Couple of really good video sales earlier tonight...

Quote from: Pacesetter on May 10, 2024, 17:41

... one even being a photo sale of $26.40! Don't know if I've ever had a photo sale that high on Adobe before.

That's an extended license royalty - congrats. They don't happen often any more and are often discounted - your customer paid at full price $79.99 * 0.33 = $26.3967

Very interesting. Thanks for that info. 

Can confirm a very slow week down in the southern hemisphere too.

I had quite a few 3-digit sales last year but none so far this year. Image below is the biggest single sale I had in September last year and in fact biggest single sale I've ever had on a video.

Quote from: Doug Jensen on April 30, 2024, 20:19

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 30, 2024, 18:14

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.

ok,I thought I remembered a post on the old shutterstock forum,where you showed that for the first time you had reached $30K in a year,but if you say no then I remember wrong,maybe it was someone else.

however you have achieved incredible results,but well deserved,the work you did was extraordinary.

Yes i agree,metadata is as important as the content itself,perhaps even more important in some cases.

so in proportion you are earning more on Adobe,given that on SS you have 3 times more videos,interesting,this shows that even with videos Adobe has now surpassed even Shutterstock.

You probably remember correctly as I recall that too. 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.

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.

Yes Adobe is doing really well. Is Adobe earnings surpassing Shutterstock earnings on a monthly basis for you now?

I've uploaded quite a few videos over the past 12 months and some photos. My earnings increase April 2023 vs April 2024 on Adobe Stock is 120% and overall earnings increase April 2023 vs April 2024 for my four ports is 31%.

So, the number of sales per week didn't actually increase, but revenue nearly doubled since I started to price my bestsellers much higher to $149/HD and $199/4K from $74/HD and $149/4K.  On Pond5, I think if you want to make money, you got to price your clips at decent level and can push it higher for your bestsellers.  Buyers don't buy them because it's cheap.  Those cheapo buyers just pay $10/month and download on cheapo sites or get subscription plans on SS or AS.  My RPD is about $95 now since I started this high price strategy.  Some folks are pricing their clips at $25/HD and $27/4k and get like $10 for a download.  I think they're making a big mistake.  I'm surprised to see the number of high price HD sales is the same as regular price HD sale.  Only 707 clips out of my 30k clips are set at higher price.  So, the popular bestselling clips have pricing power we may be underestimating.

My port.
https://www.pond5.com/artist/blvdoneprime

Your stats and work are very impressive. How do you grow your port with those numbers of clips because I recall looking some 6 or so months ago (maybe a bit longer) and there were like 16k clips. There's now nearly 30k clips. You do this full time? 

3 downloads for a total of just over $90 which is a good sale for a Sunday.

Pond5 returns to its regular crawl with just one sale under $20 so far this month.

Best month on Pond5 since June 2023, not extraordinary but a decent result overall. 

We have an official response from kelvinjay on the iStock/Getty forum:
" UPDATE: Refunds / cancellations

Some contributors have noticed an increase in cancellations on their royalty statement this month.

A large corporate customer who licenses a high volume of content mistakenly selected these uses as royalty-bearing when, in fact, they were for comp / low-resolution image use. It is standard industry practice that comp uses, for client pitches, mock-ups, etc., are not a royalty generating license.

We subsequently met with the customer to reiterate the correct licensing requirements and reversed these transactions. Due to the customer's sizable team, some assets were selected for intended comp use multiple times, necessitating multiple cancellations

In future, if the customer licenses and downloads some of the affected assets for actual, published projects, these will appear on Connect statements. Please note there is no need to open tickets regarding this issue.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or confusion caused during this process."

This well articulated response to the above from istock forum member Bulgac....

"I can't believe what's written in this statement. It's utterly outrageous!

Firstly, it's alarming that such a fundamental misunderstanding of licensing terms could occur with a "large corporate customer." How could they mistakenly categorize high-volume content usage as royalty-bearing when it was intended for comp/low-resolution image use? This reflects a severe lack of diligence and competence on their part.

Furthermore, the fact that this mistake led to multiple cancellations due to assets being selected for comp use multiple times is simply unacceptable. It suggests a systemic issue within the customer's team regarding understanding and adhering to licensing terms.

The nonchalant tone of the statement, suggesting that such occurrences are just part of the norm in the industry, is appalling. This is not standard industry practice; it's a glaring oversight that should have been addressed swiftly and rigorously.

Moreover, the suggestion that affected assets for actual published projects will be accounted for in future statements does little to rectify the inconvenience caused to contributors. This situation could have serious implications for their income and workflow, and a mere apology is insufficient.

In conclusion, this statement fails to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and the impact it has on contributors. It reflects a worrying disregard for proper licensing procedures and accountability."