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 - everest

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17
General Stock Discussion / Re: All down
« on: February 27, 2021, 17:49 »
My sales are stronger every month at Adobe every month. I wish the same was true with P5 as they have an even better cut but it is Adobe that is pulling ahead. I have not a single video at SS or Istock so I am really glad that my strategy is working. I hope the transfer of clients and sales from those two low ballers to Adobe and p5 keeps growing steady as it is now, at least for me.


This morning I was running a test. If I search with my Shutterstock and account name on Shutterstock many of my deactivated videos months ago are visible on google and you can click on them and purchase them on the Shutterstock page.

As a chat window opens for customer service I asked why they are still selling my content if deactivated from the site. The only answer I got was that this was not the right forum and I should contact Shutterstock support.

So it seems they are selling the content even if deactivated. I wonder if they have a clause in their contract that they can do so and they rely on google searches to circumvent the deactivation. I wonder also where the money goes. i haven't had a report of a sale for months. So it is really suspicious that all the content is available for sale but "no sales happen".

Maybe that's the reason they really don't care much about deactivations. I wonder if it is also happening to you. Because if that would be the case a huge class lawsuit would be in order.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Very low video sales
« on: February 22, 2021, 16:36 »
Remember that in stock 1+1 is not always 2 as you point out. If you sell files at P5 and get a sale were you earn 40$ net that sale might have happen is you have the same file at SS. Buyers are very price conscious nowadays. All the corporate crap those business talk about the price does not matter to customers and its the experience at their site is bs and the main reason they keep competing on price.

There are not so many options on the video front and buyers can search in 5 minutes at the gig 4 and locate the file if it is there. Now if they subscribe at shutter you get your 1$ and loose 39. Not a winning proposition under my point of view.

Sure not every buyer does that but if only 1 in every 5 does that your stategy to be everywhere even if the practically give your videos for free is failing. it is ok when all the prices are at the same ballpark. Now they are not. Istock and SS pay nearly nothing almost most of the time for video content.

Everybody has to pick up their battlefield wisely.

You're missing the point. You may be selling 100 clips a month at Adobe, or 50 clips at Pond5, or $500 at iStock, or $75 per download at 123RF... but my point is... if you make $0.01 at SS per month, then you make more contributing to SS than if you don't.

Principles don't pay the bills. And while you can dispute that until the cows come home by saying 'my principles made me X dollars last month'... my principles made me X dollars last month... plus my SS earnings on top.

Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 10, 2021, 02:40 »
Adobe will be dominating this market in no time. Shutterstock and Istock are being left behind much faster that everybody thought. The Shutterstock move is just a quick money grab so the founder and a few more people in the management can make as much money as possible before leaving the sinking ship. Mr Oringer is slowly selling his stock in the company every week. I wonder if he still has more than 50%.

Istock did the same when they raised prices like crazy with Hellman&Friedman in this case making a quick money grab on the back of their customers. They run away and then they had no other option to reduce royalties, introduce subs, ...... Since today they have not recovered from the hit, have a huge debt that at one point might put them out of business in the future.

Less and less top contributors are giving any content to Shutterstock and that only means one thing in the near future. As simple as that.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Very low video sales
« on: February 04, 2021, 16:32 »
Opt out. Don't damage your much higher sales agencies if you are on those. Staying at Shutterstock will only encourage those to follow the same track. A few dollars made at Shitterstock are not worth it.

It is a campaign where the message is that all catalans should embrace themselves again for the elections that will be held in 2 weeks in Catalonia, autonomy territory in northeast of Spain (similar to a federal state ). As there has been a lot of conflict among catalans in the past years, those that want independence from Spain and those that want to stay in the country the campaign was supposed to be a metaphor to reunite this two very distant points of view.

The article says that the campaign has been criticized a lot is the social media because of different reasons. First, because the images do not use the party colours (orange). Second because many people say the images are "naive". Third because there are images from the same shoot where the same model shows his middle finger (:-D)  and the most weird of all is "that in a time that hugging is not recommended because of the pandemic situation this images spread a wrong message....whatever.

In any case it is weird that in a political campaign that costs lots of money in banners, prints, leaflets, the design,.....they cannot spend a little of that budget hiring a photographer and a few models that make it a personal and unique one. The sign of our times ...-good enough- although the images are quite "microstocky" and you risk this kind of problems using people endorsing an ideologic view as they were sympathizing with this party. Well many mistakes and they are learning the hard way. Now they have to start all over because of the prohibition and people backslash they retired the campaign.


Interesting story about how a political party has retired a whole campaign for using these images licensed at Shutterstock because that use "is not allowed" according to the newspaper article.

The article is in spanish but google translate is your friend if you are interested.

Despicable and shameful.

Amazing what he has accomplished in the last years when he ramped up production. He has definitely  gone the volume route and it is working well for him and not in a cheap country like Spain. So kudos for working in this tough environment.

Thank you for this and all the interviews you make. It is always interesting to read how producers approach this business.

There are a few that come to my mind: Stocksy, Trevillion, Arcangel, Filmsupply.com, etc.....Everyone of them is focusing on a specific area of visual content. if they are going to survive in the long term is an open question. I hope so.

What are the niche agencies?!

Sent from my motorola one using Tapatalk

That would be interesting but I have not seen any sign of this happening anytime soon in the future.

What to see when Google enters this business

Sent from my motorola one using Tapatalk


You are totally right on that.

I hope you are right about Adobe, but I fail to see why they wouldn't - at a certain point in time - start dropping prices and commissions too either to match competition (and gain market share) or just to optimize their own earnings, or ... both.

It's hard business, not charity.

I just think Adobe is becoming the main player in this industry at the expense of Shutterstock and Istock/Getty. All other players are not relevant anymore. Of course they are not doing any of us any favours and the day when they stock tumbles I think we will see the same kind of slashed that Shutter and Istock/Getty and many others have done. But the fact they are very entrenched in the creative community because of their software gives them a huge advantage that will become bigger and bigger.

I don't understand why you rate Adobe the King of the hill? they manipulate and skew searches as much as the others and not doing any favours at all. I know many big contributors completely slaughtered by Adobe same as SS. They are all nursing the eastern countries!

I think the truth is that no agency is performing well and the big money is gone forever no matter the portfolio content. As far as I'm concerned there are no winners just less losers!

The stock industry is consolidating faster than I thought only a few years ago. I think most players are irrelevant already that were still on the radar not so long ago.

Small players are already totally wiped out and sending anything to them is a huge waste of time and an opportunity that your content lands in the wrong hands. Middle tier have also mostly slipped down. Alamy 123RF, Dreamstine,Envato,Deposit are a shadow of what they were and in a few years will join the low ballers if they aren't already.

Now the "big players" that are competing as hard as never before even if it means for some of them trumping their relationship with contributors:

The 800 pound gorilla has shrunk to a baboon with a red and ugly ...... Still on the top list but falling every month. I remember when the exclusive number was around 300 (earning rating on the right). Very soon that number will be under 1 agency where you don't need to be exclusive. Their 15% has made many people loose interest. Less content less buyers.

Shutterstock: Well they lost their leadership a few months ago and will keep falling. Many demotivated people have already abandoned them and this trend will persist. Thy still have a lot of content but others are taking the throne fast.

Pond5: They are only a player in video but I think they will be part of the leadership group in this area for a while. I wish they could get stronger and also make a dent in the image department as I think they are by far the most fair agency to contributors.

Adobe: Climbing steadily and killing competition slowly but without merci. I think they are the ones that could turn the whole market upside down if they wanted killing all competitors in a few years. Make file exclusivity happen (50-55%) accept editorial, and start footage subs and Shutter and Istock would be history very fast. A couple of years and they would be gone. Getty/Istock probably bankrupt.

Other more selective or niche players like the few RM or premium agencies left will still survive offering specialized content that is not available on the micros.

In any case if Adobe does not make major mistakes it will be king of the hill by far in 2 or 3 years.

That's how I see it. The post pandemic world is changing many variables so I could be wrong but it will be interesting to see the final check mate when it happens.

Now you all know where all those under 1$ 4k video sales come from in the Getty and Shutter reports. As Getty & Shutterstock sales commissions are not transparent by any means they could be earning 99% of the deal with this people. So much unethical actions going on with this two agencies that it is really amazing nobody has already filed an request for an official audit on their numbers. I would not be surprised at the scandal that will follow.
Everybody talks about the chinese scam stock companies making up their numbers and doing "creative accounting". Those two companies do the same thing.....

The only thing he will try to improve is his bank account. He has been very clear about that with his actions.

iStockPhoto.com / Re: November Numbers have been published
« on: December 20, 2020, 03:48 »
For me it has been the worst month since 2010. At that time I had 1000 files Now I have 20.000. The oil tanker is sinking faster than I thought......

You have a case no doubt. This happened to me in the past with a few top red flames bestseller images uploaded by some pirate to them. I made them aware of that I also contacted the legal department at Istock/Getty and the images were gone in 10 days after many mails by me to them. Nowadays I would not go this route. I would send only 1 mail and maybe a registered fax and afterwards sue seeking damages. It is their responsibility the content they sell on their site. Does not matter what's in their TOS. A Judge will see what kind of responsibility they carry whatever they say.

If you are not in the US go to court in your country. If they violate intellectual property their site might be banned access in your country. And if this happen I am sure they will contact you quickly and negotiate a settlement before court. Don't be afraid if they are big. If you are telling the truth they stole your content and are selling it. No way they are going to win such a case.

Before you initiate judicial actions go to a public notary so he can certify that they are still selling the content on their web. After that for everyday it was online you ask for damages and to be taken down obviously.

Ive been going back and forth with their support from someone overseas with no real power to et anything done. Getting the usual BS. This time I responded back with their infringement department ccd, saying that theyve essentially admitted that theyve broken the terms of service by still having it for sale. They can either take it down or the next correspondence will be from my lawyer. I think Ive got a case. The only question is whether its worth going through with a lawsuit.

Really sorry about your loss. You have been always a very positive force on these forums. Your husband was very lucky to have you as a life companion.

Shutterstock has a mafia style of doing things. It is beyond of me why people, for a few dollars in most cases, deal with such an unethical company.

I watched this video yesterday.


"This video tells you about the outcome what can happen if you disclose your stock photography earnings publicly. Even sharing screenshots or writing about your earning in any post or blog is a violation of Shutterstock terms of service and will get your account banned!"

Has any also experienced account disabling for this reason?

No doubt about that. There are producers that are very successful and shoot with high end gear and those as you said that make soma small side money with it but get their bread and butter from paid gigs. But I can tell you that 95% of the stock submitters are phone, mirrorless,  dslr users and agencies give usually no technical problems to accept those files unless some phones were they are a little more picky.

However there are lots of people that already have invested in the equipment for other reasons than stock (for example shooting videos for clients or some narrative projects etc.). It doesn't cost them even a bit to grab their Red or Ursa mini etc. since they already have it.

General - Stock Video / Re: Best Video Stock Sites
« on: December 05, 2020, 05:14 »
Successful sites are the ones that have content variety and quality. I give you the results of a search with 2 keywords: spain castle

POND5: 14102
ADOBE: 13431

123RF: 1802

You can replicated different searches and you will nearly always get similar results. There are 3 large players in video and the distance is growing larger and faster every day from the minor players. Those try to compete with low priced subscriptions but I think the industry will consolidate. The large player can destroy those little ones with the push of a button. Shutterstock has already gone this route. Getty the same with royalties most of the time under 5$. We are fortunate that the two other large players have kept ground and I guess that is the reason they are getting much more content nowadays.

I think you already can figure it out why 99% of stock suppliers don't shoot on Arri or Red. Those mentioned subscription sites pay a video a dime, so contributors go for 1-3k equipment, not camera plus lenses that costs 20k+ Same with aerial footage. Drones shots are done with a mavic pro 2 at best. You rarely find footage shoot on Inspire 2 or above. It does exists but it is really a minority as income would not cover expenses.

I shoot with Blackmagic 4k as it gives nice quality with good Dynamic Range and excellent codecs but again it is a 1300$ camera. I would not dare at the present times to plunge heavy on camera equipment when clips are paid in single or two digits now, or even less when you are talking about subs.

Of course it means. You don't get the same look from a gopro as from an Alexa. (And my main point was still about shooting skills)
There are some DSLRs that are "okay", and many more mirrorless ones, but he didn't mention those.

I have downloaded some stock videos that have been just too bad quality, luckily they were on a subscription based site so no financial damage was done.

Pro level video and cinema cameras mean nothing nowadays. Today cameras are good enough for stock footage by a large margin. It is the right subject and style what matters the most and not if you shoot with an Arri Alexa or a Panasonic Gh5.

I'm not trying to put you down, but learn how to shoot high quality video first. It's not about "Gopro or DSLR", even tho the competition you are facing are using pro level video and cinema cameras.

Pro level video and cinema cameras mean nothing nowadays. Today cameras are good enough for stock footage by a large margin. It is the right subject and style what matters the most and not if you shoot with an Arri Alexa or a Panasonic Gh5.

I'm not trying to put you down, but learn how to shoot high quality video first. It's not about "Gopro or DSLR", even tho the competition you are facing are using pro level video and cinema cameras.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle