MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My first month with Freepik !  (Read 7379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2022, 07:03 »
+1
Hello,
I want to share with you my experience with Freepik
I now a lot of people here don't like Freepik ..  so I decide to try freepik and it's a great idea, I upload 100 vector file and it's Almost exactly what I got from Shutterstock this days
Here is My first Month Data with less than 50 files



So I think it is worth a try
Link to sign up as contributor (Referral Link)
https://cutt.ly/1F45vjw


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2022, 07:42 »
+13
Weird how everyone with anything positive to say about these POS sites follows up with a referral link.

EDIT: wasn't this you? https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/freepik-steals-designs/msg570385/#msg570385
"Someone stole my logo design and put it on Freepik
I sent an email to [email protected] and it's more than 20 days ago and I didn't get an answer ?? (every days I send an email)
this is the worst support service 🤢
be careful. "


Why would you trust a site like that with your work? Not even mentioning their long list of other sins.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2022, 07:51 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2022, 08:06 »
+1
Weird how everyone with anything positive to say about these POS sites follows up with a referral link.

EDIT: wasn't this you? https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/freepik-steals-designs/msg570385/#msg570385
"Someone stole my logo design and put it on Freepik
I sent an email to [email protected] and it's more than 20 days ago and I didn't get an answer ?? (every days I send an email)
this is the worst support service 🤢
be careful. "


Why would you trust a site like that with your work? Not even mentioning their long list of other sins.

The CCO of Freepik Company sends me an apology and explains the reasons for being late. They delete the stolen file as well.

« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2022, 10:02 »
+20
You're right that many people here despise Freepik - for good reason.

And even if I were to ignore their sordid history, you're trying to suggest that getting a return per download of 0.0639 Euros is a great deal???

If I were to get 336 downloads at Adobe Stock royalties, I'd make roughly $268.80 - how is 21 Euros so great?

If you were sent here to recruit contributors, no sale...

« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2022, 11:11 »
+10
Microstock is full of snake oil salesmen  ;D

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2022, 13:13 »
0
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2022, 13:23 »
+12
 wow!!...More than 20 dollars!! Why i will pay 10 dollar in creative market for one of your vectors when i can download all your portfolio for this amount in freepik??

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2022, 07:42 »
+6
There's a reason for new images getting downloads right away, A giant vacuum * every new image and saving them. Next year you will have no new downloads. US members have to pay $85 a year to give away work for free.

« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2022, 09:15 »
+3
$0.07 per download. Cool.  ::)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2022, 09:23 »
+2
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Worth repeating, it's nice to have the reviews and interviews and I don't see this as promoting, but rather as informing us.

There's a reason for new images getting downloads right away, A giant vacuum * every new image and saving them. Next year you will have no new downloads. US members have to pay $85 a year to give away work for free.

Yes the sound of someone draining every image off the site and making their own giant collection. Then we get nothing as they are shared and redistributed and who really monitors illegal uses.

But really? I have to get a new form every year and pay for that? Sounds like a negative expense. I mean, suppose it's a business deduction, but to make a profit, I'd have to make $85 a year on FreePik and then keep in mind that I have to pay taxes on that $85, or itemize on a Schedule C, which means the same thing = zero money earned for the first $85.

Pay to sell stock is coming to a site near you.

Just so many details about this sound wrong as far as income is concerned.

Also I don't see the free people as the same people who would download from a pay site. But anyone who would pay $119 a year, might be the same people who would pay at SS or AS or IS? This is difficult?

$0.07 per download. Cool.  ::)

Yeah, lets see, 10c at SS, 2c at IS, nothing at many others that are dead, 123RF is going negative taking back commissions.  :o I don't know if 7 is a good alternative or a terrible sign of the times? But you're right with the low number. I still can't see paying to give away my work for free?

Now lets see the AS detractors put down the 36 minimum? Small wonder why people are happy with Adobe.

« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2022, 08:11 »
+5
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2022, 09:31 »
+4
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

The article was informative and I learned why I would never pay to upload anything to Freepik.

Look at it as a public service announcement? Or maybe educational for people who are looking at the site and can see that paying $85 a year for a permit or 25% to Spain, is just an unreasonable overhead expense.

« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2022, 11:53 »
+4
I could understand why people had issues with Freepik a couple of years ago (it never occurred to me to upload there) but at this point of the game, I can't see much of a difference. SS sells videos for 25 cents, IS sells images for 1 cent, EM sells images for 1 cent, * Alamy goes on promotional sales galore and sells images for 3 cents gross - and everyone agrees that this is absolutely bad. Of course, it is. Yet when Freepik sells images for 6 cents... it is unacceptable? Kinda defies the logic.

I don't have a 100% formed opinion about Freepik yet but what I see so far makes them as acceptable earner as any other stock agency.
I made 180USD on 2000 images in the first month; this month I'm on track to make 120-130USD.
I see no problem having this money, especially in my current state where money doesn't come easy at all and I'm generally struggling.

I will be posting a review on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ about Freepik- in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased and will contain both - negative things that encountered so far that really bug me and positive things.

I also uploaded some files to another unlimited download site - Vecteezy, nothing encouraging so far, but the average sales there is 9 cents. Again, pretty bad, but what's the difference between this and other agencies...


JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2022, 12:09 »
+5
Currently, according to contributors who post their numbers, freepik pays 0.075 cents per download.
The monthly fee is 7.50 euros for the buyer if you contract for a whole year.
If they pay 50%, to make it round, let's say the unit price per download must be 0.15 to balance the accounts.
7.50 divided by 0.15 $ is 50 monthly downloads on average, which is what paying users must download to maintain these payments (66 downloads if they pay the monthly fee of 10 Dollars)
If the average number of downloads of the average registered user is higher, I am afraid that Freepik hides downloads or limits them in some way.
It is very easy to download more than 50/66 photos in a month.
Giving life to any agency that is a small supplement to the income of the 3 or 4 big ones favors that the competition is always lowering prices and commissions.
We are selfish and we get what we deserve.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2022, 12:33 »
0
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

Hi, I'm both a contributor and journalist. As a contributor, hell yea I'm upset about this growing trend of agencies pushing contributors towards giving away images for free. Together with the loosening of licensing standards and of course lower prices.

As a journalist, my aim is to be unbiased and ask the right probing questions to the right people, which includes those on the inside of agencies which promote such practices. I don't pick favorites and if I can I'll interview decision-makers within all the agencies, including Unsplash of which I'm looking to send an invite out (whether they will accept is another question). The ultimate aim is for the "Market-Wizards" interview section of the blog to be even more of a premium source of exclusive information from those on the inside of the industry.

As for interviews of those within "premium and boutique agencies", so far I've interviewed:

- Peter Chigmaroff, Director at OverFlightStock Niche Aerial Photography/Footage Agency;
- Mat Hayward, Adobe Stock Artist Evangelist;
- Luke Nester, Account Manager at Robert Harding;
- Nash Mascaro, Sales Director at Arcangel Images - no interview but plenty of insight at various blog posts.

The above decision-makers work within agencies that encourage a fair return to contributors.

As for Freepiks (which has a regular microstock licensing program), as Elijah has posted, he's indicating positive early results and will publish a full review soon on the blog.

Alex

« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2022, 12:40 »
+10
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

Hi, I'm both a contributor and journalist. As a contributor, hell yea I'm upset about this growing trend of agencies pushing contributors towards giving away images for free. Together with the loosening of licensing standards and of course lower prices.

As a journalist, my aim is to be unbiased and ask the right probing questions to the right people, which includes those on the inside of agencies which promote such practices. I don't pick favorites and if I can I'll interview decision-makers within all the agencies, including Unsplash of which I'm looking to send an invite out (whether they will accept is another question). The ultimate aim is for the "Market-Wizards" interview section of the blog to be even more of a premium source of exclusive information from those on the inside of the industry.

As for interviews of those within "premium and boutique agencies", so far I've interviewed:

- Peter Chigmaroff, Director at OverFlightStock Niche Aerial Photography/Footage Agency;
- Mat Hayward, Adobe Stock Artist Evangelist;
- Luke Nester, Account Manager at Robert Harding;
- Nash Mascaro, Sales Director at Arcangel Images - no interview but plenty of insight at various blog posts.

The above decision-makers work within agencies that encourage a fair return to contributors.

As for Freepiks (which has a regular microstock licensing program), as Elijah has posted, he's indicating positive early results and will publish a full review soon on the blog.

Alex

Really? Didn't Adobe just go subscription for video? And Shutterstock not that long ago?  There are plenty of people now getting $3 to $6 for an HD vid now (sometimes pennies), when the standard across most agencies WAS $28. How in the heck is that looking out for contributors? It is looking to generate more revenue for the agencies but the caveat is that contributors net less.  Yes, they lie and say you will make it up in volume. BS and you know it.  If these agencies looked out for contributors they would revenue share with those packages with which the total downloads weren't used. They happen to hang on to that chunk.  Freepik? Trying to be objective? How? You as a "journalist" should reflect on their history of what they are, not hang your hat on what someone says they will be in the future. There's plenty of evidence out there. Go find it.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2022, 19:35 by Mantis »

« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2022, 17:22 »
+7
Brasilnut, I've read every single post on your blog, but I will never visit it again.
Promoting the worst "agencies" is a BAD decision!

« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2022, 21:52 »
+2
Let's face it. There are no new microstock customers out there, any more. One of the most effective ways for both snatching customers from competitors and stabilizing customer retention is lowering the pricing.

And now those lower paying agencies are viewed as OK. Moreover, contributors even start promoting them. May be to prove their decision right or something. But why they do that are not very important.

The important question is why should AS keep paying the $0.33 minimum when now it can be much, much lower and some contributors will probably come in to defend with comments like "AS is just doing it like other agencies"?

Yeah, we get what we deserve.

« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2022, 02:53 »
+4
...And now those lower paying agencies are viewed as OK. Moreover, contributors even start promoting them. May be to prove their decision right or something...
Three types seem to promote them:

    1. Employees (ambassadors)
    2. People who make cash via referral money (these people will promote literally anything that pays tham to)
    3. People who may be contributors but are mainly focused on side hustles (blogs, books etc.) looking for clicks.

Its hard to imagine a worse offering than Freepik or Vecteezy so I dont know why a legitimate contributor who actually looks into it would fall for it.

« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2022, 02:58 »
+6
...in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased ...
In the spirit of Alex's will it also end in a referral link?

EDIT ooof, looked into it, 10% of earnings for a year, no wonder they are suddenly finding it in their hearts to write up these sites. Alex: maybe also let readers know it is a referral link. You even have a "Disclaimer" section, but don't even mention there you will be earning money if people sign up. Journalist lol.

EDIT 2: Holy molly, even the link in this paragraph, the actual "disclaimer", claiming that you arent promoting them is a referral link:

"Disclaimer: As someone who has been consistently critical of the free-download model, this interview is an opportunity to try to better-understand the benefits, if any, of such models from someone on the inside the industry. Therefore, my intention is neither to promote or dis-promote Freepik."

No hint of irony there? Do you not think this presents a clear conflict of interest and could cause unconscious bias?  Was this not covered in your journalism course? I am assuming you have been on one as you claim authority as a journalist.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 03:15 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2022, 03:26 »
+8
Youre not a journalist, youre a blogger. This referral business neatly illustrates the difference between the two. Journalists are generally held to a much higher standard which your referral links negate.

« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2022, 03:34 »
+3
Youre not a journalist, youre a blogger. This referral business neatly illustrates the difference between the two. Journalists are generally held to a much higher standard which your referral links negate.

Strongly agree, I wouldn't have bought this up if he hadnt very explicitly leant on being a journalist to add authority to the blog:

... I'm both a contributor and journalist...As a journalist, my aim is to be unbiased and ask the right probing questions to the right people...

This is no more journalism than a YouTuber review making cash from links.

There are people on here who regularly do what I would consider much, much closer to in depth unbiased journalistic reporting and would never think to call themselves journalists (Jo Ann Snover, looking at you).
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 03:37 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2022, 03:37 »
+2
It doesn't matter whether someone is a blogger or a journalist in regards to this.

Bloggers are held to the same standart, actually even laws - whenever a link is used on a website results in a commission, the information must be discloses to site visitors. But bloggers often just chose to ignore this.  I know there is such a law in the US, though I don't know the details. In the EU you have to disclose affiliate links according to the General Data Protection Regulation law. Being a journalist or a blogger makes no difference.

« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2022, 04:30 »
+3

...in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased ...
In the spirit of Alex's will it also end in a referral link?

EDIT ooof, looked into it, 10% of earnings for a year, no wonder they are suddenly finding it in their hearts to write up these sites. Alex: maybe also let readers know it is a referral link. You even have a "Disclaimer" section, but don't even mention there you will be earning money if people sign up. Journalist lol.

EDIT 2: Holy molly, even the link in this paragraph, the actual "disclaimer", claiming that you arent promoting them is a referral link:

"Disclaimer: As someone who has been consistently critical of the free-download model, this interview is an opportunity to try to better-understand the benefits, if any, of such models from someone on the inside the industry. Therefore, my intention is neither to promote or dis-promote Freepik."

No hint of irony there? Do you not think this presents a clear conflict of interest and could cause unconscious bias?  Was this not covered in your journalism course? I am assuming you have been on one as you claim authority as a journalist.

Exactly. The referral link:
" If you feel the information provided in the interview is helpful enough, you can take the next step and sign up here."
That's just a bait for anyone new to stock to start selling their work for peanuts and start earning you $$$.

Alex, this is sick.

« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2022, 04:55 »
+6
As much as we like to blame corporate greed for the current situation we as a group are much more to blame. The majority of microstockers are ok with any price above zero and don't care about anything other than their bottom line. Nevermind the bigger picture or moral principles or even basic common sense. Agencies are only taking advantage of this. Why wouldn't they?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
16618 Views
Last post September 23, 2015, 07:57
by elsystudio
5 Replies
4857 Views
Last post May 11, 2020, 16:15
by charged
15 Replies
4696 Views
Last post January 08, 2020, 15:14
by georgep7
5 Replies
2411 Views
Last post May 21, 2020, 14:11
by medveh
6 Replies
2759 Views
Last post August 29, 2020, 09:52
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle