MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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 - KB

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 57
General - Stock Video / Re: Footage sales compared to image sales
« on: February 04, 2021, 23:04 »
So DeanRyanMartin is the necromancer today?  ;D

An almost 8-year old thread; well done, DRM!

Shutterstock.com / Re: 422 videos made me only 99$ on shutterstock
« on: February 04, 2021, 23:02 »
I see -- this thread was necro'd. And here I was, going to post something like:

You think that's bad? I have 1000 videos, and made < $2 in January!  :o

Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sale from last month disappeared
« on: June 04, 2020, 22:15 »
Sucks that you had a sale taken away from you. However, I'm curious how you got such a high commission from a sub video sale. Ever since these things were first introduced about a month ago, they were generally around $3 or thereabouts.
Well, I've been calling them sub sales for years. They changed the terminology years ago to 'clip packs' (or maybe they were always called that?), but I still call 'em subs.

Sorry for the confusion. I've yet to have an actual subscription sale (and I'm fine if I never do).

Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sale from last month disappeared
« on: June 03, 2020, 16:44 »
I'm going to answer my own question. I just noticed an 'Adjustments' tab on the Earnings Summary page. It states:

When our systems detect fraudulent transactions or other illegal activity, we rescind rights to fraudulently obtained assets and reverse related transactions. If your assets are affected, corrections may need to be made to your account, including earnings adjustments and corrections to your download count.

Below shows the adjustment for this missing sale, as of 6/1/20. So just bad luck, no nefarious SS behavior (this time).  ;D

Shutterstock.com / SS sale from last month disappeared
« on: June 03, 2020, 16:33 »
I've been with SS for more than 12 years, and this has never happened before.

I noted a video sub sale for $18.95 on 20 May. Today, when I got my payment notice, I saw that the balance didn't match what I was expecting (another thing that had never occurred before). I found the discrepancy was due to a sale that had simply vanished from my earnings data for May.

Has anyone ever had this happen before? I assume (?) the sale was refunded, but just curious what others have experienced.

Or is this just a new way to grab even MORE money from contributors?!  :o

I just read this and had to double check.

So $10 per clip.  INCLUDING 4k clips.
It's mainly the largest companies, obviously, who would go for a deal like this. So I would guess most of them would probably just spend the $2K upfront, and get an even better price -- $8.33 / clip (yes, even 4K).

That means, if we end up getting 30% of that (might be less, who knows?), that's a grand $2.50 per clip>:(  >:(

General Stock Discussion / Re: Coronavirus and downloads?
« on: February 05, 2020, 23:59 »
And Getty has a partner site in China from which I get (very low-value) sales.
So, just like buyers in the rest of the world!  ;D

Nobody noticed it huh.
My July portfolio results definitely did!

Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 02, 2019, 22:49 »
Hi All. I have been a Pond5 contributor since 2012. While I do not have a ton of clips up there (300 or so), I have some unique clips. 2017 I averaged over $400/month (with less footage up there). 2018 much more volatile with best month being $621 and worst being $235.

2019 however peaked in February and has been dropping like a rock ever since with last month sales being $70.

Has anyone else experienced drop off? Did they change their algorithm or something?

My story is equal to yours, same number of clips, sales and same drop in sales. My last 4 months have been very low.
The only difference is that I started in 2015 on Pond5.
Looking at the prices of the competition clips, yes they were lowered the values, by Pond5 I think.
When this happened to me, I raised my prices as they were before.
Maybe I was penalized in the search for results.
  Similar videos to mine by some competitors are between $ 25 and $ 50 for HD and I was between $ 59 and $ 79.
Some videos, which I did not sell or with very little sales, I lowered the value to $ 49 for who knows, be in search of results.
The clips that I always had excellent sales kept the same values of $ 69 and $ 79 HD

But yes, tough times in Pond5, at least for me too.
Fairly similar story here, except I started at P5 in 2009. My income rose steadily, peaking in 2014, but maintained about the same level all the years through last year. But this year has been a disaster.

As others have said, it isn't just P5. I had the worst month in a decade on SS: 2 sales the entire month! I didn't even know that was possible. In fact, across all sites, last month was my worst month since January 2010 (when my port had about 3 dozen clips in it, ha!).  :o

I also got this email.

Anyone who does not belong to the selected few?
Yeah, me.  ??? 

But based on NO one else having said they did not get one, I'm wondering if mine just got lost in the cloud. I certainly have many 100s of files there that would qualify as 'rarely or never sold'.

Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)

So we earn 50% of 79$ istead of 100% of 49$
With the fees and everything.. that mean 35.55$ instead of 42.44$
and you guys find it's a good idea ?
Probably I don't get it at some point.
Let me help explain it to you.

1. We make more per sale than under their first plan, and that change is wholly due to contributor feedback.
2. They make money this way on every sale, compared to making $0 under their original scheme. Despite their previous stated belief, they were not able to continue under that model. This makes it "sustainable".
3. Their prices for HD clips are now similar to industry prices, which means we aren't undercutting ourselves by having our clips on SB.

I hope that helps.

Oh, no, dueling threads!  :o  ::)

Any chance of a merger?

In case you haven't read your email yet:

In the weeks since announcing our new commission structure, weve had the opportunity to speak with a number of contributors in the community. You have given us valuable feedback about how we can serve you better, and we have been working hard to put your ideas into action.

In particular, many of you have expressed concern with our member price for HD footage remaining at $49 with a 50% commission structure in place. We understand how important pricing isnot only to your earnings with Storyblocksbut to your overall participation in the stock media market. We have decided to address your concerns and will be raising the price of HD footage.

By October 15, 2018, we will raise the publicized price of HD footage to $79. This is the price that guests will pay to purchase an HD clip. Members will also be charged $79 per clip, but they will receive a 10% instant rebate at the end of their checkout, the cost of which we will share 50/50 between us and you. In other words, when we sell an HD clip to a Storyblocks member, you will earn $35.55 per asset. For sales to guests, you will earn $39.50 per asset. This also means Storyblocks will no longer collect a guest fee from nonmember purchases. These changes will be reflected in your contributor agreement as well. The new 50% commission share will begin as planned on August 15.

We will never stop working to create a sustainable, thriving community for you, our contributors. Our relationship with you is what sets Storyblocks apart, and we do not take that for granted. As always, please reach out to [email protected] with any questions you have.

All the best,
The Storyblocks Team

Of course I'm still not thrilled with the commission cut. But the price increase helps alleviate that somewhat, and brings their prices more in-line with other stock sites. It's nice to see a company actually make a positive change in response to contributor feedback.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Video sale for $1.50?
« on: August 03, 2018, 22:26 »
Then again, since they changed search in May meaning if a buyer clicks on "HD" it excludes EVERY 4k video from the search results (even though they can be downloaded in HD).
OT, but isn't that the way it's always worked? I remember complaining about that 4 years ago, when I first started UL'ing 4K clips.

Back on topic, July was my lowest RPD in years, due to several lower than normal clip prices (including at least one $1.50 sale).

VideoBlocks / Commission cut
« on: July 16, 2018, 10:13 »
Beginning August 1st, you will see a 50/50 commission structure applied to all your sales on both the video and image Marketplaces.

I can't say I'm surprised, but didn't they "promise" that we would ALWAYS received 100% commissions?

Still, as much as I hate to say it, I'm ok with a 50/50 split, as long as sales dramatically increase. I'm skeptical that that will happen, though. But even if it does, that would simply drive more supply to SB/VB, thereby causing a drop in sales per contributor.

I guess I'm just pessimistic about all of microstock by now. Too much supply.

Pond5 / Re: Discount results in less royalties?
« on: June 01, 2018, 15:39 »
I noticed that I sold a video for $27.06, meaning the client paid $54.12, even though the video was priced $69. That's almost 22% less. What is going on, is this a discount?
If so, does Pond5 expect us contributors to share the burden? If I had known this, I would have priced my videos higher to counter the lower royalties.
This started a few years back; I'm surprised you haven't noticed it before. Though the discounts do seem to be even more common recently.

General Stock Discussion / Re: Taxes
« on: March 14, 2018, 21:49 »
At Shutterstock for 2017 this is how my records look:

   My Shutterstock 1099 for 2017 = 1617.10

   A download of my actual shutter stock earnings for 2017 = 986.70

   The actual payout to PayPal for the year (requested and paid earnings) = 1,114.96

Jeeze. The 1099 is the one that's important, of course. But what are all these variables? Why did I get a 1099 if I actually earned 986.70? If I hadnt earned enough to get a 1099, would I have reported the ACTUAL earnings as SS reported? Theyre different amounts! (I did leave a message with SS begging for their view, but still.)
As angelawaye said, it's best to follow the 1099. However, you may want to check your figures. I've been with SS for more than 10 years, and their 1099s have ALWAYS matched my own records. They (along with every other agency I contribute to except FT) have always matched the amounts paid to me via PayPal during the calendar tax year. (That is, the actual month the payment was deposited, not when the sales occurred.)

Royalties down 21% in 2017, portfolio size increased 25% - 30% (SS & P5; others more, but they're low contributors).

That's after 7 consecutive years of increasing royalties; clearly my days are numbered.

increasingdifficulty, thank you very much for all the help and answers. While the clips haven't been reviewed yet, I'm confident that they were wrong, and are now correct. The fact that rendered clip sizes were double what was expected, and using your method they are now correct, tells me that. And especially thanks for enforcing my belief that using a 180-degree shutter is the right thing to do in all cases, as long as I'll be playing back at 30fps (or 24).

Just FYI, StockbyNumbers, it's a GH5, which shoots 59.94p.

Yeah, I think you're right, and increasingdifficulty's method seems to do the trick.

I've found that the rendered clips are roughly 1/2 the size with his method, and match the approximate sizes of non-slow-motion clips. I hadn't noticed before, but these were much too large. I don't know what the heck I did, but it sure wasn't right.

Hmmm. I don't know if I'll ever get a handle on this stuff.

In AE, there's something called 'frame blending' that I can enable. But I have no idea if I actually need to (or should) use it in this case.

Adobe says:
"When you time-stretch or time-remap a layer to a slower frame rate or to a rate lower than the frame rate of its composition, movement can appear jerky. This jerky appearance results because the layer now has fewer frames per second than the composition. Likewise, the same jerky appearance can occur when you time-stretch or time-remap a layer to a frame rate that is faster than the frame rate of its composition. To create smoother motion when you slow down or speed up a layer, use frame blending. Dont apply frame blending unless the video of a layer has been re-timedthat is, the video is playing at a different frame rate than the frame rate of the source video."

So, it sounds like I should have used frame blending when I did the time stretch (well, maybe). But now that I'm using increasingdifficulty's suggestion of 'interpret footage', it seems like I should not. I think. Maybe.  :o

Perhaps so; I'm going to re-submit these new renders and find out.

The rejection reason given:
Frame Rate / Shutter Speed -- Clip exhibits issues related to frame rate or shutter speed.

Maybe it had something to do with shutter speed. I think I was using 180-degree, so the shutter speed would have been 1/125. Maybe they don't like 1/125 shutter speed rendered at 29.97? Perhaps I should always shoot at a fixed shutter speed of 1/60 when I intend to render at 29.97. I've never really understood that.  ::)

Thank you very much! I'll give that a try (though it seems too easy; should be more difficult than that  ;D).

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 57


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle