Quote from: Faustvasea on May 01, 2024, 13:54
Thanks, I thoughts you use Ai tags or description using apps like Xpiks or other similar apps.

AI is crap for stock.  In my experience, it can't tell the difference between a smokestack and a rocket; between a goldfish and a salamnder; between an airplane and a cross.  I could go on an on, but anyone who relies on AI is leaving money on the table. If buyers cannot find your images, then they cannot buy them. Simple as that.

BTW, we don't get paid for images or clips because that is the fun stuff most people would shoot for free. We get paid for the boring drudgery work of creating metadata. More than anything else, that's what separates the the successful from unsuccessful.

If anyone honestly thinks AI can replace a human for creating effective metadata, I will challenge that person to show me some examples. 

Quote from: synthetick on May 01, 2024, 13:29
It (briefly) felt like the old days!

Yes, I love days like that!  I just checked my account and found that I had a $180 download late last night after I'd gone to bed. A great way to wrap up April in the last hour of the month.

Quote from: Faustvasea on May 01, 2024, 09:31
Are you using any app for your metadata, if you don't mind me asking.

No, I am not aware of any app that will ease the burden of metadata.  It is something you have to do manually if you want good results.  Like I said before, without great metadata you're just wasting your time, no matter how good your clips are.

I do, however, have a custom Apple Numbers spreadsheet that stores all my metadata and significantly makes the submission process faster and easier. It uses auto-fill from similar clips, counts the characters in my description and alerts me if I go over the limit; shows the number of keywords and alerts me if I have too many or not enough; segregates editorial clips; etc.   It helps, but still hate doing metadata.

I can average 12 clips per hour doing the ingest, editing, color grading, export, and all metadata.  5 minutes per clip.

Quote from: Pacesetter on May 01, 2024, 10:33
If I'm not mistaken, I think Doug's response above refers to more recent and current yearly earnings where he no longer makes 30k a year on Shutterstock like he use to.

Yes, that is correct.

Quote from: Injustice for all on May 01, 2024, 00:14
like many,I know you from the days of the SS forum,excellent work,congratulations! 

I don't think anyone who starts producing videos and uploading them to SS today,will ever be able to achieve these results.

I seem to remember that until a few years ago you used to make over $30k in a year.

luckily there is Adobe,otherwise microstock would have no future!

No, I'm not making $30K per year at Shutterstock, but the earnings keep rolling in month after month with virtually no effort on my part. And quite a few newer clips that I've uploaded are making good money now.  I have had a pretty busy last couple of years with regular work and have not had the time to upload very many new clips.  I'm still out shooting regularly because I enjoy it, but doing the metadata is another story.  I've got a backlog of about 5000 4K clips that are all edited and graded.  Will I ever find time to do the metadata and get them earning some money for me?  I don't know.  Too busy with other work to even think about it right now.  Metadata is the bane of my existence.   It takes time to do it well, and if you don't take that time, then why upload at all? Without good metadata it is just a waste of time.

Quote from: Pacesetter on May 01, 2024, 00:12
Yes Adobe is doing really well. Is Adobe earnings surpassing Shutterstock earnings on a monthly basis for you now?

No, Adobe has not surpassed Shutterstock yet, but every month they come closer.  However, I have about 3x more clips at Shutterstock right now, so if you divide the earnings by the size of the portfolio then Adobe might be doing the best statistically.

Okay, I understand now.  No, I doubt I will hit $250K lifetime earnings this year at Shutterstock.  But in 2025 for sure.  Shutterstock is slipping lately so probably won't make another $23K in 2024.  Fortunately, Adobe is rising to take up the slack.

Do what?  I have sales every day.

9562 clips.  ($23.80 x 9562 = $227,575)
0 photos.

Ha, ha! You're right. Oh well, I better use a calculator next time.

I am happy to report I have now crossed the quarter million dollar earnings threshold at Shutterstock.
That's an average of $27.06 per download.
That's an average of $23.80 per video in my portfolio.
The earnings just keep rolling in.

Quote from: Annie on July 04, 2023, 23:40
Well, it looks like the UFOs have finally arrived, transported us back in time and landed us back in the old Shutterstock forum. The never-ending argument, Doug's hourly rate calculation. 

Welcome to MSG, Doug.

Ha, ha.  Hi Annie, it' good to know you are still around.
Welcome to MSG . . . and goodbye.  This kind of crap isn't worth my time.  I came by, made the little baby cry, and now I'll leave before he wants me to change his dirty diaper.  I'll drop by next year to see them still bitching about Shutterstock and "the man" putting them down.
See ya.

Quote from: Big Toe on July 04, 2023, 22:56

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 21:15
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.

But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.

Sweet dreams!

Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions.

Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot.

Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet.

Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway.

If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.

Exactly right.  You have summed up my position very well. I don't understand why it gets people pissed off if I don't include my time shooting.  Who wants to punch a clock?

Quote from: Wilm on July 04, 2023, 22:24
My calculated hourly wage is in any case significantly lower than yours. Considerably lower! Because the images didn't fall from the sky - I had to create them. This time of creating them was fun. But this time still is part of my calculation. And that is the main difference to your calculation.

Wim, thanks for the explanation and glimpse into your way of doing stock.  There are many ways to skin a cat and how we judge the results.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on July 04, 2023, 21:26
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.

Perhaps you can get No Talent to present us with his "approved" formula for measuring the financial success/failure for someone's stock footage business.  I have tried to get it out of him, but he just wants to call names and throw rocks.  Not one thing he has posted is helpful to the conversation.   See if you can get him to give us his approved formula and I'll plug my numbers into and see where things stand.  Good luck, though, because we both know he has no such formula.  He's a troll, hiding behind a fake (but appropirate name) with nothing to contribute except animosity towards others.

Quote from: blvdone on July 04, 2023, 21:18
The point is, the vast majority of stock video contributors agree that his calculation of $348/hr is BS because we the professionals always calculate business expenses into account.  And the way he was acting like arrogant bully on Shutterstock forum, everybody remembers that not so favorably.  I have many enemies who dislikes me on forums, but he does too it seems.  And since he already made those "Get rich quick with stock video" tutorial videos, he had to advertise "$348/hr" when in reality probably majority of people who try doing stock videos end up making less than minimum wage especially since Shutterstock started the video subs in 2020.

You're a liar.  I challenge you to document a single time where I said stock was a way to "get rich quick".  Just the opposite!!!!  I tell people it takes hard work and a lot of time to build a portfolio that probably won't even pay anything back for months or years.  I liken it to planting seeds and waiting for the harvest to come in.  My message is that you can increase your odds of having a profitable "harvest" if you choose the right type kinds of seeds to plant, where to plant them, how to fertilize them, and more importantly how to drastically reduce the time and effort you put into your "farming".   But no, it is not a scheme to get rich quick.  And i have never said anything but that.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 17:12

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 17:04

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:51Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.

Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like.  What should I do differently?  What is wrong with it?  Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.

In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.   

The floor is yours.

The beauty of the reductio ad absurdum method is that you don't have to show WHY a hypothesis is wrong. You just prove it is.

Besides, I am not here to help you to understand how to better run your business.
I only did you a favor by showing that you made an error. You're welcome!

So accept that your calculation is wrong (and silly) and try to figure out WHY by yourself.

Good luck!

Yup, that's exactly what I expected you to say.

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 17:04

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:51Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:51Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.

Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like.  What should I do differently?  What is wrong with it?  Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.

In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.   

The floor is yours.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:32

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 16:26

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:22

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 16:18

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:15

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 15:50
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,

I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.

What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?

What is your calculation? Please share.

In case you don't realize, it's elementary logic called "reductio ad absurdum".
You asume the premise to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.

You're just avoiding the question with childish statments like that.  "It's wrong becuase I say it is wrong".  Childish

I'll ask you again . . .

What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?

What is your calculation? Lay it on the table so we can be enlightened at to the correct way to do it that meets your standards.  I am listening. Here is you chance to actually post something of substance rather than throwing stones.

I am not avoid anything.

Follow me:
Let's assume that your calculation leading to your claim of $348/hour is correct.
If that's true, then my earnings are ♾️/hour, as shown above.

But this is absurd. Therefore the original assumption, your calculation, is wrong.
And silly.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Wow, you are really a piece of work  I've given you multiple opportunities to explain yourself but you won't do it.  Childish.  I will not waste time discussing it with you any further.   If anyone else would care to enage in an adult conversation and compare methods I would be a happy to do so.  I have no time for trolls.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:22

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 16:18

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:15

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 15:50
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,

I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.

What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?

What is your calculation? Please share.

In case you don't realize, it's elementary logic called "reductio ad absurdum".
You asume the premise to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.

You're just avoiding the question with childish statments like that.  "It's wrong becuase I say it is wrong".  Childish

I'll ask you again . . .

What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?

What is your calculation? Lay it on the table so we can be enlightened at to the correct way to do it that meets your standards.  I am listening. Here is you chance to actually post something of substance rather than throwing stones.

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 16:18

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:15

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 15:50
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,

I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.

Of course it is childish to say you have infinite earnings.  Do you have all the money in the world?  I think not. Case settled.

What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?

What is your calculation? Please share.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 16:15

Quote from: Doug Jensen on July 04, 2023, 15:50
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,

I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.

Of course it is childish to say you have infinite earnings.  Do you have all the money in the world?  I think not. Case settled.

What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?

What is your calculation? Please share.

Quote from: Wilm on July 04, 2023, 11:58At least, that's how I see it with calculating the hourly rate. And stand by my statement that a calculation of 5 minutes per file is unrealistic from my point of view.

Yes, it might be unrealistic from your point of view because you do things differently than me. Obviously, you are welcome to do things anyway you want to, but that doesn't mean I can't do what I say I can do.  I can't free-climb Half Dome in three hours or run a 100 meter dash under 10 seconds, but that doesn't mean other people can't do it.

Yes, I really can process 12 clip per hour (edit, grade, export, generate metadata, and upload) without batting an eye.   Actually it is closer to three minutes, but I like to be conservative and say 5 minutes.   How can I do it? Because I have a workflow and system in place that allows me to do it.  And through my online master class and in-person workshops, I have taught hundreds of other people to use the exact same  methods to speed up their workflow too.     Here's a secret:   The less time I spend creating my content, the more money I earn per hour of my time.  It is that simple.  If someone can cut their time to create content in half, they have instantly doubled their hourly income.  It is as simple as that.

Some contributors are like a cobbler working in their little home workshop to create a perfect pair of shoes by hand.  While other people, like myself have more of an assembly line approach where speed and efficiency are king.  You might be building a house with a pocket full of nails and a hammer, while I'm using a high-powered nail gun to get the same job done faster.  You might be an author banging away on a manual typewriter, while I'm cruising along with a word processor to get the same work done in a fraction of the time. 

Why is it that people can't understand that workflow, and the tools we use, actually matter to the bottom line? And that someone else may have a better way of getting the job done.

May I ask what software you use to edit, grade, export, and upload?

May I ask how you generate and manage your vast library metadata, and how you use are able to use older metadate to automate the creation of metadata for new clips?

May I ask how you shoot your footage and what tools you use onboard your camera, and during ingest, that will make you more efficient in post?

Quote from: Wilm on July 04, 2023, 11:58
We have discussed this at length in the past.

From my point of view, this is misleading. There are millions of creatives who love their job and have fun doing it. And there are millions of creatives who are still barely able to make a living because they miscalculate. They sit too long on projects that pay poorly because they want to deliver an excellent result, even if the pay is only enough for an average design.

Wilm, I am not responsible for, nor do I really care if other creatives are happy or not with their earnings.  I wish them success, as I do all people in all professions, but their success or lack of success has nothing to with me.  In fact, in my experience, creatives are some of the worst business people I've ever met.  And you cannot be successful in stock if you don't know how to manage your time, your expenses, choose to create content that is in demand, be able to generate effective metadata, and have an efficient workflow.  I would argue that "creativity" is one of the least important aspects of being successful at stock. I for one do not consider myself creative at all, yet I'm making what I feel is a decent income.

I hope everyone would agree it is very important for any stock contributor to figure out how much they are earning for the amount of time and effort they put into their portfolio.  That is just business 101.  If someone cannot quantity their earnings by hour, day, or some other metric that makes sense to them, how can they ever get a handle on the value of what they are earning?   On the face of it, a $1000 of revenue sounds great, but if I had to spend 100 hours to earn that $1000, then it is not so good.  Revenue always has to be viewed against what it took to earn that revenue.  I hope we can all agree on that.

However, with that said, we don't have to agree on HOW we calculate the value of the time and effort that goes into our stock footage businesses.  I have explained in great detail how I calculate my earnings. Other people may not agree with my formula.  Fine.  The point is that I have a formula that makes sense to me and I have explained it in detail.  I don't expect everyone to agree that they should use the same formula.  Other people can calculate their earnings using whatever formula that make sense to them.  Only a fool would keep blundering along without stopping to take a look at the big picture of earnings vs. time and expenses.

What I don't understand is why people get so angry when I explain my formula.  It brings out such hatred.  Why is that?  Why is it so offensive to people that I am willing to open the books to show my earnings and then explain how I calculate my hourly income?  If you don't agree with my methods, fine, but what difference should it make to you?    Why the anger?

I challenge anyone else to open their books and explain how they calculate their own earnings.  People always want to take a crap on mine, but nobody else ever steps up to the plate and says "Here's how I do it, and here's why my method makes more sense to me."  I could respect that even if my methods differ.  Nobody does that. They just want to throw stones at me because I had the gall to go on record with my own earnings.

What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour, and dumb stuff like you'd expect to hear from a 2nd grader. Are there no adults in the room who are willing to have an adult conversation without calling people names and throwing insults because they don't agree with someone else's formula?  Does throwing out asinine statements about infinite earnings per hour lead to a meaningful conversation about this topic?

It's been a couple of years since SS shut down there forum, and so I come here now to read hundreds of postings by the same cast of characters bitching about the same stuff and tilting at the same windmills.  Where does it all get them?