I disabled and deleted my port at SS more than a year ago. I don't contribute videos to Istock, although I am still image exclusive with them as I earn a few thousand dollars every month with them. Since I left SS my video sales at Adobe and Pond5 have doubled. So fine with me. I rather bet on raising agencies that are more friendly to contributors than sinking ships, but every contributor should know exactly how to treat their time.

Spot on explanation on what micro is all about. Nowadays only terrain for amateur photographers that really don't care too much if they make 3000$ or 500$ a year but once you factor in time, props or gas or equipment the actually loose money but they like the micro game. For pros most have already gone to greener pastures but there are still some that keep going because of huge ports or because the live in a place where live is a bargain.

In 2012 I was making 3$/month/photo at Istock exclusive. Nowadays 10 times less. I rarely upload now unless when I shoot video aerials then I take some photos and from time to time I upload those. But if I take rpi it is really not worth my time anymore. You have to be a very efficient machine and very careful with your expenses if you still want to play the micro card. As suggested I think it is much wiser move to medium or macro stock. The days where you could have many thousands of downloads for a top file or hundreds of licenses for a "regular ones" are over.

Micro is surely not dead as more creative files are downloaded as ever but there are so many players from free to amateurs that are happy with a few hundred dollars a month or less that starting today would be silly as there are so many more routes in photography that give you better revenue streams, similar as when the micro game started.

Quote from: Annie on October 30, 2021, 04:32

On the other hand, the people who started before us were used to easy street. Back in the beginning when a good stock pic went to the top of the search - it stayed there (forever) depending solely on how many dls it had.

No it wasn't. It startet going downwards early.
Beginning 2008 at the 3 big agencies RPI was good.
A few years latter going exclusive with istock my RPI was even getting better.
But actually it was going downwards from the beginning.
It was easy to see at a simple excel sheet. Just compare how older monthly uploads performs against newer uploads in the first months and years after upload.
The newer uploads mostly didn't get the sale volume like older uploads and did not sell that long.
Mostly there is even a continuing trend over the years.
At 2020 my RPI (year) at Adobe Stock was $0,7. At 2008 at FT my RPI (year) was about $2.
This trend was clear since about 2010.
My RPI (year) at istock exclusivity was about $9 at 2012. I guess it would be around $3 nowadays.
Nowadays the situation is like this - average images at microstock still sell at lower RPI compared to 10 years ago.
Averages images at istock exclusive probably don't sell well. Premium images at istock exclusive probably will sell well. If you want to keep your income level. Produce more images at micro, or produce better images for mid stock, macro.
Producing at the same level your income will be lower than now in a few years.
Still the same game as it was the last 10 years.
If you are just starting, your income will grow for about 3 years. Now matter how good or bad your are.
After the first 3 years it depends on your 3 years upload volume and quality.
Just keeping the level means lower income year after year.

Maybe I got myself explained wrong. It is not that they are pumping it artificially but they made a quick money grab the same as Getty did with Istock some years ago. At that time Getty grabbed clients money multiplying prices for customers and so many disappeared. Shutterstock went the opposite route. They have put the burden on contributors and those are disappearing fast (just look at what gets uploaded nowadays at SS).

With such moves you make investors happy in the short term because your benefit increases dramatically but down the road things don't look so rosy anymore. Lets talk about SS stock in 2 years . You will see how drastically different their stock market graph and corporate benefits will be.
Contributors and after clients will be where the good content is. And it is no longer at SS.

Quote from: everest on October 11, 2021, 15:15

They have just pumped up the stock killing the future of the company.....

highly unlikely SS is pumping their own stock   - $100/share stocks don't get pumped since the buy to raise it by 10% over millions of shares is enormous

compared to pumping a penny stock to $1 or $2 -- an increase of over 100x for much less invested

It depends on the customer and of course what he is looking for. If you need to download a clock timelapse rest assured that no client is to look anywhere else if he/she has a subscription at Getty SS Envato Elements p5 or Artgrid, he will surely find plenty of alternatives. But things are quite different if they search for workers in a nuclear plant, diving in a pool or drone shots of rock climbers. He will pay who ever has the video he likes best for the ProJet . It doesn't matter if he is subscribed with any other library.

Myself I was preparing not so long ago my first short film. I needed Latin chants. I was subscribed to 2 audio libraries.: soundstripe and audiio.com. I didn't like or find anything in them so I bought individual music files at Pond5. So unless you do ultra generic stuff in video people will hunt for your files if what you have is different of what other copycat and redo a 1000 times.

Remember that about hose 22 million files at SS most of it is content repeated to death : splashes, clocks, skies, etc. There is a reason that agencies like Artgrid for example are growing even if they arrived very late to the party. The same can be said of agencies like Stocksy or Arcangel in the photo department. They have nothing to fear from SS and the likes. They have different content and SS will not replicate it because 1- It is too expensive to do for the paltry returns (you just need higher payments to be viable). 2- That huge number of files just demonstrates that 99% is of very low quality and searching is a frustrating experience for many clients where time is money.

Again I am almost directing my advice to pros although we are a vanishing breed in stock. For amateurs that produce very simple stuff what you say holds true and a model smiling to a camera with a mask, the fake Covid vaccines,.... it really doesn't matter that content is everywhere. Amateurs what they have to compete is the growing free libraries that slowly have this same simple content and give it away for free.

This is a thought process I can't follow.

Most sales nowadays happen with subscription plans, so why would a customer who has a subscription with one agency even go searching for a video on another agency? I can understand maybe browsing around on sites with free videos or photos first and I can also understand searching somewhere else if you really need a very very specific video of something and can't find it or anything similar to it anywhere else. But if you have to buy the video from another agency where you don't have a subscription, it will cost you an extraordinary higher amount, while on the agency where you have the subscription it would cause no additional costs at all. And with 22 million videos available on Shutterstock, what are the chances that, even if you can't find one specific video there, you will not at least find some suitable substitute for it?

I think it is you that got the logic wrong. Every time I sale a video file at Adobe *minimum of 24� ,the ranking of that video goes higher at Adobe. If the seller would purchase it on a sub at SS that file at Adobe would sink as if you don't sell it goes down as in every agency. Now you would say that it would go up at SS. Yes right but what would you prefer a video file that goes up in a place that you get 25$ or a video file that goes up in a site where you get paid a few dollar at most. Easy choice.

And as I said previously. customers go for the file they need for the project and not the agency they are in, specially on video where there are many time not so many alternatives as it is not so saturated. They look around in the 4 sites that have decent video content and pick the best one. Now if that same content is everywhere they are not stup.d and pick the cheapest choice.

Quote from: everest on September 30, 2021, 14:20

.... Every dime sale made at SS not only kills a good sale at P5 or Adobe but also kills the ranking of that files at those better paying agencies...

false logic -- 'every' sale of your file on SS would take away a sale from YOU at another site?

?? and why/how does an SS ranking affect ranking at other agencies??

Quote

Some still think that buyers don't shop around. that is completely false, they do, and if they find what they want on another site cheaper the bite the hook. Specially freelancers and smaller companies. ...

once again, how do you know that ? some may do so, but someone with a subscription wouldnt want to spend time looking somewhere else where they'd have to pay the single DL price.  more likely, if your remove files, they'll choose one of many thousands of other images available that fit their needs - they'd never know you have a better image on another site.

For me leaving Shutterstock gave very quickly more sales on Adobe Stock so for me yes without a doubt.

Same here. My goal was 1000-1500$ day as I was already at 500$ day on week days. Nowadays my reality has gone to 100-150$/day Quite a backwards ride...... 

As many have already told you run away from the same scammers that ripped many off with Freepik dubious schemes

If tou want to get involved with them despite all the warnings dont come here later rambling full of tears

No He just runs away from thieves. You might feel comfortable among those. Everybody picks up their choices and companions in this road called life. Good luck to you. You might need it it sticking with that "gang"

You pulled your good files and don't upload, then complain about the low income from SS? Is that how to make more in this business? I don't think the terms include a NDA and they can KMA if we aren't allowed to talk about the piss poor pay we get.

From a business point of view clever . They are already reaping what they sought. They are also selling. That is a big red flag. You will see what will happen in the next 12 or 24 months. Oringer will be already out. But mark my words. Shutterstock will not even be in the top 4 in a few years.

This stock used to float around 25-50 range, now they crossed $100 USD mark.
They cleverly took all the greedy steps for the company.

We contributors are crying. I lost almost 50% of my earning. 

I dont think that statement is true, specially now that there are not many players left. Having exclusive content at Istock/Getty, Stocksy,Arcangel,.....can be better as there are not  really significant players left. As of pond5 if you shoot for example editorial videos you have basically two options. be at P5 regular collection and also being undercutted for pennies at SS or be exclusive at P5 get 60% and raise your prices accordingly if you think the clip is unique because you dont have anyone that can give it away. If you shoot creative basically there are only 4 players in town and sorry to say but Istock/getty and SS are garbage because of their ultralow prices .

Quote from: angelawaye on June 16, 2021, 09:32

Horrible. I regret going exclusive

Being exclusive anywhere for any content in this industry is the kiss of death. That even includes image exclusive.

Freepic scammers & troops from Malaga. Don't walk away.....run.