pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone pulling their video ports from SS?  (Read 19825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 04, 2018, 00:28 »
0
Sorry if the topic title sounds a bit drastic. I haven't submitted videos to SS for quite a while but it sounds like things are starting to get a bit miserable there from a video shooter's perspective. It looks like there's been an increase in the dreaded $1.50 video sales. Some people are reporting that they're only getting $1.50 video sales these days and no more 'big' sales. I hope this isn't the new norm.


« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2018, 00:44 »
0
I didn't get any such sales... yet

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2018, 00:54 »
0
Yes!  5 months back I pulled all the videos and put them into an RF agency!

« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2018, 01:45 »
+7
Deactivated all footage last night after yet another $1.50 sale. They are supposed to be getting back to me and asked me to stop deleting files but as they couldn't be arsed to keeping me updated after a week, I deactivated my footage files from within account settings. I'll only reactivate them once they come back with answers and options to the issues I've raised. I've had half a dozen of these sales in the last week. It would take over 200 of these per month to match previous months sales

Seriously, I'd strongly advise to deactivate to give them the message it isn't acceptable and, this way it gives you an easy way to restore your files should they listen.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 01:48 by HalfFull »

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2018, 02:36 »
+3
Youre absolutely right! SS and Adobe havent got a clue of how to sell footage! Adobe is even worse! I wouldnt bother with any of them as regards to video total waste of time.

« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2018, 13:07 »
0
It looks like they are doing deals that will likely keep the small sales coming:
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-footage-value-expanding-marketplace

« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2018, 15:24 »
+2
I have never had any sales below $16 at SS and actually a good deal of very high priced ones (even today).
Very, very happy with them

« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2018, 11:37 »
+3
I have never had any sales below $16 at SS and actually a good deal of very high priced ones (even today).
Very, very happy with them

Ok.... The $1.50 sales are real https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/93927-150-video-sale/?page=3

And as this is an experimental scheme at the moment so you may not see many yourself now but if they go unchallenged, you will no doubt be wishing you voiced you discontent at the time when we could do something about it. Just saying!

I for one make quite a few hundred a month from video alone (individual sales of over $120) and would like to continue to do so.... these schemes if not managed right could bring an end to those days. They say the clients can't download and only play clips of the footage..... yet, on the website it tells their clients they can and provides instructions on how to do so! Cheap full Rez downloads and no way of knowing how many copies are being made / distributed.

RAW

« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2018, 12:20 »
+3
They are "Representing our interests by expanding the footage marketplace"
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-footage-value-expanding-marketplace

We're screwed.

« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2018, 13:02 »
+3
They are "Representing our interests by expanding the footage marketplace"
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-footage-value-expanding-marketplace

We're screwed.

Maybe thats the new way of saying, we have some exciting news 😂

« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2018, 13:44 »
0
Unfortunately, I had one last month.

Hope not.

« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2018, 15:04 »
+3
I had about 15 last months lets stop this


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2018, 02:08 »
0
Got one such sale last month, made me angry as the clip sold is very valuable and one of the most important ones in my portfolio. If such sales continue then I will have to pull my portfolio as well, even though I have not even uploaded all of it on SS yet anyways.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 02:23 by AnimatedStockFootage »

« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2018, 02:28 »
0
we wrote to SS and this is what they replied:

Quote
Over the past few years, video has become an increasingly powerful tool for online advertising. To meet this growing demand, we are offering footage clips to select online platforms for limited use at special rates.

While at times you may see that your earnings-per-clip is lower, these clips are for web or mobile application only. They can only be streamed; downloading and broadcast usage isn't permitted. This restriction has been designed to protect your earnings and give you an extra chance to make money.

We got a single sale a few days ago with $1.50 for a clip.

« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2018, 02:42 »
+1
we wrote to SS and this is what they replied:

Quote
Over the past few years, video has become an increasingly powerful tool for online advertising. To meet this growing demand, we are offering footage clips to select online platforms for limited use at special rates.

While at times you may see that your earnings-per-clip is lower, these clips are for web or mobile application only. They can only be streamed; downloading and broadcast usage isn't permitted. This restriction has been designed to protect your earnings and give you an extra chance to make money.

We got a single sale a few days ago with $1.50 for a clip.

Ignore that "Can't be downloaded" bit....  See the two quotes from SS blog and Wix user guide for Shutterstock Footage!

Shutterstock Says

For instance, users of these platforms do not have the ability to download these files or use them for any other platform or in any other place, and often only leverage a few seconds of a clip for a mobile optimized experience.


They Say

Where can I use a Shutterstock video?
Once you buy a Shutterstock video, you can use it on any site in the same Wix account. You can also download the video and use it on another Wix site or Wix account. The video is not sent to you via email or a download file. If you would like to download the video to your computer, click here.

« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2018, 07:31 »
+3
Youre absolutely right! SS and Adobe havent got a clue of how to sell footage! Adobe is even worse! I wouldnt bother with any of them as regards to video total waste of time.

Hi there Derek,

I would love to hear why Adobe is worse.  What are we doing that has you turned off to Adobe Stock?

Regards,
Dennis Radeke
Content Development Manager - Adobe Stock

Clair Voyant

« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2018, 08:23 »
+8
Youre absolutely right! SS and Adobe havent got a clue of how to sell footage! Adobe is even worse! I wouldnt bother with any of them as regards to video total waste of time.

Hi there Derek,

I would love to hear why Adobe is worse.  What are we doing that has you turned off to Adobe Stock?

Regards,
Dennis Radeke
Content Development Manager - Adobe Stock

Derek like so many other contributors on this forum know how to run a site better than SS,IS,GI and AS combined and are so sure of themselves they need to come here to express it. I doubt Derek will answer you as he is so busy consulting other agencies how to do it right and/or starting the next new big agency that will show the well established ones how to do it right.

Dennis, I am surprised you even tried to understand this cud.

RAW

« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2018, 10:16 »
+4
It's just Double Speak and lies. Shame on them.

It is only when we honestly describe the world that we can begin to change it.

RAW

« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2018, 12:46 »
+1
I wander if Dissolve (always matching lowest prices) are going to lower their prices to $1.50 per clip?

« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2018, 21:51 »
+2
Just got another  $1.50 license. This really sucks!  :-\   seen 2 or three of these recently.

« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2018, 14:28 »
+4
in the last 2 days I sold 5 files at 1.50$ this is crazy we need to put a stop to this madness we will all be bankrupt soon and they dont care


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2018, 05:44 »
+3
I just had my first $1.5.
Well, you are right, this is frankly a bit stupid, I am very surprised about SS doing this

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2018, 23:59 »
+1
We get low and high priced sales.  Marketing and the internet are very complex with each sale being used for something completely different than the last.  I guess to me $1.50 sales really don't matter when they're made up by $180 sales.  If I'm gonna spend my time doing this to make money, then that has to be the overall goal... making money!  Not getting caught up in small stat details.  iStock and Shutterstock are both getting lower and lower on some video sales but each month are making more and more money.  So why care?  I'm having my best month ever at Shutterstock and it's the 23rd.  Should I deactivate my portfolio because of a couple $1.50 sales last week?

« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2018, 20:51 »
+6
Yup.  I pulled out all my video clips from SS too.  I hope my competitors will do the same.

« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2018, 07:58 »
+2
Yup.  I pulled out all my video clips from SS too.  I hope my competitors will do the same.
;D

namussi

« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2018, 08:20 »
+2
So, two months after the original post, how many people pulled their ports?


RAW

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2018, 08:44 »
0
So, two months after the original post, how many people pulled their ports?


I'm in a quandary.
Haven't pulled my port because SS is my biggest earner.
Just got another $2 video sale.

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2018, 14:01 »
+2
So, two months after the original post, how many people pulled their ports?


None, because $1.50 is better than nothing.  ;D

« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2018, 05:42 »
0
Luckily I never get these $1.50 sales, and I sell a lot there. I can understand that people are very unhappy with it. What type of footage is typically sold at those low prices?

« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2018, 10:37 »
0
Luckily I never get these $1.50 sales, and I sell a lot there. I can understand that people are very unhappy with it. What type of footage is typically sold at those low prices?

Video footage I believe, including drone/aerial shots (which is what I read in a forum thread).
Drone footage is relatively expensive to produce, so I understand their frustration.

I myself make animated stock videos, and I haven't had a $1.50 sale so far, only $16 and higher.

csm

« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2018, 15:48 »
0
We get low and high priced sales.  Marketing and the internet are very complex with each sale being used for something completely different than the last.  I guess to me $1.50 sales really don't matter when they're made up by $180 sales.  If I'm gonna spend my time doing this to make money, then that has to be the overall goal... making money!  Not getting caught up in small stat details.  iStock and Shutterstock are both getting lower and lower on some video sales but each month are making more and more money.  So why care?  I'm having my best month ever at Shutterstock and it's the 23rd.  Should I deactivate my portfolio because of a couple $1.50 sales last week?

Good comments

nobody

« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2018, 16:39 »
0
my friends have told me that my videos are worth only $1.50 anyway  :-\


« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2018, 07:00 »
0
my friends have told me that my videos are worth only $1.50 anyway  :-\

OMG 😁 Well you can always answer that not only video quality but mostly subjects needs and license request from buyer will make the price!

« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2018, 07:21 »
+2
Looking at other threads, is there any point in contributing photos to cheap stock sites? There was a time when the "stack em high, sell em cheap" philosophy worked. Where it has ended is with contributors asking serious questions around the possibility of making $100 a month!

Is there any reason to assume that if we as a collective of contributors adopt the same approach with video, that the result will be any different?

Or, put another way, if you are making $1000 a month from stock videos and you simply removed all of them from cheap sites, upped your rate to, say $450 a sale minimum, would you actually lose any income?

Obviously, that would mean only supplying to agencies that allowed you to determine your own price. I'd guess though, that there would be some short term pain for longer term value and nobody would be holding you by the balls.

Another way around this is what a lot of us did to iStock a few years back when they pushed us all around contractually. We simply stopped uploading to them. You still get your money from them now, but they don't get the benefit of long term contributions going forwards and you are weaned off the dependence of their sales channel slowly.

So if you are really annoyed with an agency, it's really much better to just stop contributing to them, take their money now and figure out alternative sales channels going forwards. That way you get hurt the least and take back control of your own valuable creative work.

« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2018, 07:50 »
+2
Looking at other threads, is there any point in contributing photos to cheap stock sites? There was a time when the "stack em high, sell em cheap" philosophy worked. Where it has ended is with contributors asking serious questions around the possibility of making $100 a month!

Is there any reason to assume that if we as a collective of contributors adopt the same approach with video, that the result will be any different?

Or, put another way, if you are making $1000 a month from stock videos and you simply removed all of them from cheap sites, upped your rate to, say $450 a sale minimum, would you actually lose any income?

Obviously, that would mean only supplying to agencies that allowed you to determine your own price. I'd guess though, that there would be some short term pain for longer term value and nobody would be holding you by the balls.

Another way around this is what a lot of us did to iStock a few years back when they pushed us all around contractually. We simply stopped uploading to them. You still get your money from them now, but they don't get the benefit of long term contributions going forwards and you are weaned off the dependence of their sales channel slowly.

So if you are really annoyed with an agency, it's really much better to just stop contributing to them, take their money now and figure out alternative sales channels going forwards. That way you get hurt the least and take back control of your own valuable creative work.

I agree 100% with your post. People keep complaining but the picture is always quite clear in front of us. It is us and only us who decide where we invest our time and resources to maximize profit.
Obviously shooting cloud timelapses or landmarks with awful light and pricing them 400$ at Pond5 is not getting you anywhere. Shooting great footage and receiving cents at Getty neither. Lets create unique content and people will pay for it, as simple as that.

« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2018, 09:07 »
+1
I think the issue that most face is the fear that there is too much content out there so if you are not on a site you are losing money. We need to be a little stronger and a little more organized in where we post

« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2018, 09:11 »
+2
I agree 100% with your post. People keep complaining but the picture is always quite clear in front of us. It is us and only us who decide where we invest our time and resources to maximize profit.
Obviously shooting cloud timelapses or landmarks with awful light and pricing them 400$ at Pond5 is not getting you anywhere. Shooting great footage and receiving cents at Getty neither. Lets create unique content and people will pay for it, as simple as that.

Perhaps there are more options that may yield better returns per video in the long term.

An example could be to use the cheap sites as a way of market testing premium content. Use the 80/20 principle across all sites to determine what your best video content is - then every 12 months systematically purge top earners from cheap sites and crank the price up elsewhere. If cheap sites want to sell videos for $1.50 - well then make sure it's videos that don't sell well anyway.

Or if that is too risky, do the opposite!

Accept that only 20% of your videos will actually gather good sales at cheap sites. That does not mean that someone does not need more specific video content every so often. So remove 80% of your videos from cheap sites instead and then crank the price up elsewhere.

This would mean reviewing how you see your creative work. There is no "good" and no "bad". Just videos that sell frequently and videos that don't. My guess is that quite a few videos that don't sell well is because they are too specifically targeted to a particular market and the demand for video is still far from its apex.

So as demand for video increases, so will the demand for more specific video that caters to a more exacting market specification. If that video is only available for $400-$600 or more (bloody yay) - well that's pretty specific content right there that is unlikely to be replicated by someone else - hence the increased value.

Want that footage Mr Buyer? Well fine, this is the price. Too expensive for you? Well, go and buy your own GH5, Metabones speedbooster, Canon 50mm fast lens, Glidecam and model located specifically at the Niagara Falls eating a cheeseburger, then drinking a coke, then washing their hands.

You get my point - someone trying to enhance hygiene levels in public places is a very specific target market and that a video or sequence of videos may not sell well at cheap sites. But to that person who actually does needs it, it sure saves them a bundle of money to buy them all at P5 for $1200.

If we all did this, we would limit the depth of the cheap agencies and likely increase the overall value of our collective portfolios. You could still make money from the big sellers - so as contributors, we lose nothing and the content that does not sell may well make far more $ when it eventually does.

The buyers would soon learn - need a blurry crowd of feet at the railway station or a cellphone millennial dude playing on his phone at night . . . cheap site for you. Cheeseburger at the Niagara Falls? Pay premium at P5.

« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2018, 13:18 »
0
I agree 100% with your post. People keep complaining but the picture is always quite clear in front of us. It is us and only us who decide where we invest our time and resources to maximize profit.
Obviously shooting cloud timelapses or landmarks with awful light and pricing them 400$ at Pond5 is not getting you anywhere. Shooting great footage and receiving cents at Getty neither. Lets create unique content and people will pay for it, as simple as that.

Perhaps there are more options that may yield better returns per video in the long term.

An example could be to use the cheap sites as a way of market testing premium content. Use the 80/20 principle across all sites to determine what your best video content is - then every 12 months systematically purge top earners from cheap sites and crank the price up elsewhere. If cheap sites want to sell videos for $1.50 - well then make sure it's videos that don't sell well anyway.

Or if that is too risky, do the opposite!

Accept that only 20% of your videos will actually gather good sales at cheap sites. That does not mean that someone does not need more specific video content every so often. So remove 80% of your videos from cheap sites instead and then crank the price up elsewhere.

This would mean reviewing how you see your creative work. There is no "good" and no "bad". Just videos that sell frequently and videos that don't. My guess is that quite a few videos that don't sell well is because they are too specifically targeted to a particular market and the demand for video is still far from its apex.

So as demand for video increases, so will the demand for more specific video that caters to a more exacting market specification. If that video is only available for $400-$600 or more (bloody yay) - well that's pretty specific content right there that is unlikely to be replicated by someone else - hence the increased value.

Want that footage Mr Buyer? Well fine, this is the price. Too expensive for you? Well, go and buy your own GH5, Metabones speedbooster, Canon 50mm fast lens, Glidecam and model located specifically at the Niagara Falls eating a cheeseburger, then drinking a coke, then washing their hands.

You get my point - someone trying to enhance hygiene levels in public places is a very specific target market and that a video or sequence of videos may not sell well at cheap sites. But to that person who actually does needs it, it sure saves them a bundle of money to buy them all at P5 for $1200.

If we all did this, we would limit the depth of the cheap agencies and likely increase the overall value of our collective portfolios. You could still make money from the big sellers - so as contributors, we lose nothing and the content that does not sell may well make far more $ when it eventually does.

The buyers would soon learn - need a blurry crowd of feet at the railway station or a cellphone millennial dude playing on his phone at night . . . cheap site for you. Cheeseburger at the Niagara Falls? Pay premium at P5.
Soundest advice yet

« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2018, 14:44 »
+1
today 4 sales at 1.50 the past 10 days about 20 sales for 1.50 my total earnings in the last three months decreased about 35/40% dont you think these 1.50 sales do matter I do


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2018, 09:09 »
+1
So, two months after the original post, how many people pulled their ports?

I did.  You should too.

« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2018, 17:16 »
+4
today I sold the same file 15 times ar 1.50$ I deleted the file and I truly think its time to delete them all


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2018, 10:36 »
0
  I think Adobe is doing great with video.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 10:39 by fotoroad »

« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2018, 11:50 »
0
  I think Adobe is doing great with video.

sales tanked on my side.... 1 sale in one month. <_<

« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2018, 15:10 »
0
... yes something is weird with them(Adobe)... after constant rise, there are some gaps with no selling periods.. like everything was frozen, none or sporadic sales... this is second or third time... similar happens at P5 from time to time...

« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2018, 04:25 »
0
  I think Adobe is doing great with video.

sales tanked on my side.... 1 sale in one month. <_<

I think adobe stock does not take seriously the Video market.For photos are the best in my opinion but very disappointing on video.
Same as Video-StockOrg... 2-3 sales in one month with a port of 2876 clips of which around 200 animations.

« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2018, 04:43 »
0
Adobe is in middle ground in comparison with other leading stock video agencies. Much better than Istock/Getty without question. I even wonder why non exclusives collaborate with them. Fortunatelly I know many large footage producers that don't. Shutterstock comes next with their 5$ licenses and also a low royalty split.

But Adobe is still far away from P5. Much better split for contributors and editorial content makes them a better option. Also I get the best revenue sales from them. Although they sell less that SS the net revenue from P5 is much larger. Just today I sold another license with 166$ for me. So Adobe still has work to do IF they want to be the number one option for contributors.

Quote

Derek like so many other contributors on this forum know how to run a site better than SS,IS,GI and AS combined and are so sure of themselves they need to come here to express it. I doubt Derek will answer you as he is so busy consulting other agencies how to do it right and/or starting the next new big agency that will show the well established ones how to do it right.

Dennis, I am surprised you even tried to understand this cud.

First, I have to get into the habit of checking this forum on a regular basis and assimilate the tools so I can respond in a timely manner!

Second, while some folks may not take the time to respond, others hopefully will.  While Adobe (or any company) isn't perfect, I can say from personal experience that Adobe as a company cares about creatives and contributors and we're looking how to make Adobe Stock the best overall experience for both contributors and customers.  I'm always open to hear!

Thanks,
Dennis

« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2018, 04:53 »
0
my friends have told me that my videos are worth only $1.50 anyway  :-\


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4975 Views
Last post October 23, 2009, 06:09
by MicrostockExp
173 Replies
41637 Views
Last post January 18, 2012, 18:54
by jamirae
7 Replies
3758 Views
Last post February 28, 2013, 21:27
by stockastic
87 Replies
23195 Views
Last post September 17, 2014, 13:17
by jvoisey
4 Replies
2468 Views
Last post January 19, 2021, 14:24
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors