Not worth it if you ask me. No experience with video there, but I have a small port of images.
It's unlimited download/shared revenue, which always feels like being ripped off.
In addition, they sneakily try to mark your images as free when you upload, so you have to change them to Premium manually.

Apart from that: low sales, low revenue per sale. Tried it, didn't work, just ignore them.

Quote from: Brasilnut on June 20, 2024, 05:54

If this were a flower shop or restaurant, etc with similar numbers it would have been forced to close long ago.

If this was a flower shop and they promised to pay you $10 an hour, then every year, dropped your wages, so 2019 $10, 2020 $9, 2021 $8... 2024 $5, but the employee keeps coming to work (as in, keeps uploading to SS) then why would the business care? They get the job done, the business profits, they pay less and less, and the workers may complain, but they keep coming to work. 

I tend to think that a couple hundred images and videos ago, SS decided, they didn't really need new content, just pay pennies for the old. And if people leave, what does SS care, they have hundreds of millions of images already.

It's even a bit different, because we don't have to show up at ShutterStock every day as we should do in a flower shop :-) We just leave our images there which is effortless. And they still sell. But less, and for less than in the past. We accept it and squeeze it out. We also still upload there, because for most of us it's an automated or semi-automated process. Rather effortless too to upload to ShutterStock.

But the main point is very right: they can do whatever they want, they keep on growing in terms of database volume. If everybody would pull their portfolio's it's a different story, but that's never gonna happen. For many people, myself included, ShutterStock still provides some money that comes in very handy and would be a shame to miss out on. And for some, it even provides a living. Having the right niche, having the unfair advantage as the tend to call it, combine it with some good enough photography skills and you'll probably still doing rather good there.

That said: the trend is clear. Downhill. But this was already the case in 2019 when I started out and started reading the forums. People were complaining and moaning about a dying business model too. Truth has to be said: they were pretty much right on it :-)

Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?

Not since June 6th, but somewhere earlier this year. Sudden drop in sales volume of let's say 50% and never recovered, despite regular uploading.

A lot of people are complaining about significant lower sales volume, so it seems to be a more general thing. On the other hand, some folks also report to see very little impact and they keep their volumes on par or even see a rise.

Strange. I know sales volumes can highly depend on quality and type of content, and comparing between contributors is very difficult, but those sudden drops are weird.

You cannot opt-out. It's accepting it or leaving them.

Got an email from EyeEm today which says they resume the distribution to iStock/Getty.

I've had no sales since they were acquired by Freepik. Somehow EyeEm content should also sell through Freepik without commission loss if I understood it right, but I've seen no sales so far.

The distribution to iStock/Getty might bring some life in earnings at EyeEm again, if previous selected partner content gets distributed.
No idea how they will handle duplicates though. Most of my stuff there is available via personal account, and I already noticed some duplicates via Wirestock.

This is the mail:

Hi there,

We�re excited to share some fantastic news. Starting in June, we will resume the distribution of our best images to Getty Images and iStock.

You're now part of a community that not only creates engaging visuals on a global scale but also benefits from:

A 50/50 revenue share for all photographers so that all hard work is equally rewarded.
New opportunities to expand your audience and increase sales, thanks to Freepik and Getty Images as our new distribution partners.
A new licensing deal through machine learning, providing another revenue stream for your images.
Significant increases in photo sales since October 2023, with continued efforts to boost your earnings.
But this is just a taste of what we�ve been working on this year. There's much more to come as we aim to make our community happier and stronger with:

More EyeEm Missions to give you new opportunities to show and share your talent.
Higher partner image distribution to increase your visibility and sales.
Stricter signup rules to prevent spammers and unauthorized content.
Continuous improvements based on your feedback for a fully bug-free experience.
Thanks for being part of our community and sharing your thoughts with us. We're excited about what's ahead and can't wait to achieve great things together with you.


Your EyeEm Team

Quote from: synthetick on May 15, 2024, 07:39

I do high end motion graphics work and make fractal art and after 6 years of my previous Intel Mac I have updated earlier this year to an M2 Studio and it seriously rocks.

As humor, I ran into a guy at a bar, who was "into fractals" and he had just bought the latest 486 so he could make them better and faster. We never stop going faster and better? 

Cute ad, I still don't understand what was offensive. I mean the whole idea, without the ad, that an iPad Pro would be the creators tool of choice and replace all the others, is a complete farce, but so what? Politicians and special interest groups, tell us that electric cars are the future and people swallow that?

I think that we have to keep in mind that ads, politicians, or sometimes what you call special interest groups mainly sell concepts or idea's. Not specifically a reality, or not a reality for everybody. Apple's ad might claim that they crushed the whole creative industry in one device, and this is true from a conceptual point of view, but not always a reality. Yes, I can play a bit of guitar or compose music on an iPad, but it doesn't come close to what a real guitar player or musician would do on real instruments. Yes, I can take quite satisfying pictures with that iPad, but it doesn't come close to what a skilled photographer would do with an high-end camera.

Ads of laundry products are claiming new formulas and whiter than white results for as long as I live. Meanwhile, my plain white t-shirt isn't as white as it used to be a year ago.

I never truly understood why we don't react more aggressively on false claims made in ads. For instance: even after diesel gate, fuel or battery consumption advertised by car brands is still way off, and does not reflect real consumption in a real traffic situation.

Quote from: Roscoe on May 03, 2024, 01:35

I would be very careful with Wirestock.

I wouldn't get into bed with them or any of the other similar services, which I will not name.
Just look at their website and notice the lack of information they provide to potential contributors.  Their "service" is clearly aimed at a certain demographic who doesn't really want to do the hard work of running a stock footage business or be bothered with the details.  If someone has the attitude, "hey, why not send them some stuff and if it makes a couple of bucks, that's a couple of bucks I wouldn't have had otherwise."    Fine.  But that is a lazy way to try to make money from the content you have created.

And then, when their earnings amount to practically nothing, they will announce "See, there's no money in stock anymore. I missed the boat".  But they never actually did the work or put in the effort that is required to become a successful contributor.  They took the easy way and it didn't pay off.  What a surprise!

Yes, distributors in general can be risky business. All your stuff is in one basket without much control, and that's never a good idea imho.

But not everyone takes it as seriously or professionally as you do. Some just want to dump their stuff and are happy with whatever it brings in while other have a very calculated approach with something that actually looks like a business plan. Some just don't have the time (or don't want to spend their time) to keyword, have way too many files sitting there doing nothing and I can understand why they dump them to a distributor. Plenty of examples from people that made quite some money that way that they wouldn't have made otherwise. That's the easy road yes, but not always sure it's lazy as they might be very busy or passionate outside microstock. Not up to me to judge any kind of approach, and it's each to their own preferences or needs. Whatever works. Microstock is probably a side hustle anways, and very few have or want to do what it takes to make a comfortable living from it.

I think many of us are somewhere in the middle along that road, and in many cases it means that the distributor gets the leftovers or even crapstock. So if I were a distributor, I wouldn't want to be in that place either, I would still want that quality content that sells as I would have to make money too. So I don't understand Wirestock. If you have quality content it really pays off to keep control and do the effort of keywording and uploading to personal accounts. If you have leftovers or crapstock, rejections (Wirestock has their standards too and if they don't the receiving agency has), sloppy keywording (not very sure this is still the case) probably result in low sales and you might even lose money due to paying the subscription fee. So who are they targeting? I don't fully understand, but apparently it's working as they are still around.

I agree that it's never too late to step in and that putting effort in it is the only way to success. But I feel like it became way more difficult, and success is way higher up the learning curve than it was in the past. A beginner or intermediate food photographer for example will have a hard time to break in, and might get discouraged pretty early in that process. I'm not very familiar with video, but I guess the same applies there. It's what competition does, and I think you have to ask yourself whether the hard work is worth the potential return, and whether equal hard work in other areas outside microstock woulnd't bring in more money :-)

Quote from: Roscoe on May 02, 2024, 11:57

But if yours is already longer on the market, and sold quite a few times (due to lower competition at that time) then the newer one will generally end up lower in the rankings, get less views, and yours will have the advantage. Right? (Of course, all depending on competition and saturation, as the algorithm mixes new content with established content. Niche markets are easier to break into than highly saturated area's of the market)

But now you are talking about something entirely different.  Yes, an older clip that has been successful and sold multiple times does have an advantage. But that has nothing to do with the overall size of the contributor's portfolio or how long the contributor has been a contributor.  That is the myth I was trying to dispel.  Please read my earlier post again, and I hope you can understand the difference.

But to address the point you are making, don't assume that the best-selling clip last year of a toddler eating spaghetti is going to continue to dominate year after year.  The algorithms are constantly trying to promote newer clips to keep the content fresh on the site.  In my own case, many of my clips that used to sell almost every day hardly ever sell at all anymore. Why is that?  Well, it is because other similar clips have probably pushed them off their pedestal. That's what competition does. And it has nothing to do with the size of the contributor's portfolio.  My point is that it is never to late to get your feet wet.  If you sit on the sidelines and say "it's too late", then you are guaranteed of 100% failure.

I must have been misunderstood or not have made myself fully clear. I'm with you regarding the size of a portfolio not influencing individual asset ranking. I don't believe that purely the number of assets you have influences the individual ranking of those assets. I mentioned the advantage an older asset can have because @Faustvasea also mentioned competing against well established assets, and up to a certain point he's right about that. And yes, new assets are mixed up in the search results of a customer, so if the new one matches the quality and content the customer is looking for, it will get sold and will keep on getting views to generate more sales. Until it is outcompeted again. Of course, competition is still increasing, and I have the feeling (no hard claim) that libraries are growing faster than customer demand which means it gets more difficult to break into certain niches. So I understand why some contributors start making weird assumptions about rankings.

I think we're on the same page, but nobody really knows how the algorithms work. The only agency I know of giving some transparency about their algorithm was Indivstock, and they are very small and irrelevant. Yet they have a rather complex algorithm in place with a lot of bonus or punishment factors for content ranking. Portfolio size was not of any influence, but popularity in general was. (data from 2022)

+ 3.00% Artist bonus in general as well as keywords and titles of images predominantly without "spam" keywording, also title.
+ 2.00% Artist bonus in general as well as portfolio mostly popular.
+ 2.00% Artist bonus in general as well as portfolio mostly "outstanding".

That report is blatantly honest - failure to grow the stock business.

Compare with Adobe is enjoying stable growth, no drama, great support, free photoshop/ creative suite for producers, great producer support team.

producers are customers, the old Shutterstock team knew that having thousands of graphic designers who are happy and keep recommending you, is a huge plus.

Would it not have been a lot cheaper, to keep the forums open, to keep a support team going and to keep growing organically instead of wasting money on buying pond5 and envato?

How many years will it take for those investments to pay themselves??

eta:

they spent 240 million on pond5, lets say another 150mio for envato, so there could be around 400mio in aquisition costs.

And so far their deal with pond5 did not bring them any growth, inspite of owning it for 3 years, they are losing customers.

Imagine they had just kept Shutterstock the way it was, used those 400mio to focus on organic growth and add their ai project...where would they be now?

We will never know, and only thing we can do is speculate. An amusing but also irrelevant way of killing some time :-)
All I know is that if they are treating their customers the way they treat their contributors, the outflux of customers is no surprise.
Looking at trustpilot, they seem to have a very bad reputation, but on the other hand, same goes for Adobe and iStock/Getty.

I can also hardly imagine that they bought Envato for their photo or video library, area's in which they already are a market leader.
Envato is more than that, and Shutterstock might want to buy a more dominant position in other area's of the market (so they can screw that part up too )

Received $60.97 for the Contributor fund today.

I'm not complaining about the extra money, but my choice actually looked like this since about a year now  :

If the system works as I understand how it should work... you should have gotten nothing?
So this means either the checkbox is doing nothing, and your content is used for AI training, or they have a serious issue in contributor fund distribution.
Or maybe the checkbox only works for content uploaded after you changed the setting. (because before there was no choice)

None of the above is good, there should be transparancy.

Nobody can check the sales system.

Yeah that's the thing. How do we know, how can anybody check that without direct involvement?
We don't, and we can't.

Not even speaking of something intentional. But on a technical level. Consider a database with hundreds of millions of records. All the programming and scripts that involve connecting all the commission variants from different kinds of subscriptions, direct sales, credit packs, premium access, Getty library, iStock library, Thinkstock library or any other weird thing they set up in the past.... Consider all those API's from partners or customers with direct access. There's a lot of it than can go technically wrong, from database corruptions over api's not working to misprogramming that nobody ever discovers and when they do can take weeks or months to fix... Consider all the internal teams and divisions having access and manipulation rights on the database intervening to their own needs creating side-effects for others... The way Getty or any other big agencies operates their data must be very complex.

I'm not very technically involved, but from my work experience from more service managing related positions I can assure you that data or transactions in likewise constructions gets lost. And very often, when discovered, the consideration is made: what costs more? Accepting the data-loss, or trying to fix the issue and also restore data loss or perform corrections, wherever possible. There are cases where data loss is accepted as a more cost-efficient way to deal with the issue. There are a lot of cases too where the issue does gets fixed, but it can takes months to do that due to the complexity of the issue, and the complexity of the company itself (often dealing with off-shore programmers who might be competent people on a technical level, but have no clue at all about the system that they are trying to fix, they just write code)

I'm pretty sure that in this whole mess, a unreported sales happen. And they can percentage-wise be considered as the exception, we're still talking about quite the volume.

No reviews here too. Slow sales here too. Shutterstock seems to be sinking into irrelevance.