Quote from: blvdone on July 03, 2023, 12:33

Quote from: Ambu on July 03, 2023, 11:19

One of the stolen file which I uploaded to Wirestock and Getty Images. I didn't get any sales in Wirestock for that video, and 3 sales in Getty Images. So, he must be downloading those videos from Getty Images.

Those cheap video subs are dangerous too.  If you really want to preserve the value of your stock video clips, you can't sell on unlimited download sub sites or Shutterstock/AdobeStock/Getty/iStock cheap video sub sites either.  Selling for decent price only on Pond5 is the only safe way.  More popular your clips are, more thieves will flood your clips on their fake contributors account.  At the end, everybody will download your unlimited or cheap sub clips and nobody would pay any decent money for those clips.

Pond5 also sells videos at a low price. I often have sales for 2-4 dollars.

These are rare limited license sells.

If you only sell your stock videos on Pond5 and not opt in their video subscription, your clips are pretty much safe.

Do you upload to unlimited download sites?

I interviewed Doug Jensen, veteran stock footage contributor, with a portfolio of 9,187.

Question: In terms of sales volumes and revenue, have you experienced a decrease in the past two years since our last interview?

Answer: "If you define �sales volume� as being the total number of clips that are sold, then that number has remained fairly consistent since we last spoke.  Unfortunately, my revenue, which is ultimately the metric that matters most, has dropped by more than 50% during that same time period.  I attribute this to two things:   First, Shutterstock made a lot of changes to their commission structure that have hurt contributors.  And second, Shutterstock is really pushing customers towards a subscription-based sales model which results in overall lower pricing per clip �  thus lower revenue for the contributors who created those clips.

Here�s how I see it:  If a customer pays an agency $50, does it really matter to the agency whether that $50 covers a single download or a hundred downloads?  $50 is $50 of income to the agency no matter how you slice it.  But the agency didn�t put any effort whatsoever into shooting, editing, uploading, or creating the metadata, so they don�t really care whether that $50 covers one download or a hundred downloads.  It�s still $50 of income (minus the commission) to their bottom line.   But to the average contributor, it is devastating because we only get a very small slice of that $50 if the customer is downloading multiple files.  The way the subscription model works, the more clips a customer downloads, the less money any individual contributor will get for their slice of the pie.  The bottom line is that when you have agencies that are offering customers unlimited 4K and HD downloads for as little as $50 per month, who do you think loses?  The contributor."

Link to full interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/06/28/interview-with-doug-jensen-stock-footage-expert-fresh-insight-after-2-years/

That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum.  Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh. 

Quote from: Pacesetter on June 28, 2023, 07:43

Quote from: biibii on June 28, 2023, 07:24

Quote from: Pacesetter on June 28, 2023, 07:17

I'm having my second best month of the year on Shutterstock with a mix of low and higher commissions on videos and download numbers overall are pretty good. So take heart that your poor month is probably temporary because I've had some very slow periods during this year when others are reporting all is peachy. Appears that internal 'adjustments' will impact different ports either negatively or positively.

The comissions are NOT cut "temporary" from 0.38 to 0.10.

True but don't rely on subs to build earnings, get more videos uploaded.

Videos don't sell for $23 a piece anymore either, you're lucky if you get an RPD from $5 to $12 or so.

My highest video sale this month was $5.27, the lowest was $0.25. It's a joke.

How bad is the video sales on Shutterstock now compared to pre-video sub days?  I stopped selling video on Shutterstock in early 2021 because my sales came down to about 1/3 of pre-vide sub level.

Quote from: blvdone on June 24, 2023, 13:28

So, the highest tier is 40% commission.  After BlackBoxGuild or WireStock takes 15% of the 40% royalty, you are still at 34% commission that's nearly level 5 that's almost impossible for most video contributors and is difficult to many photo contributors.  Or is it 40% -15% at 25% commission?

One thing is large companies have bespoke royalty levels from Shutterstock (this was admitted when levels came in) so we have no idea if BB/WS have negotiated their own or are on the same tier as normal people

And its 15% NET which i take to mean they take 15% of whatever commission they got paid and give you the rest.

For video on SS its likely worth it now given the fairly brutal tiering system and fact you lose money on every sale until reaching that level. (2 years running now i annoyingly reached level 4 video on new years eve although photo L5 happens pretty early on).

Ultimately though, for any other agency that isnt tiered then the maths work out in your favour to do it yourself.

One thing i can't work out is if whether being a large selling contributor they get preference in the search algorithms which increases the likelihood of a clip being seen or not.  Not seen anything concrete either way.

OK, so that's 34% after BlackBox taking their 15%.  Most who use BlackBox probably wouldn't reach above 30% tier and probably many would be in the 20-25% tier.  That's a great deal for those who would be in the 20-25% range if they uploaded by themselves.  A contributor who is at 20% and make $100/month would make $170/mont if they upload to BlackBox instead.  I want Shutterstock to cap BlackBox, Wirestock and other third party upload services at 30%, not 40%.  They are not their own stock photo/video agency.  So, it's completely different from the likes of Pond5 putting videos on AdobeStock in the past and with their GPP with international sites.  Those who use third party uploading service shouldn't be making more than what they would be making if they uploaded themselves.  It just sounds unfair to all contributors who upload by themselves.  If I was Shutterstock, I would never give massive third party uploader account  40%.  That's more than what they used to give at 30%.  I kind of doubt if Shutterstock is actually giving BlackBox and Wirestock 40%.  It just doesn't make business sense.  They created this tier system to squeeze some extra profit for themselves.  They can't end up giving higher percentage on average instead. 

Personally, I would never use a third party uploader even if you get this unfair advantage of bumped up commission on Shutterstock.  Third party uploaders have their operation cost as a business.  You never know if they go belly up bankrupt and cease operation suddenly owing you some money just like some stock sites have ended up in the past.  Also, you never know if they may be lying about your sales.  It's just much safer uploading on your own and be in total control.  I know it's convenient for many who use those third party uploaders, but I've never considered about using those services. 

Yes, their parents love seeing them surfing.  Many thanked me.  And many have signed model release.  Thanks.
You somehow opted for unrelated personal attack rather than talk about the topic I've raised.  Cheap shot.

Is it fair?  I don't think so.  How do you think?

According to some who use BlackBoxGuild, BlackBoxGuild contributors on Shutterstock reach the highest tier of commission just because BlackBoxGuild account is so huge. This is totally unfair to all the individual contributors who upload and tag themselves. Small contributors who would never reach the higher levels end up at the highest level (minus BlackBoxGuild fee of course). This should be addressed by Shutterstock.

BlackBoxGuild's and all other third party uploaders' commission tier should be capped at the average tier level of all individual contributors instead. Totally unfair to us individual contributors on Shutterstock.

But that is exactly happening to you when Pond5 distributes your files.

So are you insisting that pond5 pays you less money?

No you are not.

BB is not the only distributor, all agencies distribute and many smaller places have content and pass it around.

So why are you hating BB so specifically? What are they doing different than stocksy? or Wirestock? Or Alamy?

Or Cavan? Heroimages?

Or Pond5 in their distribution deals?

There are hundreds of smaller agencies that collect and distribute content from allover the world.

where have you been all these years if you don't know that?

These accounts bring in a lot of files. Which is why they have the higher rankings. And can often negotiate their own deals.

Yuri Arcurs is probably the best known in the photo world. Has 30-100 people working for him. Keeps bring in new artist to produce under his label.

And of course he makes his own deals.

Africastudios, how many people sign up with them? Nobody knows.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with anger.

.

Quote from: blvdone on June 23, 2023, 18:58

Quote from: cobalt on June 23, 2023, 09:26

I am very happy with blackbox and they regularly remove thieves or stolen content. It happens to them like it happens everywhere.

How does the Shutterstock royalty tier system work for Blackboxguild contributors?  Do you all collectively reach the highest royalty tier just because Blackboxguild has someone clips under its account despite thousands of different contributors within them?  It sounds unfair if that's the case.

Yeah its highest tier *but* then theres the BB commission to take into account.

Last time i worked out the numbers it made sense for a low tier contributor who would never really advance up the levels in a year but for higher earners there's a cutoff point where it makes more money to do it yourself.
(on SS anyway).

On AS its pretty much better to DIY from the start as they dont have a tiered system.

Wow.  That's huge for low sale contributors who would otherwise stay at lower tiers.  Totally unfair to all the other individual contributors though.  This needs to be addressed by Shutterstock and be changed to average tier level of all contributors.  Just unfair.

I am very happy with blackbox and they regularly remove thieves or stolen content. It happens to them like it happens everywhere.

How does the Shutterstock royalty tier system work for Blackboxguild contributors?  Do you all collectively reach the highest royalty tier just because Blackboxguild has someone clips under its account despite thousands of different contributors within them?  It sounds unfair if that's the case.