|
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 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 35
676
« on: February 08, 2022, 11:35 »
The February RPD has increased by 10% compared to January's and is now at an incredible $0.34 - the new levels have really made a difference ;-) Admittedly, February at AS is also well below average in terms of RPD.
Still, my all-time Adobe Stock revenue is expected to overtake Shutterstock's by the end of the year. Although I have just a touch more than half the downloads there. Just a short time ago, I would have thought it impossible that this would ever happen.
677
« on: February 08, 2022, 11:17 »
Hi Michael,
the 0,66, 0,99 and 26,40 remain the same - no matter what level you have reached. As far as I remember only the small sales are concerned. I had suspected something like that, but wasn't sure.
What puzzles me is that since I have >1000 downloads rank sales at 1.06, which were previously 0.99 - but maybe that doesn't apply to extended licenses.
But a sale for 1,06 can't be a subscription. All subscriptions are 0,66 an 0,99. And the lower ones depend on your level but will never reach more than 0,38.
678
« on: February 08, 2022, 09:26 »
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
Hi Michael,
the 0,66, 0,99 and 26,40 remain the same - no matter what level you have reached. As far as I remember only the small sales are concerned.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
679
« on: February 07, 2022, 17:23 »
People always come up to me and tell me: "Pacesetter, it is just not possible to make up to 10 cents a day in the Microstock industry."
They even do everything on the cheap, like buy a second-hand DSLR camera and lens off eBay or Amazon instead of investing in some quality gear like a new Pentax 645D 40MP Digital SLR for stills or new Sony PXW-FX9K XDCAM 6K for video, and then wonder why they dont make up to 10 cents a day in the Microstock industry!
I have been so inspired by this post that I decided to buy the Pentax.
It is available at Amazon with a lens for 4,650 ($6,292). 2011 model though. Link below for anyone else interested:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pentax-645D-Camera-Black-3-0LCD/dp/B005AKQDMY
I am fully expecting to be able to recoup my costs from my stock earnings.
So, that's $6, 292 x 10 (10 dimes to a dollar) = 62,920 days (@ a dime a day) divided by 365 (days in a year) = 172.38 years.
Does anyone know the secret of eternal life?
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.
680
« on: February 07, 2022, 15:02 »
Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does.
In this case SS needs to add an ability to sort images by unpopularity
Adobe Stock has a better solution. There is the filter "undiscovered". And the results are correct.
681
« on: February 07, 2022, 05:31 »
I had uploaded a few photos from the "Nord Art" as editorials. They were accepted. On the same day I deleted them again. After a phone call, I learned that only certain photographers were allowed to take photos for editorial purposes there. In Germany, the warning costs are usually $1700 to $2000. How often do I have to sell a picture to take the risk? To stay with the Apple example: With Apple as with many other manufacturers it is not only about the logo, but also about the protected product design. Even vectors of it are prohibited. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html#design-ipIf you now enter "apple computer" as a search term and select "commercial" as a filter, you will receive thousands of images with clearly recognizable Apple products. As long as Apple tolerates this, because they are happy about this kind of product advertising, everything is fine. However, if Apple gets the idea to no longer tolerate this, it will hail warnings. And because the contributors even have the word Apple in the keywords, the search is particularly easy. https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Billustrative%5D=exclude&k=apple+computer&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_type=filter-select&get_facets=1I once created a nearly photorealistic Apple keyboard as a vector file. But I never dared to upload it afterwards. It's just too risky from my point of view.
682
« on: February 06, 2022, 13:51 »
Every agency will pass on legal problems to the contributors.
Personally, I would never take the risk for the few dollars. When I see how many images are accepted for commercial use that should never have been accepted, I wonder a lot. Be it Apple, Harley Davidson, the Atomium in Brussels, the Sydney Opera, Gehry buildings or whatever.
683
« on: February 05, 2022, 17:09 »
When over 13000 images bring $39, then it's time to question whether it still makes sense.
The other figures also brutallyhonestly show that microstock is a discontinued model.
Thanks for your info, Alex. As far as the trend goes, it's in line with my experience.
Indeed, probably time to pack it in soon or relegate it to some sort of masochist hobby.
If I do ever decide to commit to Microstock I'll have to have a business strategy like Kaspars who I interviewed in January.
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/01/10/interview-with-kaspars-grinvalds-lifestyle-microstock-photographer/
The guy is a Microstock beast and earns regularly EUR 4K a month on "just" 9,376 images and 4 agencies. His content is really technical excellent with trending concepts.
I've had a look at the portfolio, Alex. You wrote that he earns $4000 per month with just under 9,500 images. That's certainly a decent rate these days. But I also see a lot of different models in his portfolio. Are the costs for that taken into account? $4,000 is an average gross income in Central Europe. If there are too many additional costs (models, rent, equipment, software...), then there won't be much money left over to live on. Therefore, the figures are not extremely impressive by local standards.
684
« on: February 05, 2022, 11:40 »
This brilliant product is highly recommended! I am thrilled. Previously, I had spent a lot of money on Aladdin's magic lamp and lottery tickets, but the investment failed to materialize.
However, now that I have benefited from this treasure of absolutely secret microstock knowledge, I am enthusiastic. Since I acquired it, I have actually managed to earn 10 cents per day. I have accurately calculated the return on investment and will have recouped the cost in a piddly 4.08 years. After that, I'll be in the black!
Excellent! Thank you!
I would like to note, however, that especially the older contributors among us should react quickly from my point of view. The normal price could turn out to be a bad investment with a payback period of more than 23 years. Please keep that in mind before hesitating too long.
685
« on: February 05, 2022, 05:52 »
Thank you for your continued support of the contributors, Mat! Unfortunately, this is not a matter of course nowadays and deserves our appreciation!
686
« on: February 05, 2022, 05:49 »
Hi Everyone,
I'm pleased to inform you that the 2021 bonus codes have been applied to all accounts of contributors who qualified. Visit the Adobe Stock Contributor portal. If you qualified, you should see the banner with the unique URL that will take you to redeem your code.
Congratulations to everyone who qualified! We are so grateful to you for your contribution at Adobe Stock. Without you, there is no us.
Stay creative!
Mat Hayward
Hey Mat!
I haven't received a code, even though I've sold over 10,000 licenses in the past year.
Can you help me with the issue?
What a beautiful Portfolio you have! Great! Well deserved!
687
« on: February 04, 2022, 06:59 »
Guys, get it! Pacesetter is currently working on an encyclopedia on the subject - and it will be much more expensive!
688
« on: February 04, 2022, 02:19 »
Hi guys,
I've just published my 2021 stock photography earnings in my blog.
The post includes also my 5-year earnings development graph from 2017, the beginning of my stock photography marathon. Trend is still pointing up but for how long.. who knows.
Shutterstock's royalty cut had at least -30% impact on my SS RPD. About this followed by bitter whining about evil corporate rule and why Adobe Stock is the BEST site is included in this report. 
Enjoy! 
https://jamoimages.com/stock-photography-and-footage-income-in-2021-and-5-year-development/
Beautiful images, Jamo!
689
« on: February 03, 2022, 09:38 »
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
It can play a certain role. Often, advertising agencies are asked by their clients to use images that are not already in circulation by the thousands. Because there is a risk that the competition could use the same image. In this case, there would be an honorable search for images that have rarely been bought or have not been bought at all. For the contributors, I think it's more of an advantage if it says "Never used". However, the information provided by shutterstock should then also be correct, otherwise the buyer will be misled.
690
« on: February 03, 2022, 09:38 »
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
It can already play a certain role. Often, advertising agencies are asked by their clients to use images that are not already in circulation by the thousands. Because there is a risk that the competition could use the same image. In this case, there would be an honorable search for images that have rarely been bought or have not been bought at all. For the contributors, I think it's more of an advantage if it says "Never used". However, the information provided by shutterstock should then also be correct, otherwise the buyer will be misled.
691
« on: February 03, 2022, 08:13 »
How about yours?
As far as my portfolio is concerned, that's all correct, Alex.
692
« on: February 03, 2022, 05:02 »
Jan 2022 income up 8% compared to January 2021.
(USD comparison, not including exchange rate)
Similar here: SS earnings for Jan were 10.7% better than last year, and the total MS income for Jan was 12.3% better (and second-best January ever).
Well done.
Somebody said recently on one of these threads (think it was 'DavidK') that the difference between 10c and 38c is not really that big, the real money to be made in microstock nowadays is from large SODs. [ and video EL sales ]
Just thought I would add that here, because I was thinking the same myself at the time. And they are still there on SS, if not more so.
Annie, first of all congratulations to you and the other successful ones. It is at least reassuring that there are still some contributors who are trending positively. I have no idea whatsoever how it looks like for you other contributors, but for me the numbers at shutterstock look like this: Anteile an den Einnahmen seit Beginn 46.4% subscriptions 30.6% ODs 6.4% Enhanced 16,6% SODs Almost half of my revenue comes from subscriptions. These are where the percentage reduction due to the new revenue structure is most noticeable. That's how I explain the decline in revenue. My total RPD is at 0.69. In 2020 at 0.65 and in 2021 at 0.59. In short: The SODs bring me nothing. They do not compensate for the losses in subscriptions. The RPD is down 14.5%. And it will go down further - I'm sure of it. For those who offer videos, it is probably difficult to calculate.
693
« on: February 03, 2022, 04:29 »
The largest contributor - Africa Studio - did it. I have a lot of respect for that, because some employees have to be paid. I am sure that the decision was very difficult for them.
Africa Studio did what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/africa+studio 1,306,255 stock photos
New Africa https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica 825,023 stock photos
Some people are doing better, but I'd agree, most are not. How can anyone replace 38 cents a download with 10 cents and make the same? The only saving part is, we are paid an increasing percentage for the sales. There's nothing about the reset that doesn't suck for everyone!
Hmmm, I was absolutely sure that they were no longer there. And when they didn't show up in riptok's analysis either, I saw that confirmed.
But you are absolutely right, I can definitely find them.
https://petapixel.com/2021/07/23/how-to-rank-on-the-first-page-of-top-queries-on-stock-photo-sites/
Their port was actually gone for a while. Everyone was rooting for them, thinking they had pulled the plug because of the new level structure, but it was back shortly after. Why it was gone we will never know. Maybe someone falsely reported some photos as stolen and SS took down the port - It has happened before - and then restored it when they saw the mistake. Maybe they negotiated a special deal with SS.
But, to be honest, I do not think the nerw level structure works in their disadvantage. If I can make it to level 4 on the first month, I am sure they, with their port, with the qualitry of mages and quantity, will probably make it to level 6 within a month and whatever losses they might make in that first weeks they will surely make up with the 5% extra on level 6 for the rest of the year. They are probably making more money now than before.
Thanks for the explanation, Firn!
694
« on: February 03, 2022, 03:00 »
The largest contributor - Africa Studio - did it. I have a lot of respect for that, because some employees have to be paid. I am sure that the decision was very difficult for them.
Africa Studio did what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/africa+studio 1,306,255 stock photos
New Africa https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica 825,023 stock photos
Some people are doing better, but I'd agree, most are not. How can anyone replace 38 cents a download with 10 cents and make the same? The only saving part is, we are paid an increasing percentage for the sales. There's nothing about the reset that doesn't suck for everyone!
Hmmm, I was absolutely sure that they were no longer there. And when they didn't show up in riptok's analysis either, I saw that confirmed. But you are absolutely right, I can definitely find them. https://petapixel.com/2021/07/23/how-to-rank-on-the-first-page-of-top-queries-on-stock-photo-sites/
695
« on: February 03, 2022, 02:50 »
The core problem is that you have to wait for the big SODs at shutterstock. When these dont come in, it is a disaster. Shutterstock has become a microstock lottery.
I don't have that problem with the competitors.
Wilm, the core problem is not shutterstock, but stock photography itself in my opinion
My core problems are:
123Rf: RPD 21 cent (they do not even seem to have ODs)
Alamy: 1 cent sales to china
Adobe: Few downloads
istock: RPD partly in single digits (iStock is actually my biggest disaster. There you fight through this moronic vocabulary, and then such a lousy result).
Eyeem: zero sales
Mostphotos: zero sales
Deposit: RPD ~ 30 cents (they do not have a lot ODs either)
Dreamstime: High payout limit with low RPD
It's a real mystery to me why the frustration here is directed exclusively at one agency.
Ralf, yes, the downward trend affects almost all agencies. For me, AS and istock are the only exceptions at the moment. Canstock is also stable, but I don't count them because that is not statistically relevant in my case.
But shutterstock used to be the agency where I took in the most. With a clear gap to the other agencies. Now shutterstock has landed in third place for me - also by a clear margin.
I really don't have a loss of 7/8 with any other agency between the best and the worst month. That is really extreme.
How many images do you have on SS Wilm?How long have you been with them?
I started there on 9 November 2010 with 220 images. In the meantime I have 1300 images on shutterstock. I have the most images on Adobe Stock (1450) and the fewest on istock (770). So I am a small contributor.
696
« on: February 02, 2022, 16:09 »
This could be a reasonable explanation indeed.
Yes ... Pavlovsky himself said so in the latest financial reports.
Subscribers are increasing both in number and in average revenue per customers.
2020 255000 subscribers
2021 336000 subscribers
2020 $328 average revenue per customer
2021 $361 average revenue per customer
But downloads are the same ... (44.3 2021 vs 43.4 2020)
So revenue per download (Three Months Ended September) is:
2020 $3.79
2021 $4.30
Revenue per download was:
2013 $2.35
2015 $2.85
2017 $3.24
My RPD:
2013 $0.59
2015 $0.75
2017 $0.88
2020 $0.83
2021 $0.76
2022 (Jan $0.51)
So, real royalty earnings % is:
2013 0.59/2.35= 25.10%
2015 0.75/2.85= 26.31%
2017 0.88/3.24= 27.16%
2020 0.83/3.79= 21.89%
2021 0.76/4.30= 17.67%
17.67% (not 30 or 35% of level 4 o 5) is very close to Istock's actual 15% ... a real theft against contributors.
I do stock full time and unfortunately I have to pay my expenses and SS is still 40% of my income. I hate them with all my heart. I'm thinking of quitting, but it's not an easy choice.
Of course, this is not an easy choice, Baumann. We already had this topic in the shutterstock forum. Shutterstock knew exactly that countless contributors had no choice because this was their main source of income. As I wrote there, the ugly face of capitalism was revealed because the new revenue structure was introduced at the very time when many contributors had lost other sources of income through Corona. And because this was the case, many contributors could not simply delete their portfolios from shutterstock, which they would certainly have liked to do out of conviction. The largest contributor - Africa Studio - did it. I have a lot of respect for that, because some employees have to be paid. I am sure that the decision was very difficult for them. I myself did not do it. I am only a tiny light. But I couldn't bring myself to give up a four-figure income per year. Nevertheless, my shutterstock motivation is at absolute zero.
697
« on: February 02, 2022, 05:21 »
SS pushes for subscription packs because their earning is higher due to unsold photos in packages.
This could be a reasonable explanation indeed.
698
« on: February 02, 2022, 03:16 »
Hey folks
Last autumn I did an analysis of Shutterstock portfolios on Petapixel and the general ask was to do the same for Adobe Stock. Sorry it took so long, but here it is finally: https://xpiksapp.com/blog/adobe-stock-top-500-portfolios/
Please let me know what do you think of it!
The numbers are indeed interesting. And it really shows that the sheer size of a portfolio doesn't matter, at least with Adobe Stock. One contributor conglomerate has 1,337,294 files in its portfolio and appears 78 times in the top 500 search results. Another has less than 2,600 files in its portfolio (one five-hundredth) and appears there 53 times.
699
« on: February 01, 2022, 17:18 »
The core problem is that you have to wait for the big SODs at shutterstock. When these dont come in, it is a disaster. Shutterstock has become a microstock lottery.
I don't have that problem with the competitors.
Wilm, the core problem is not shutterstock, but stock photography itself in my opinion
My core problems are:
123Rf: RPD 21 cent (they do not even seem to have ODs)
Alamy: 1 cent sales to china
Adobe: Few downloads
istock: RPD partly in single digits (iStock is actually my biggest disaster. There you fight through this moronic vocabulary, and then such a lousy result).
Eyeem: zero sales
Mostphotos: zero sales
Deposit: RPD ~ 30 cents (they do not have a lot ODs either)
Dreamstime: High payout limit with low RPD
It's a real mystery to me why the frustration here is directed exclusively at one agency.
Ralf, yes, the downward trend affects almost all agencies. For me, AS and istock are the only exceptions at the moment. Canstock is also stable, but I don't count them because that is not statistically relevant in my case. But shutterstock used to be the agency where I took in the most. With a clear gap to the other agencies. Now shutterstock has landed in third place for me - also by a clear margin. I really don't have a loss of 7/8 with any other agency between the best and the worst month. That is really extreme.
700
« on: February 01, 2022, 16:18 »
When over 13000 images bring $39, then it's time to question whether it still makes sense.
The other figures also brutallyhonestly show that microstock is a discontinued model.
Thanks for your info, Alex. As far as the trend goes, it's in line with my experience.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
