTube, for a cheaper price. The good producers who "give away" their music make $30,000 a month doing so.
You can count on very few hands and feet how many producers of stock music there are who command $5,000 per license. There are a select few, with a name and established relationships in the business. But they are very few, and you can be sure they're not selling 50 licenses per day...
Today anyone with musical talent can make professionally sounding music at home for the cost of a laptop and time. No need to rent a studio, mixing engineer and a mastering engineer.
60 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every hour. A lot of that needs licensed music (and footage + AE templates).
Like SSF said, there is room in the world for all business models. If you are established with good relationships in the business you can continue selling only for high prices, and skip the YouTube market altogether. That's your choice.
Just like it's anyone's choice to provide content for the (enormous) YouTube market.
If you are afraid of the business getting ruined by Videohive then you're not good enough.
People still buy jeans for $200 when you can buy jeans for $10.
-
"If you are afraid of the business getting ruined by Videohive then you're not good enough."
Much like political discussion, there's always a point when it devolves into, "well you must suck." It's not a fear of the business being ruined by Videohive, it's choosing whether or not to contribute to going down a path to self-marginalization in general. Like I said, a few people littering won't make the world a dump, but if we all shared that lack of consideration things would start smelling rotten more and more. It's about choosing a philosophy. Do I do my part to keep this industry alive as long as possible, or do I see it as a sinking ship and poke more holes in the hull?
"People still buy jeans for $200 when you can buy jeans for $10."
Those $10 jeans were sewn together by 10 year olds in Bangladesh. So we have the choice to support child slave labor or pay workers a fair wage to make goods. Honestly, this strengthens my point.
-
How come you support a company like Videoblocks? Now there's a company that has ACTUALLY stirred up the footage licensing business.
---
By the way, according to your logic the iPhone 7 (being the most expensive phone) is put together by Americans with a nice fair wage. We all know that is not the case, just like Ralph Lauren isn't sewing his own clothes...
-
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.
-
y the way, according to your logic the iPhone 7 (being the most expensive phone) is put together by Americans with a nice fair wage. We all know that is not the case, just like Ralph Lauren isn't sewing his own clothes...
That's no where near my logic. Some companies choose to inflate their prices, while exploiting vulnerable workers overseas, that's a whole different economic issue.
-
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.
But, I thought your main concern was companies hurting the business. Videoblocks hurts the business more than Videohive. Why do you support them?
---
One might be led to believe you just care about your own bottom line. By uploading to VB you're supporting their business model by getting customers to sign up, download 1,000 clips for the membership fee and maybe 1 or 2 from you.
-
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.
But, I thought your main concern was companies hurting the business. Videoblocks hurts the business more than Videohive. Why do you support them?
---
One might be led to believe you just care about your own bottom line. By uploading to VB you're supporting their business model by getting customers to sign up, download 1,000 clips for the membership fee and maybe 1 or 2 from you.
This is called pivoting. A common political debate tactic wherein instead of sticking to the relevant discussion, one brings up more topics and distracts from the a faltering position. But again, my clips are not available through VB's sub program, so the relevant comparison is $8/36% vs $50/100%. The choice is pretty clear, to me.
-
I repeat, again:
You were concerned about the business as a whole. You said Envato undercuts with their prices. Videoblocks is a cheaper site with the membership program, thereby hurting the business more (according to your logic).
So, if the BUSINESS was your concern, why support a company that hurts the business? It's a simple question. The $49 clips at VB is pure marketing material for them to get people to sign up for the membership. By uploading, you create membership customers.
---
If the business as a whole is not your concern, but rather your own personal income, why not let people who want sell for $8? Videoblocks is still cheaper.
-
Ok, since you want to make this VH discussion about VB, I'll bite. The whole industry has flaws. No where is perfect. We choose degrees of acceptable or unacceptable situations. We can discuss SS's imperfections too, FT, P5, they all have them. But this was a VH topic, and you chose to pivot to VB. Alrighty.
If a customer goes to VB to buy one of my clips, it won't be through the sub program because I don't and wouldn't participate in that program. So they will pay $50. I know, you're saying that since VB offers a sub program that practically gives away other people's clips, that I'm being inconsistent by selling there. But since I don't participate in that program, I'm not. The value of my clip remains $50, regardless of whether a different clip sells for less. I'm personally being true to keeping video's value reasonable. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.
-
Ok, since you want to make this VH discussion about VB, I'll bite. The whole industry has flaws. No where is perfect. We choose degrees of acceptable or unacceptable situations. We can discuss SS's imperfections too, FT, P5, they all have them. But this was a VH topic, and you chose to pivot to VB. Alrighty.
If a customer goes to VB to buy one of my clips, it won't be through the sub program because I don't and wouldn't participate in that program. So they will pay $50. I know, you're saying that since VB offers a sub program that practically gives away other people's clips, that I'm being inconsistent by selling there. But since I don't participate in that program, I'm not. The value of my clip remains $50, regardless of whether a different clip sells for less. I'm personally being true to keeping video's value reasonable. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.
No, I wanted to make this discussion about "saving the business" and VB seemed like a good example of a company that supposedly brings down the value of stock footage even more than VH. That's why it's a relevant comparison. You clearly stated that the "business" was your concern, making it seem strange that you use one company, but not another.
Why do you think VB sells your clips at all? It's their way of BUYING MARKETING MATERIAL for the membership program.
Basically, you just don't like Envato, and that's perfectly fine. And you like VB more or less, which is fine too. I like them both much more than SS or Fotolia, and sell more at both. I know which one brings me the most $ though.
-
increasingdifficulty, I've responded clearly to each of your points in detail. If my simple and consistent philosophy is still strange to you, I suggest re-reading my previous posts instead of me repeating them. I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I don't defend or participate in VB's subs. I can't control what other people do, only what I do. Not sure what more I can say about that.
Well, I'm about done taking up two threads for the same topic. I apologize to the forum for that.
-
I can't control what other people do,
You certainly seem to have a need to tell them they don't value their work though, and that they should stop contributing, even though they might make more money than you.
I think we're finished here, yes. I'm sure this discussion will come up again soon enough.
---
Again, a last example from the music business:
The business isn't ruined at all (only for people stuck in the 90s), and there are plenty of ways to make a very nice living from your bedroom or expensive studio. I know because I do, and I'm not even a little bit famous. Those ways are just not the same as they were 10-20 years ago. People want more music than ever, and people sell more music than ever.
Just like footage.
-
Video author pricing will be a vast improvement - if they implement it. However I can't gamble the massive amount of time and workflow to upload 1500 videos to a site that culls hard working photographers rather than directing them to do heavy edits of their existing income producing portfolios.
-
I can't control what other people do,
You certainly seem to have a need to tell them they don't value their work though, and that they should stop contributing, even though they might make more money than you.
Never once told anyone what to do. If you're getting defensive, it's because of your own internal doubts. And yes, if you literally are valuing your own work lower, then you are literally valuing your work lower. That's not an opinion, that's math. And really, do you honestly think that personal jab at the end was necessary to make your point? That's yet another debate tactic called "I no longer can make my point through civil discussion so I have to resort to unfounded personal insults."
Sorry forum, last post on this from me, for real this time.
-
I value my work based on how much money it brings in over a period of time, say one year, or five. Not how much any single license costs.
0 licenses sold at $3,000 vs 50 at $25 seems like the latter in fact means a higher value. That's kind of the beauty of digital, non-exclusive content. You can sell it more than once.
Some software companies now seem to get this too, while the old dinosaurs die out.
---
The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it over a time period (not the number the owner puts on it). The value is zero if no one buys it.
In the case of digital goods "people" means not just one person, but all combined sales over the course of that time period.
---
I have sold single licenses for $1,000, but over the course of 5 years, multiple cheap licenses have beaten that. It's more long-term than you think.
-
I've got in.
And also received an invitation to join Envato elements.
-
1. If it rains more than 100 pennies for every dollar, then it's more profitable. Although, slightly more painful.
2. What you value your work at is great, but it might have very little relation to what others value your work at.
3. You may not support VB's subs, but you are supporting their business as a whole, by uploading there. Defend them or not, you're still enabling them.
4. The $200 jeans were probably still made by some kid in Bangladesh.
5. It may be a philosophy, but philosophies don't pay the bills.
5. You choose to keep the price high. Price and value are not always related.
-
Been trying to figure out why some of you are make a discussion about Envato about VB, misrepresenting my thoughts as me trying to tell anyone what to do, attempting to compare incomes with zero information to back your theories, and getting all fired up and defensive about it. You're trying to convince yourselfs, not me. I've said it before, we're on the same side. I want contributors, you and me, to be getting a bigger piece of the pie, to take some pride in your own hard work. But some of you just can't seem to comprehend my intentions, and actually have instincts that lead you against your own best interests. That's not me telling you what to do, that's me describing my observation based on the information you have provided.
From my perspective, I see companies taking advantage of contributors, offering nothing more to our business than a gradual devaluation and decreasing shares of profits. I try to chime in to encourage my fellow contributors to have the confidence in their own work to not squander it, and all I get is grief and defensive pivoting. All the effort you guys make to try to convince me, or yourselves rather, should really be focused on the agencies with their hands in your pockets and contempt for their contributors. We are on the same side, well except the guy who works for Envato. I'm really starting to understand more and more why so many others have stopped posting in forums like these.
-
From my perspective
You need to realize that telling someone they don't value their work can be a condescending insult when the bottom line answers are right there.
For a one-time gig, where you need to spend a week doing actual work, a high price means you value your time.
For digital goods that you can sell 1 million times over once they're created, without additional work or cost, the value is NOT the price, but the collected revenue over a time period. That is a BIG difference.
That's why John Lennon's personal tape master of Imagine may cost $1 million while the digital copy is $0.99. I'm sure you understand the difference but just want to be difficult.
The price YOU set on your digital goods does not equal value. If it's something absolutely unique that you expect might sell once or twice in 20 years - set a high price. If it's something that can be used a hundred thousand times by buyers with more limited budgets, set a lower price.
---
Again, let's take an example from outside the footage world. A top-selling website theme sells for $60. Wow! Only $60 for something that took 6 months to develop. They must not value their work at all...
It makes $370,000 per month and has made $12.5 million to date. I would say the value is pretty high, even though someone might come around and say you should charge at least $3,000 for a website that good.
-
Been trying to figure out why some of you are make a discussion about Envato about VB, misrepresenting my thoughts as me trying to tell anyone what to do, attempting to compare incomes with zero information to back your theories, and getting all fired up and defensive about it. You're trying to convince yourselfs, not me. I've said it before, we're on the same side. I want contributors, you and me, to be getting a bigger piece of the pie, to take some pride in your own hard work. But some of you just can't seem to comprehend my intentions, and actually have instincts that lead you against your own best interests. That's not me telling you what to do, that's me describing my observation based on the information you have provided.
From my perspective, I see companies taking advantage of contributors, offering nothing more to our business than a gradual devaluation and decreasing shares of profits. I try to chime in to encourage my fellow contributors to have the confidence in their own work to not squander it, and all I get is grief and defensive pivoting. All the effort you guys make to try to convince me, or yourselves rather, should really be focused on the agencies with their hands in your pockets and contempt for their contributors. We are on the same side, well except the guy who works for Envato. I'm really starting to understand more and more why so many others have stopped posting in forums like these.
I used to agree with you on avoiding low paying agencies and try to keep footage commissions for artists above $20 for download.
But now it is not possible anymore, P5 membership have made it impossible.
You believe that the danger is Videohive, but VH was such a small niche thing that until a couple of months ago I didn't even know it existed.
Even VB in my opinion is not such a big threat9 Although subs are always dangerous): they are a relatively new entrant and their membership collection is not that good at all.
What ha really changed the game and started the race to the bottom Is P5: the best established footage agency in term of quality that decided to cherry pick 2000.000 extremely useful, non repetitive , good quality files from within their collection and started giving them away for peanuts
-
I have been reading this threat on mathematics with great interest and quite agree with increasinglydifficult but I have one question to add to the mix and that is why do low prices clips and pics have such poor sales when the technical specs of said clips are clearly visible on each site?.
The music industry analogy is great, people love paying 99 cents for a song or maybe a bit more for a higher bitrate version of that same song vs $15 for a whole CD but with video it seems unless price high you don't sell.
One could have the same file sze and format and priced for a couple of dollars and a few hundred dollars and the high priced one will always sell.
This also blows the theory of demand from YouTubers right out of the water, perhaps they do create their own content.
The jeans analogy is just perfect and actually happened to me a few years ago, found the same big brand jeans that normally retail for $80 for $25 a pair, I looked them over in the store, the looked and felt good so I bought five pairs and they lasted as good as if I'd paid $80 for each pair so as a consumer anytime I am looking for jeans of the same quality I go back to this store and pay $25 a pair vs $80 but this doesn't seem to work in photo and video.
-
The music industry analogy is great, people love paying 99 cents for a song or maybe a bit more for a higher bitrate version of that same song vs $15 for a whole CD but with video it seems unless price high you don't sell.
One could have the same file sze and format and priced for a couple of dollars and a few hundred dollars and the high priced one will always sell.
This also blows the theory of demand from YouTubers right out of the water...
That might be how it is for you. It's not how it is for me. So how it is for one person is unlikely to blow anything out of the water. Take this clip...
https://videohive.net/item/global-network-orange/12004875
The high priced versions (at SS, iS, FT, VB, P5 etc) do sell, don't get me wrong, but I don't get $43 a month, every month, like I do on VH. 'Selling' doesn't automatically mean selling more, or earning more profit. One or two sales a month means one thing... fifteen sales a month means something different.
-
After more than 5 years being contributor and according to their site still among the top 50 authors ...
Wish you all the best and see you in the next life ENVATO!
And now they're not paying if you've a leftover of unpaid royalties if they're less than 50$. I've made a withdrawal BEFORE being screwed out of their system.
How do you say when someone takes something without paying?
Maybe STEALING is not the correct word but it's the first that comes in my mind.
-
After more than 5 years being contributor and according to their site still among the top 50 authors ...
Wish you all the best and see you in the next life ENVATO!
And now they're not paying if you've a leftover of unpaid royalties if they're less than 50$. I've made a withdrawal BEFORE being screwed out of their system.
How do you say when someone takes something without paying?
Maybe STEALING is not the correct word but it's the first that comes in my mind.
Do you have the link where they say this....Its not their money so as far as I'm concerned it is stealing.
-
From my perspective
You need to realize that telling someone they don't value their work can be a condescending insult when the bottom line answers are right there.
That's why John Lennon's personal tape master of Imagine may cost $1 million while the digital copy is $0.99. I'm sure you understand the difference but just want to be difficult.
If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you.
Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable, in many ways. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways?
Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price?
And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.
-
If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you.
Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways?
Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price?
And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.
You don't seem to understand what markets there are, or know that you are in fact selling digital goods that never run out, not physical stock.
Do you know about YouTube? Do you know how creators work there? Do you know that many upload 1, maybe 3 videos EVERY single day.
"Fair price" is just a made up number like anything else. It depends on how many buyers you can expect to have for a clip. 20 years ago you could not expect many buyers for a clip, just maybe a single production. Today you can expect hundreds or thousands of smaller buyers for a single clip. THE MARKET HAS CHANGED.
If I get $5,000 selling my work for $10, instead of $1,000 selling it for $500. Is that not more fair to me since I'm selling digital goods and after upload there is no additional work?
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to sell to the YouTube market, which is in fact the biggest market there is, and growing each day. But others want to capitalize on this opportunity, and will do so.
-
If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you.
Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways?
Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price?
And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.
You don't seem to understand what markets there are, or know that you are in fact selling digital goods that never run out, not physical stock.
Do you know about YouTube? Do you know how creators work there? Do you know that many upload 1, maybe 3 videos EVERY single day.
"Fair price" is just a made up number like anything else. If I get $5,000 selling my work for $10, instead of $1,000 selling it for $500. Is that not more fair to me since I'm selling digital goods and after upload there is no additional work?
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to sell to the YouTube market, which is in fact the biggest market there is, and growing each day. But others want to capitalize on this opportunity, and will do so.
Saying "Fair (market) price" is just a made up number like anything else, shows a pure lack of understanding of basic economics.
-
There will always be "markets" full of customers who want to have something for less than it's value, just because they want it, doesn't mean it's a smart move to contribute to lowering the market value as a whole to cater to them. Just because Billy wants to make a living making Youtube videos daily, doesn't mean the market now needs to drop to his standards. If he doesn't want to make the content himself, well then he can put on his big boy pants and earn the money to pay me what my time and effort is worth. The markets are there and will adapt one way or the other, either we stand our ground and keep our prices fair, or you give in to Billy's demands for cheap high quality content.
-
Saying "Fair (market) price" is just a made up number like anything else, shows a pure lack of understanding of basic economics.
If I see that I get $3 per clip per month at a certain price point, but $1 at another, higher price point, which one is more fair?
To me, it is more fair to see a higher number in my bank account for the time spent. If a lower price (say, 1/10) reaches an audience that is a thousand times bigger, it results in a bigger payment. I sell clips for $199, but I can't sell 5-10% of my portfolio for that price every day...
You are selling digital goods that have zero cost for you after upload and can be sold an infinite number of times. This is not milk where each unit sold has a production cost.
The only thing that determines fair or not is what you see in your bank account versus clips in your portfolio. Not price per clip.
I think I should repeat again: The market is not the same as even 5 years ago. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger with a whole new world of buyers.
-
Saying "Fair (market) price" is just a made up number like anything else, shows a pure lack of understanding of basic economics.
If I see that I get $3 per clip per month at a certain price point, but $1 at another, higher price point, which one is more fair?
To me, it is more fair to see a higher number in my bank account for the time spent. If a lower price (say, 1/10) reaches an audience that is a thousand times bigger, it results in a bigger payment. I sell clips for $199, but I can't sell 5-10% of my portfolio for that price every day...
You are selling digital goods that have zero cost for you after upload and can be sold an infinite number of times. This is not milk where each unit has a production cost.
The only thing that determines fair or not is what you see in your bank account versus clips in your portfolio. Not price per clip.
Serious question, How low is too low? Is there a bottom, or is it inevitable that HD footage will be under $1 eventually? And does that mean, in your chain of logic, that 10's of thousands more customers will be waiting to scoop them up and you'll be making even more?
-
If he doesn't want to make the content himself, well then he can put on his big boy pants and earn the money to pay me what my time and effort is worth.
What if there are one million Billys?
I think I must say it again... Since you don't understand. You are selling digital products with unlimited stock. An infinite number of purchases is possible.
If you reach a market that is 10,000 times bigger with a price that is 1/10th you earn more. Then your time and effort is worth more.
Surely that's quite simple to understand.
Of course there are prices that are too low. All I can see is that $79 is too high to maximize revenue for common subjects. $8 might be too low and I think the ideal price today sits around $15-25 or so in order to maximize revenue, IF you sell where the YouTubers go.
Other buyers are happy to pay $100 per clip and I am happy to sell to them to on P5.
-
I really just find it incredible how people know which buyers are part of which markets, sight unseen. I mean, that massive youtube market that just can't afford to pay fair market prices, how some people know when they're not just traditional buyers with real budgets who would have otherwise happily bought a HQ clip for $50+ on Pond5 or Videoblocks, but then actually took the 10 seconds to shop around and go to the low-priced outlet Videohive that the same clip sells at. I mean, as a buyer, if it saves me $42, well yeah, I'm gonna do it, doesn't matter what my budget is or market I'm in.
Is it really a mystery why Videohive guys are complaining about sales at Videoblocks?
While your theories on markets are interesting, without a way to separate them, you are simply just devaluing yourself to all markets.
-
Yes, of course there will be overlap. That is inevitable. Also know that the P5 license is not the same as VH's.
I sold 2 years without VH so I can see my personal data before and after. All I can say is that my bank account is happier and $/clip/month is higher.
About 30% are 4k sales. For me, that's about 3-5% on other sites. That tells me $199 for 4k is too high and even the bigger buyers settle for HD.
-
And now they're not paying if you've a leftover of unpaid royalties if they're less than 50$. I've made a withdrawal BEFORE being screwed out of their system.
How do you say when someone takes something without paying?
Maybe STEALING is not the correct word but it's the first that comes in my mind.
Not quite. This isn't something new they've implemented or some change they've just come up with. The rule is, and always has been, that you need to reach $50 before you can withdraw your earnings, so nothing has changed in that respect. They are, however, allowing anybody who hasn't got a balance of $50 or more, when their photos are removed, and who doesn't sell on any of the other Envato marketplaces... to still withdraw all of that money.
Photos haven't been removed yet and they're still figuring out the details from what I can tell, so they're not paying out yet... but it will happen.
As for it being stealing... I guess you could say all of the sites 'steal' your money for a month... or longer if you've not met the threshold. I.e. it's not actually stealing, as there's no intention to permanently deprive you of the money.
-
And now they're not paying if you've a leftover of unpaid royalties if they're less than 50$. I've made a withdrawal BEFORE being screwed out of their system.
How do you say when someone takes something without paying?
Maybe STEALING is not the correct word but it's the first that comes in my mind.
Not quite. This isn't something new they've implemented or some change they've just come up with. The rule is, and always has been, that you need to reach $50 before you can withdraw your earnings, so nothing has changed in that respect. They are, however, allowing anybody who hasn't got a balance of $50 or more, when their photos are removed, and who doesn't sell on any of the other Envato marketplaces... to still withdraw all of that money.
Photos haven't been removed yet and they're still figuring out the details from what I can tell, so they're not paying out yet... but it will happen.
As for it being stealing... I guess you could say all of the sites 'steal' your money for a month... or longer if you've not met the threshold. I.e. it's not actually stealing, as there's no intention to permanently deprive you of the money.
No, only of our interests in bank…
-
And how's that any different to any other site?
-
And now they're not paying if you've a leftover of unpaid royalties if they're less than 50$. I've made a withdrawal BEFORE being screwed out of their system.
How do you say when someone takes something without paying?
Maybe STEALING is not the correct word but it's the first that comes in my mind.
Not quite. This isn't something new they've implemented or some change they've just come up with. The rule is, and always has been, that you need to reach $50 before you can withdraw your earnings, so nothing has changed in that respect. They are, however, allowing anybody who hasn't got a balance of $50 or more, when their photos are removed, and who doesn't sell on any of the other Envato marketplaces... to still withdraw all of that money.
Photos haven't been removed yet and they're still figuring out the details from what I can tell, so they're not paying out yet... but it will happen.
As for it being stealing... I guess you could say all of the sites 'steal' your money for a month... or longer if you've not met the threshold. I.e. it's not actually stealing, as there's no intention to permanently deprive you of the money.
Thanks for the clarification
-
Just received this reply when I asked about payout of my earnings.
Thank you for your message to Envato Help. I'm sorry to hear that your portfolio has not been accepted. Regarding to your question, that's correct, you cannot withdraw less than $50, however, you can make purchases on any Envato Market site with your current balance.
More information about this can be found via the following link:
https://help.market.envato.com/hc/en-us/articles/202499864-How-to-Withdraw-Earnings
I hope this information helps, but please let us know if there is anything else we can do to assist you.
I will not be buying anything from them......
-
No so clear after all then
-
And how's that any different to any other site?
Have I told (wrote ) that it was different from any other site?
-
from the linked page:
"For earnings of less than $50 you can make purchases on any of the Envato Market sites. If your balance is still below $50 after 12 months, you can withdraw the balance to a PayPal account"
-
from the linked page:
"For earnings of less than $50 you can make purchases on any of the Envato Market sites. If your balance is still below $50 after 12 months, you can withdraw the balance to a PayPal account"
That is what I was trying to do. My earnings are all over 12 months old.
-
The question is:"12 months starting from when?".
I started uploading there in August 2016, my last sale was last week and they are going to remove my portfolio sometime in the near future...
Will I receive my money in August 2017? or 12 months after last sale? 12 months after they remove my account?
-
And... it's done. My portfolio on PhotoDune is gone, aside from a handful of images they decided belong on GraphicRiver. Funny that I made payout in March from a zero balance after February, but that doesn't cut any ice with Envato. Wonder if I'll see any sales from the few images they left around.
-
I got the "weekly top seller" badge sometime in the last month with one of my unsuitable images. Everything is still up for sale. Sometimes I don't understand these sites (by sometimes I mean often when it comes to Envato).
-
I got the "weekly top seller" badge sometime in the last month with one of my unsuitable images. Everything is still up for sale. Sometimes I don't understand these sites (by sometimes I mean often when it comes to Envato).
My stuff is still there too and still made me decent income in March. I'm wondering if they sent those letters to more people than they were actually deleting.
-
I got the "weekly top seller" badge sometime in the last month with one of my unsuitable images. Everything is still up for sale. Sometimes I don't understand these sites (by sometimes I mean often when it comes to Envato).
My stuff is still there too and still made me decent income in March. I'm wondering if they sent those letters to more people than they were actually deleting.
Or they realized that their current model is a cash cow and are going to keep it, then try a more "specialized" model for what they consider higher end work
-
Well they haven't deleted mine yet but I'm pretty sure they will as I only have just over 100 photos and have only had a few sales. I had only just started uploading there but I have had a recent sale.
-
Yeah! My portfolio is empty…
-
It looks like my portfolio was removed some time between April 3 and April 4 2017.
I suppose if they still have any buyers the few remaining pics should start to sell ok without competition.
-
Lots of empty portfolios on their "top authors" list. Strange company.
https://photodune.net/authors/top
-
Mine have gone waiting with baited breath to find out what they will do with my $18.
-
14000+ files are gone! I'm top author with empty port ;D
-
14000+ files are gone! I'm top author with empty port ;D
Shameful. Sorry to hear that Fritz.
-
14000+ files are gone! I'm top author with empty port ;D
I can understand them deleting mine but when it's their top authors it's just beyond belief!
Mine is finally gone but has anyone received their payout yet?
-
I just got an e-mail from them today saying they have deleted my images. Glad I never bothered uploading many there and stopped quite a while ago. Hopefully they will send the money soon and can be done with them.
-
I got notice of payout before they deleted the port (I made it over the threshold though).
They sent me an e-mail telling me my port was deleted (a day or 2 after I noticed it was gone).
-
Lots of empty portfolios on their "top authors" list. Strange company.
https://photodune.net/authors/top
Yuri still number 5 and he left ages ago. that list hasnt been updated in a while, because pressmaster has over 200K sales.
-
Yuri still number 5 and he left ages ago. that list hasnt been updated in a while, because pressmaster has over 200K sales.
That list is updated every 24 hours. It's only showing image sales since you're checking the PhotoDune site. The rest of Pressmaster's sales are for video/audio.
Yuri was number 1 by far when he still sold stuff there. Not surprising he's still number 5.
-
After looking at some of the top authors, I'm not surprised they were dropped. 170,000 files with 40,000 sales since 2011?
40,000 sales is great, not surprised they're a top author, but from a quality over quantity vibe... if they're all $1 sales, then Envato is making 0.1 cents per image, per month... or 1.2 cents a year. Even if they average out at $5 sales, then you're looking at half a cent a month, or 6 cents a year. Would that even cover the storage costs, maintaining the site, and the time to review?
I appreciate that Photodune is for from one of the 'big boys', so it's not really the author's fault, but something had to be done. I guess it beats shutting it down entirely.
-
Yes, PhotoDune was always their weak point, mainly because that's the area of stock products that is most mature with the most intense competition.
The other areas don't really have giant competitors in the same way.
-
Interesting timing as well...all ready for the us tax deadline
-
After looking at some of the top authors, I'm not surprised they were dropped. 170,000 files with 40,000 sales since 2011?
40,000 sales is great, not surprised they're a top author, but from a quality over quantity vibe... if they're all $1 sales, then Envato is making 0.1 cents per image, per month... or 1.2 cents a year. Even if they average out at $5 sales, then you're looking at half a cent a month, or 6 cents a year. Would that even cover the storage costs, maintaining the site, and the time to review?
I appreciate that Photodune is for from one of the 'big boys', so it's not really the author's fault, but something had to be done. I guess it beats shutting it down entirely.
Thing is what they did seems to make little sense in that they appear to have dropped a lot of people who sold well. I guess time will tell.
-
a month ago they said they will keep my portfolio - now they say that I have to become part of envato elements or they will close my account on photo dune - until 12 od april - I don t know what to do?!
-
a month ago they said they will keep my portfolio - now they say that I have to become part of envato elements or they will close my account on photo dune - until 12 od april - I don t know what to do?!
That was part of the original announcement back in November.
https://forums.envato.com/t/adjusting-our-focus-a-new-approach-for-photos-at-envato/73708
To be fair, it's not 100% clear from the initial post that you have to be included in Elements or nothing at all... but that is clarified in some of the official questions and answers further down the thread.
-
My portfolio has been deleted too. I am sorry the time I spent with them - it is completely wasted time. I have good sales with major stock agencies. Also some of my photos are on book covers. I won't miss Photodune. I also stopped buying images there for my clients. Well, what to say... hm. I just don't care :)
-
My port has not been deleted yet, I have been invited to Elements. However, I read their Elements terms and could not find anything about how fast I can close my account should I find Elements ineffective. I emailed them with that question but never heard back. My fear is that if you accept their terms you get locked in somehow to a long duration before you can close your account. Until I see those terms, I won't accept and they can close my account.
-
After looking at some of the top authors, I'm not surprised they were dropped. 170,000 files with 40,000 sales since 2011?
40,000 sales is great, not surprised they're a top author, but from a quality over quantity vibe... if they're all $1 sales, then Envato is making 0.1 cents per image, per month... or 1.2 cents a year. Even if they average out at $5 sales, then you're looking at half a cent a month, or 6 cents a year. Would that even cover the storage costs, maintaining the site, and the time to review?
I appreciate that Photodune is for from one of the 'big boys', so it's not really the author's fault, but something had to be done. I guess it beats shutting it down entirely.
Thing is what they did seems to make little sense in that they appear to have dropped a lot of people who sold well. I guess time will tell.
Agreed, but it depends how you define selling well. 40,000 sales a year is great no matter how many images you have in your portfolio... but if you're earning a couple of cents a year per image, and it costs them more than that to host, review and maintain... then they're losing money on your portfolio.
Now, if they got rid of people who were making an average of $1 to $10 an image per year... then that would be a bit daft.
-
After looking at some of the top authors, I'm not surprised they were dropped. 170,000 files with 40,000 sales since 2011?
40,000 sales is great, not surprised they're a top author, but from a quality over quantity vibe... if they're all $1 sales, then Envato is making 0.1 cents per image, per month... or 1.2 cents a year. Even if they average out at $5 sales, then you're looking at half a cent a month, or 6 cents a year. Would that even cover the storage costs, maintaining the site, and the time to review?
I appreciate that Photodune is for from one of the 'big boys', so it's not really the author's fault, but something had to be done. I guess it beats shutting it down entirely.
Thing is what they did seems to make little sense in that they appear to have dropped a lot of people who sold well. I guess time will tell.
Agreed, but it depends how you define selling well. 40,000 sales a year is great no matter how many images you have in your portfolio... but if you're earning a couple of cents a year per image, and it costs them more than that to host, review and maintain... then they're losing money on your portfolio.
Now, if they got rid of people who were making an average of $1 to $10 an image per year... then that would be a bit daft.
As I don't have access to their data its really anecdotal in my case I can perfectly understand them dropping me as I had a very high rejection rate...although my sales of those accepted stood up quite well. I think they could have handled it a lot better..they've lost an awful lot of goodwill.
-
I tried to ask them twice to close my account and pay my account balance. They only respond the same thing again and again that I have to wait. It's been since november nothing is moving there. What can I do ?
-
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
-
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
And I don't get this with artists like you. I am more of a ham n egger and they kept me.....I fully expected to be dumped and may indeed dump myself. But the talent that they unloaded baffles my mind.
-
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
And I don't get this with artists like you. I am more of a ham n egger and they kept me.....I fully expected to be dumped and may indeed dump myself. But the talent that they unloaded baffles my mind.
Some very talented artists were removed. Perhaps other factors (tax policy complainers) were considered in the cull.
-
I tried to ask them twice to close my account and pay my account balance. They only respond the same thing again and again that I have to wait. It's been since november nothing is moving there. What can I do ?
Become a top seller. You'll be gone in no time. ;)
-
Well, it IS a nice surprise... apparently we will be paid in May!!
In case anyone missed the email... if it's under $20 they will only pay by PayPal so make sure your account is up to date.
-
Yeah, probably May 31st
-
For sure ;D
-
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
And I don't get this with artists like you. I am more of a ham n egger and they kept me.....I fully expected to be dumped and may indeed dump myself. But the talent that they unloaded baffles my mind.
Same here I get one sale a month and fully expected to be dumped. Doesn't make any sense :-\
-
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
And I don't get this with artists like you. I am more of a ham n egger and they kept me.....I fully expected to be dumped and may indeed dump myself. But the talent that they unloaded baffles my mind.
Same here I get one sale a month and fully expected to be dumped. Doesn't make any sense :-\
I was making 50%. Maybe thats higher percentage than they want to pay, so they kept people earning lower rates?
-
Yep, mines finally gone. Crazy, since they solicited ME and uploaded my whole port for me a couple of years ago. I was still making good sales, even last month, for a site of their size. At least it was their time wasted getting my port online and not mine.
And I don't get this with artists like you. I am more of a ham n egger and they kept me.....I fully expected to be dumped and may indeed dump myself. But the talent that they unloaded baffles my mind.
Same here I get one sale a month and fully expected to be dumped. Doesn't make any sense :-\
I was making 50%. Maybe thats higher percentage than they want to pay, so they kept people earning lower rates?
That'll be the one... 64% of $0 is always better than 50% of $2 to $9.
-
89% of 1040 images does not equal 29 ;D
Minus points for poor maths Envato ::)
-
89% of 1040 images does not equal 29 ;D
Minus points for poor maths Envato ::)
Did I miss a post somewhere?
-
89% of 1040 images does not equal 29 ;D
Minus points for poor maths Envato ::)
Did I miss a post somewhere?
They emailed a few months back advising they were deleting 89% of my portfolio which should have left around 200 images as part of this "review"
The final confirmation came through that I would be left with only 29 out of 1040 images.
Eitherway their email also confirmed that they were reducing their image catalog from 9million images to 200,000
Incredible!
-
Ah right, I get ya.
-
They emailed a few months back advising they were deleting 89% of my portfolio which should have left around 200 images as part of this "review"
114. ;)
-
They emailed a few months back advising they were deleting 89% of my portfolio which should have left around 200 images as part of this "review"
114. ;)
Hehe I should get a job at Envato too :D
-
Well finally get to see the fine selection of items they kept in my portfolio and even though they are my images I am disgusted to see they kept all the poorest shots with no sales.
A bigger collection of junk I have never seen.
Quality my ass :(
-
Well finally get to see the fine selection of items they kept in my portfolio and even though they are my images I am disgusted to see they kept all the poorest shots with no sales.
A bigger collection of junk I have never seen.
Quality my ass :(
I can understand their strategy but in my opinion their inspection process is one of the poorest they really need it to be one of the best if they are to follow it.
-
:'(
-
Hopefully they won't be guaranteeing anything as buyers will leave in droves I hope
-
I did not want to sing in to envato elements - and todey pd deleted my portfolio -although they said they like my work and they will keep all my photos
-
I did not want to sing in to envato elements - and todey pd deleted my portfolio -although they said they like my work and they will keep all my photos
Should that say....
"They said they like my work and they will keep all my photos, but I did not want to sing up to envato elements - so today they deleted my portfolio."
It's just the way you've worded it, it sounds like they've deleted all your photos from your portfolio, but they're going to hold on to them anyway... and just do whatever they want with them.
-
I did not want to sing in to envato elements - and todey pd deleted my portfolio -although they said they like my work and they will keep all my photos
Should that say....
"They said they like my work and they will keep all my photos, but I did not want to sing up to envato elements - so today they deleted my portfolio."
It's just the way you've worded it, it sounds like they've deleted all your photos from your portfolio, but they're going to hold on to them anyway... and just do whatever they want with them.
yes - it should say what you have written
-
I had about 3200 images there and they want to keep 629 for Elements. I have not seen my Photodune port shrink one iota and do not have any images in Elements yet. I have no flipping clue what is happening. Still making sales on PD, though.
-
I had about 3200 images there and they want to keep 629 for Elements. I have not seen my Photodune port shrink one iota and do not have any images in Elements yet. I have no flipping clue what is happening. Still making sales on PD, though.
so you singed in to elements?! - .......- they wanted my entire portfolio - more then 4500 photos - for practically free downlouds on elements - if they wanted a few hundreds maybe I would except it - and my sales on pd were pathetic - i don t understand them ...
-
I had about 3200 images there and they want to keep 629 for Elements. I have not seen my Photodune port shrink one iota and do not have any images in Elements yet. I have no flipping clue what is happening. Still making sales on PD, though.
so you singed in to elements?! - .......- they wanted my entire portfolio - more then 4500 photos - for practically free downlouds on elements - if they wanted a few hundreds maybe I would except it - and my sales on pd were pathetic - i don t understand them ...
Funny, today they killed my port except for the 629 images. I did not agree to the terms until a week ago when they confirmed i can delete my account if i do not like the performance or royalties. So i guess it will take a while to see how it goes. In the end they killed 2500 images.
-
My ports all gone, nice though they keep sending me emails telling me to check out what's happening in their forums.
Searching photodune now I can't see them being able to supply a lot of customers needs. Maybe if you need a smiling business man etc.
For instance a search Perth Australia yields 6 city shots before it starts returning pictures of ducks and generic buildings.
-
My ports all gone, nice though they keep sending me emails telling me to check out what's happening in their forums.
Searching photodune now I can't see them being able to supply a lot of customers needs. Maybe if you need a smiling business man etc.
For instance a search Perth Australia yields 6 city shots before it starts returning pictures of ducks and generic buildings.
I only started getting those forum posts after they kicked me out....nice.
-
My ports all gone, nice though they keep sending me emails telling me to check out what's happening in their forums.
Yeah, me too. I was set to automatically get payouts each month. About a week ago they sent me an email explaining that my payout request for $0 was below the minimum threshold so I would not be getting a payout. Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds! Just a reminder that every other month from the time I started til the time they booted me my payouts were between $100 - 300.
I still don't get why they'd dump contributors whose work was selling well. I'd sure appreciate it if they'd fluck off with their obnoxious emails tho. >:(
-
My balance has been reset to $0 but I haven't received a notification of payment yet. I also checked my PayPal account and there's nothing there as yet.
-
I have received the payment this morning.
Cheers!
-
It's now showing, I will be glad to see the end of Photodune, they weren't worth the hassle for me.
-
I have received the payment this morning.
Cheers!
Same here. They kept their word. Give them credit for that.