|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Wilm
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 35
651
« on: February 17, 2022, 06:39 »
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Yes congrats, very impressive! How long did it take to get there?
Thank you very much. I started at shutterstock on 09/11/2010.
652
« on: February 17, 2022, 05:58 »
Congratulations Wilm. You are a star 🍻
Good to read something here that is a success story and brings a smile 🙂
Thanks a lot, Deb! 
653
« on: February 17, 2022, 05:30 »
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
654
« on: February 16, 2022, 16:15 »
The $0.70 subs no longer seems to exist at DT. As you can see in the screenshot I uploaded in the DT thread, most subs are at $2.00, some at $0.35 and a few at $0.38 and $2.20. That's more than many other agencies. But, as I said before, very little money comes in at DT because the download volume is very low.
655
« on: February 16, 2022, 12:44 »
I sold this one file 3 times last week. None of the prices achieved have anything to do with the revenue overview. This is - as with all other agencies - absolutely non-transparent!
Most likely, our revenue will be determined with a random number generator.
656
« on: February 16, 2022, 12:27 »
I had inquired about something similar years back and the answer was that there are various discounts offered in various situations that can lower the amount per credit or the number of credits the buyer is billed for. If I recall, they wouldn't detail the specifics for any particular sale, just the way things operated.
Thanks a lot for this explanation, Jo Ann!
657
« on: February 16, 2022, 12:13 »
Those sites are owned by companies like dreamstime, wirestock etc. Wether you are aware of it, agreed to it or not some companies like ones mentioned give your work for free in exchange for a small rate. Smaller than what shutterstock charges but without the overhead of reviewing photos, categorizing or keywording since thy come straight out of our ports.
Could you show some examples - this would be very interesting.
658
« on: February 16, 2022, 12:10 »
Our biggest enemy is free stock images and videos.
If nothing was given away we would have a business.
So true!
659
« on: February 16, 2022, 12:06 »
you should ask DT for the official answer, but are only some of these exclusive to DT? Prices have changed over time - especially for subs which used to go up at higher levels as I recall but now are all .35 (except for exclusive content?).
Another possibility is it is some sort of promotional discount - 30% off or something- but I think that might have only changed the cost of credits.
Thank you for your answer! I don't offer any exclusive images anywhere. But you are right - I should ask dreamstime.
660
« on: February 16, 2022, 10:37 »
Someone had asked elsewhere in the forum about dreamstime's compensation model.
I came across something that I can't explain. Maybe someone of you has an idea.
It says at level 5 for a picture in resolution M: 16 credits
Why then with another M download only 8 credits were remunerated, I do not know.
Or why a vector file is remunerated once with 38 credits and once with 30 credits, although 38 credits are required?
Is someone able to explain this?
661
« on: February 16, 2022, 10:04 »
I still don't understand why the agencies don't try a pricing model where an image's price increases as its download numbers increase. They will make more, the contributor will make more.
This is exactly what dreamstime does.
Level 1 = 0 downloads
Level 2 = 1+ download
Level 3 = 5+ downloads
Level 4 = 10+ downloads
Level 5 = 25+ downloads
And, yes, I love this model.
Nevertheless, it has to be said that you can't earn big money at dreamstime because not enough sales come in. I have not even managed 3,500 downloads in the 10 years. Even if the RPD is good there, hardly anything comes in.
Interesting! I am not on Dreamstime and had no idea. How does it end up "dollars and cents"wise? What do you actually earn for a download of a "level 1" image vs. a "level 5" image?
There is no difference concerning shubscriptions and Enhanced Licenses. Here is a screenshot.
662
« on: February 16, 2022, 09:35 »
I was checking on DM and uploads and by accident found the updates Dec 2021 royalties are posted.
I can afford a 24 pack of diet Coke on this months Gross earnings. (and they are gross)
RPD .66
Thanks for the info, but I think you meant Jan 22.
Wasn't expecting report until Friday.
My Jan total is c30% better than last year (which was very poor) , and 'just' below Jan '20.
rpd (exclusive) $1.85.
Yes, January Licenses 2022. I'll go fix that.
I can see the downloads for January, Pete. But where can you see your income for January 2022?
I'm not Pete, but I see mine by clicking on Royalties.
Oh, thank you so much, Sue! Now I have learned something after all these years. I didn't realize that I could see the royalties before they were paid out. I have never looked there before. RPD $0.98 for January 2022.
663
« on: February 16, 2022, 09:21 »
I was checking on DM and uploads and by accident found the updates Dec 2021 royalties are posted.
I can afford a 24 pack of diet Coke on this months Gross earnings. (and they are gross)
RPD .66
Thanks for the info, but I think you meant Jan 22.
Wasn't expecting report until Friday.
My Jan total is c30% better than last year (which was very poor) , and 'just' below Jan '20.
rpd (exclusive) $1.85.
Yes, January Licenses 2022. I'll go fix that.
I can see the downloads for January, Pete. But where can you see your income for January 2022?
664
« on: February 16, 2022, 09:03 »
For me, December was the fourth best month ever at iStock/getty.
RPD $1.33 - non exclusive.
I hope it continues like this there.
665
« on: February 16, 2022, 08:55 »
I still don't understand why the agencies don't try a pricing model where an image's price increases as its download numbers increase. They will make more, the contributor will make more.
This is exactly what dreamstime does. Level 1 = 0 downloads Level 2 = 1+ download Level 3 = 5+ downloads Level 4 = 10+ downloads Level 5 = 25+ downloads And, yes, I love this model. Nevertheless, it has to be said that you can't earn big money at dreamstime because not enough sales come in. I have not even managed 3,500 downloads in the 10 years. Even if the RPD is good there, hardly anything comes in.
666
« on: February 15, 2022, 16:44 »
I have asked Alamy to delete my account. According to their own statement, they need 45 days for this. I don't know why it takes so long.
It's in the contract/agreement we signed up to.
And apparently your pics can be sold for quite some time after that (but you'll still get paid, FWIW).
Thank you for this information, Sue!
667
« on: February 15, 2022, 15:53 »
I have asked Alamy to delete my account. According to their own statement, they need 45 days for this. I don't know why it takes so long.
Those sales to China were what got me to do that.
668
« on: February 15, 2022, 03:53 »
Stats after the first half of the month.
shutterstock
February 01-14, 2022 vs. 2021
DLs minus 5%
Revenues plus 31.4%
AS
February 01 to 14, 2022 vs. 2021
DLs minus 28%
Revenues minus 66.4%
February 2021 at AS was very good, March even better. I hope that this will also go up significantly this year.
AS vs. SS revenues, February 01 to 14, 2022 vs. 2021: +7.5%
669
« on: February 12, 2022, 07:46 »
Internet + Abe Lincoln = 
670
« on: February 11, 2022, 16:43 »
Instead I use my Apple 11 Pro Max. for my alternative, always have on me camera.
It does a great job, my images get accepted by all agencies I use and they sell.
Like hot cakes - you forgot to mention that
671
« on: February 11, 2022, 16:37 »
Shutterstock is on an irreversible down path. Adobe is already the leader and will be for a long time (quicker than I thought). If they would add editorial they would crush even more Getty and SS.
Getty has long arms and still a big foot inside many doors. If they get the money they need selling their BCC- stock with their return to the stock market the nexts months they might also surpass SS. Oringer chose the way out and cashing with his pal. Good riddance to both. They will be gone quite soon and whoever owns SS in the future I doubt they will be ever recovered the trust of their stabbed in the back contributors.
Dont be surprised if Adobe follows the practices of the other companies at some point. Some of you should recognize the pattern.
"Getty has become evil! Istock is great so we need to support them!"
"Istock has become evil! Shutterstock is great so we need to support them!"
"Shutterstock has become evil. Adobe is great so we need to support them!"
Lets all hope this wont happen!
672
« on: February 11, 2022, 16:33 »
Adobe is on "figha"
What does figha mean, Dumc?
673
« on: February 11, 2022, 12:18 »
...One comment to the numbers in your chart: You have the numbers Shutterstock reports as "cost of revenue" marked as royalties.
As I understand it, this number ("cost of revenue") contains the royalties paid out, but also other items. I have not found any information to separate those items....
I don't have any data on the other items in cost of revenue, unfortunately. Those who do aren't publishing any more  Remember the Contributor earnings report?
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report
The last time (I can find) that Shutterstock crowed about contributor earnings was the blog post about paying out over $1 billion to contributors - in 2019
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/1-billion-contributor-earnings
My guess is that we won't see charts like that in the future as investors and insiders don't want to hear about their large "cost" (i.e. us) any more.
The numbers from the billion dollar earnings blog track similarly (but slightly lower). If I get any better numbers from anywhere at any point, I'll update the tables.
Prediction from my broken crystal ball: contributor share of earnings will continue to decline at Shutterstock
Thank you for these interesting insights, Jo Ann. Yes, I think your crystal ball is prophesying this correctly.
674
« on: February 09, 2022, 12:55 »
You're not serious, are you, Debbie? You don't seriously think you're worthy of earning $0.10 a day with that cheap trinket! How arrogant can you be? Do you seriously think you can enter a Formula 1 race with a used 2CV? Sorry, but that's really naive. And when I read your lines again, I come to the conclusion that you haven't bought from pacesetter at all, otherwise you wouldn't write such crap and would have known better long ago!
You have to put some money in your hand if you want to make it in this business. I have understood that. I now own a Hasselblatt H6D. I will have paid it off in no time. My asset manager has assured me that the 53rd generation of my descendants will live in prosperity thanks to the sales I have made with it. Microstock is clearly a sensible and sustainable investment in the future.
I just picked myself off the floor after looking at the price of this camera. (Link below). Who pays that much for a camera? https://www.parkcameras.com/shop/hasselblad-h6d-100c-medium-format-camera_h015767c?of_tid=MFRWG5B5GM3TMJTGMVSWISLEHUYSM4DSN5SESZB5HEYTIOI&adGroupId=91916221675&device=c&gclid=CjwKCAiA6Y2QBhAtEiwAGHybPRzVC87GdKm3GOk-EUlFsTEchBBq_ERLyf29aGY7kK3qZAITQ_eArBoCTgUQAvD_BwE[/quote] I didn't mean that cheap 100 MP model, Deb. There's also one that can do 400 MP. And that's the least a buyer can expect in terms of technical quality when he spends so much money that we even get 10 cents for it.
675
« on: February 08, 2022, 16:47 »
Maybe someone of you can help me to understand how the calculation of sales works when you just got to >1000 downloads level.
Since the beginning of February I have reached 1000 downloads and since then the percentage on small sales has also increased from 0.33 to 0.36.
- for some larger sales it is now 1.06 (instead of 0.99 before), for other sales it is still 0.99?
- today an extended license came in, which was charged with 26,40 like the 0,33 rate. Shouldn't this license with the >1000 downloads account bring 28.80 (26.40 / 0.33 * 0.36)?
Or have I overlooked something here?
Thank you, Michael
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
The rate for image downloads is 33% of the price paid by the customer. The price paid varies based on the plan the customer is on. For the Extended license you referenced, a common price paid is $79.99 which results in the $26.40 royalty you saw recently.
The .36 royalty you referenced is the minimum payment amount for large subscription packages. If the price per download on these subscriptions results in a royalty less than .36 in your case, then the minimum kicks into play instead of the 33% rate.
More information about royalty rates can be found here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html
-Mat Hayward
You're doing a good job, Mat. Thank you!
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
