Selecting video thumbnails should be a must.
I'm trying to crossover from illustrations to animations and the few I have uploaded have terrible thumbnails on Adobestock! If the animation starts with just a few things/lines/shapes/etc. and later is coming together as a whole (self-drawing lines for example, but really anything else), the thumbnail tends to end up an early keyframe with barely anything recognizable, probably noone would even move the cursor over to check it out, it is that unappealing! It really harms the likeliness of getting seen and from a buyer perspective would be annoying as well; just by looking at the thumbnail they would want to know what is it about and they should see the most favourable keyframe in order to maximize the chance of a sale. I can't emphasize the importance of it enough, in my case this tiny issue "costs" a lot.

Ditto on editorial, both still and video. You're missing a huge market.

Once again, I totally agree.

I'm curious on how people view the kinds of editorial and which ones everyone does.  The way I see it is:
1) current entertainment, news and sports (places like AP, Reuters and the like)
2) crowd sourced editorial (content that has some IP somewhere but is an otherwise typical shot)
3) archival - anything old or semi-old that has some historical or storytelling value
4) brands or illustrative editorial - we currently accept illustrative editorial pictures (things like logos, brands, etc)

Which ones do you have and which ones generate the most revenue?  Also, if you have both commercial and editorial, what is the percentage split between your commercial and editorial collections - both in terms of content size and revenue?  For example, a collection is 5k clips total with a 3k/2k split between editorial and commercial and my revenue split is 70/30 in favor of editorial.

Thanks,
Dennis

I'm curious on how people view the kinds of editorial and which ones everyone does.  The way I see it is:
1) current entertainment, news and sports (places like AP, Reuters and the like)
2) crowd sourced editorial (content that has some IP somewhere but is an otherwise typical shot)
3) archival - anything old or semi-old that has some historical or storytelling value
4) brands or illustrative editorial - we currently accept illustrative editorial pictures (things like logos, brands, etc)

Which ones do you have and which ones generate the most revenue?  Also, if you have both commercial and editorial, what is the percentage split between your commercial and editorial collections - both in terms of content size and revenue?

Of  my 7668 clips on Shutterstock, 2559 are considered "editorial," but I would consider most of these "unreleased," and not truly "editorial".  If I were to classify those, I'd say 95% of those fall into your #2 category.

While I don't have hard numbers as to how these "editorial" clips sell compared to "non-editorial," I'd bet that the bulk of my high-commission sales are from these 2559 "editorial" files.

I have all kinds of "editorial only" images and videos and they sell well.
I do not understand why Adobe is not accepting editorial the same way another agencies do.
Years ago Istock removed news and events content and stoped accepting it. They didn't want to cannibalize their Getty library.
Adobe removed and stopped accepting some events contend I had credentials for. Why?! Is it because of petential lawsuit? Why other agencies accept and sell the same content without any problems?

Adobe accept Illustrative editorial images, but not for video.  I am hopeful that we'll expand this as time goes on and certainly from my point of view, I want to include video in that mix. 

Thanks for the response.