Author Topic: Anyone unworthy of Photodune yet? (Read 25495 times)

sbonk · « **Reply #100 on:** February 09, 2017, 18:58 »

I got the mail. My account balance is at 48 and change. I was just able to enter a withdrawal request even though i am short of the 50 threshold. Or dI'd the min amount change in the past and I was not aware?

Dumc · « **Reply #101 on:** February 10, 2017, 01:24 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 09, 2017, 01:33

Quote from: PixelBytes on February 09, 2017, 00:11
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 08, 2017, 16:07
I wish Shutterstock would do this kind of culling get rid of all the chit they took in recently

I agree to a point. Culling is fine. Being selective is fine. Closing whole accounts is neither the most effective way to improve your collection, nor a way to retain good will among the contributor community.

Something else these sites forget with scorched earth policies is that many of their contributors are also BUYERS, or know a lot of people who are. I have never seen a site screw over contributors without losing lots of buyers in the bargain.

Thats because they forget some contributors are also buyers too

But there's no telling the corporate bean counters once they get the bit between their teeth

The odd thing is I make less than $10 a month on Photodune but they decided to keep mosty of my images where as contributors who obviously make far more money for them are being dumped.

Talk about stupid.

Yep same here, I only have a sale or two/month there, yet, they somehow decided, they "like what they see". Weird thing. I was sure I would be dumped and because of such low sales I didn't even care.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #102 on:** February 10, 2017, 02:20 »

Aside from quality, maybe it has something to do with sales per image? I get that it might seem strange that top sellers are being ditched, but if one person sells $1000 a month with 25,000 images, then it's maybe not quite as impressive as somebody who sells $50 a month with 500 images.

Or not. Who knows!

Just to note, were people following the launch and 'unlaunch' of Unstock on the forums? Unstock was an experimental site that they ran for a year to try out a few different approaches to selling stock photography. Different prices, a different way of presenting content, a highly curated portfolio of the kind of images they're now looking to keep etc etc....

https://forums.envato.com/t/unlaunching-unstock/74125

I have no idea what the results were, but based on the post above, their research must have show that you can make a whole bunch of changes, get rid of 90% of your portfolio, and still end up making more money (or at least more money per image). So I'd like to think that they actually researched this decision and tested it out before deciding on this 'brave new world' of theirs. Time will tell if it was the right way to go.

Andrey Popov · « **Reply #103 on:** February 10, 2017, 03:42 »

This is actually very very good that they delete so many photos and portfolios. Because their are planning to offer unlimited (!) subscription for $49/month (!). This is just insane. But with very limited selection of photos this has no chance to change industry and affect prices on other sites.

Why would anyone upload Stocksy like content to Photodune to sell with unlimited subscription and get pennies?

langstrup · « **Reply #104 on:** February 10, 2017, 06:33 »

We are in - But if the actually make it a reality with a 49$ unlimited download, with no opt-out, then we are gone in a second! They have promised me an answer shortly!

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #105 on:** February 10, 2017, 07:01 »

Hmm...

Having "Top Authors" means:

- More Royalties % ( less profit to them... )
- Less margin setting low prices and/or cutting commissions rate. If we look back on time what happen when some low earners decide "offer" images with this kind of "subscription"? Top Authors run away...
- On other hand, each day, they have more and more "wannabe photographers", with the ability to give same content. It's true that quality is far away from top, but clients are always wiling to forget about it, in change of more lower prices than ever.

So, I think that PD it's only avoiding some steps on a process made by others in a past... More than blame agency's , the contributors should blame clients too.

BTW, I'm still there, and got a message informing that could set own prices. In general I'm not uploading since 2013 ( anywhere ) and probably a few dozen of images can be ranked as "salable". Having that images on hard disk will cost me more than sale them for 5 cents...

Anyway this doesn't mean that I agree with this business model.