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 ... 11
Nope. Usually high budget movies or series will not touch stock unless there is no other option left for a number of reasons. House of Cards did commission this job to photographer Alexandros Maragos. You can read more about how and why at:

I've never spotted any of my clips in the real-world, unfortunately.

However, I'm convinced that the intro the House of Cards series with the D.C timelapses is sourced from stock clips:


iStockPhoto.com / Re: Video royalty's are worse then images
« on: August 21, 2019, 12:35 »
I'm not sure I understand this. Why do people send footage to Istock if those clips are sold for cents when you can sell those at the price point you think is fair at other sites. It is just beyond me.......

increasingdifficulty is right. It is their business model and they have to act in a way it benefits them in the first place. I will not accept their offer to apply for their subs program as I am growing at P5 Shutter and Adobe and will not risk a dollar there to ear a dime at Sb or any of the other sites that have started a race to the bottom. My sales there at their market place have been few so I will not miss them much.

So funny. HISTORY of storyblocks. (BTW - for those that cite "cost" for hosting videos -
it's actually become dirt cheap to host videos, i.e., 1 cent per 1000 videos/month, so
"cost" really is not a factor for any of these decisions).

I see, do you run many companies that need to use Amazon/CloudFront to store petabytes of data that needs to be available to the entire world at high speeds?

Look it up. :) You don't use a free DropBox account and post the public links...


Did someone hurt you personally at StoryBlocks? Do you know the purpose of a business? Did you know that if a part of a business isn't profitable, a smart business owner closes that part. We don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, it's business. If the marketplace was profitable, they would keep it. Evidently it costs more than it makes, so it must go.

I'm wondering why you haven't started your own site we can contribute to so you can sit back and see that $30 mil roll in? Let us know when you've found the $0.01 storage. :)

I still do and have for the last 11 years. Doubt it will be possible in the next 5 years if the trend is heading in the same direction and at the same pace........

Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 04, 2019, 15:14 »
All of this is speculation and every agency will have different numbers .  In my case image sales are every month at least 200x more.

The strategy of every agency is different. Storyblocks and Envato have a smaller customer base and also the content is not as broad as p5 and Shutter so they are betting strong on subscription to take market share. Istock/Getty has high quality footage but not as much variety as P5 or Shutter and they are also applying aggressive pricing to retain customers. So what do you think is the alternative of Shutter and P5......they don't have another choice if they want to retain their customers especially those that are price sensitive that I guess are the most.

Exclusivity is the only way to shield price erosion. P5 as far as I know is not doing it first. Getty/Istock is selling clips por cents for ages (you cannot opt out of those- one of the reasons I am not there with my footage). Envato Elements and now Storyblocks is also giving away unlimited clips for a few dollars. So I don't see the argument that now for showing files that are cheaper than 50$ they are the bad guys and the ones that are the first responsible for the race to the bottom.

You are right that they have also a premium subs content and playing that game. Don't know what share their participant get (for sure better than Getty/Istock or the nobody knows "cash pool" of Storyblocks that is totally opaque).

Video is not over yet but it is much tougher that it was only 2 years ago. And unfortunately it will become as tough as images /vectors /music .

The solution is not 8k video it is to have the content that is right and desirable for customers. 90% of the purchased content is still FHD.

But 5 years ago it was perfectly possible to have a full time income doing stock footage or images. This is becoming harder and harder. And i would definitely not recommend it to anyone to try a shot at it be it footage/images/audio.
Those times are over.

So basically you are saying 12 million video files is similar to 400 million stock photos?

And now the only solution is to go ultra low in price and it is best
if pond5 does that first?

Then why not encourage the exclusive artists to offer content for 50 dollars? Or even less?

Basically it sounds like stock video is already over and producers should try to figure out what other medium is coming up next for higher production value?

Or only do 8k (16k) video?

pond5 has 400 000 files in their membership program, so they are playing that game too.

Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 04, 2019, 14:11 »

What pond5 is doing just doesnt make sense.

There is A LOT they can do to improve the buyer interface to make it much easier to search and collect files.

But to just exclude content from a search by selecting a price point?

Why would they do that?

And how do the exclusive artists benefit?

Do they have to drop all their prices to 50 dollars to remain visible?

Noone is reporting an increase in sales.

Someone already said here it has having a best month. In my case my sales are also increasing but I am new to the game in footage. I was also doing 500-600$ /day in 2012 but that was because Istock management pushed by Getty and vulture equity Hellman & Friedman went totally crazy pushing up prices well beyond what was tolerable with Vettas and Agencies to the point they lost thousands of customers in moths. We got all a quick money grab and H&F could inflate the numbers to make an apotheosis sale.

There was enough content in 2012 we just have now more repeats of everything diluting libraries.

There is enough footage content in libraries like P5 and Shutterstock beyond sunsets and city timelapses. As has been said it is pointless to compare to still images. Some said the proportion is 20 images sales for every video. I would elevate that at least to 1 to 100.

Pond5 is experimenting with prices all the time so does Getty/Istock so does Shutterstock. They have to to be skin close to the market. They have all the data of searches preferences etc that we don't have by a long shot. We can disagree or vilify them as much as we want. They have to look for the bigger picture that works for them not for any of us. Even if they piss off some contributors with their actions they still will take those actions that benefit their bottom lines.

It is the same game it has always been. You play by their rules and adapt to make a win win scenario with the given situation. Sometimes you cannot make it a win scenario for you and you drop out or do not accept deals. I have with a few agencies already while 95% of the ones in the list of the right I have never given them 1 asset as it was just a waste of time. In footage there are only a few ones we all know that work. I rather have the likes like P5 to succeed lowering prices and not losing customers like others that give unlimited content for a few dollars subscription or sell footage for cents.

Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 04, 2019, 02:50 »
Read the post above you. The footage game is between P5 and Shutter everything else is miles off. So to be exclusive or have exclusive files there it is a clever decision. Now competition in video is becoming as fierce as in the photo still images world.

Lots of people are uploading videos with decent quality now. Just recently we have gotten capable cameras, gimbals, drones,..... without breaking the bank, people have learned Davinci, Premiere,FCP etc and are all entering this new game in masses. So the result with clients not absorbing all this new material is what we all know. On top of that more and more agencies are entering with very aggressive prices the subscription field. It is not P5 that is/will suffer, it is SS it is Getty it is Adobe,Stocksy,....most veterans footage submitters will feel the hit.

Exclusivity is a way to differentiate themselves and try to stop the race to the bottom. P5 Getty Stocksy are developing the right strategy in this regard. And P5 has the fairest deal for contributors of the mentioned ones. Nothing dishonest about that.

Maybe you really should think twice before flaming someone who does not deserve it.


How do the people that went exclusive feel now?

Some people pulled their ports from other agencies and brought everything to pond5.

But unless they priced everything at the lowest possible price for 4k all their content is excluded from the searches?!

I thought the whole idea of going exclusive was to help stabilize prices??

This is a very dishonest move. They should have warned all artists that their income will drop drastically during that test.

General - Stock Video / Re: Sales down last few months.
« on: July 30, 2019, 14:56 »
Sean it is obvious that the big customers will generally don't touch places like Unsplash but more and more smaller users and those take the risk and it is probably not worth suing if a model without release appears on a blog small magazine etc. And with studio shots or landscapes that problem disappears completely.

I doubt also that there are fake accounts uploading others content as in micro as there is no benefit for them. I don't say it is the end for micro but the dent to it is growing as their collection are maturing.......

Amazing stuff for free.

Not so free once you get sued.

General - Stock Video / Re: Sales down last few months.
« on: July 30, 2019, 13:28 »
Supply of content is growing geometrically.No individuals nor productions houses can keep up with this race and suppliers growth. It is what it is unfortunately. It is only going to become worse and worse as time goes by. Have you look lately at the quality of unsplash. Amazing stuff for free. Storyblocks Istock Getty and Envato offering ultra cheap footage subs........explanation is quite simple of the course this "business" is heading........

Shutterstock.com / Re: 0.60$ video disgrace
« on: July 26, 2019, 14:31 »
It depends........landscapes,pets,objects on white,food,drone shots,timelapses,etc yeah you are right. Overflow of those images will is very high and will become worse and worse. It is what it is. Most people that supply to micro are amateurs anywhere and the tendency to 0 for those kind of images is quite logic, supply and demand meeting at a point we all feared years ago is happening now in front of everybody's eyes.

Another thing is very niche subjects or lifestyle shots. Here the situation is more complicated. Very few shooters are supplying up to date material that fits actual trends in subject and style. But on the other hand the low prices policy  where the 1000000 skyline of New York or cat image has the same price that a complex multi model shot in an expensive location makes that even those photographers are quitting the game and those are not being replaced by hoarders of very skilled amateurs. So we will see where all this ends.......

Its probably a good idea to understand where contributors fit into the MS food chain these days.

Quite simply, we're expendable.  These days everyone has a phone, has a camera and will give images for pennies or even nothing at all.  So we're replaceable and dont matter in the slightest to them.  If someone objects to a new price or terms, they'll be immediately replaced by 3 or 4 others who are happy with it.

A tiny tiny percentage of MS contributors overall submit images of a unique and high standard which would be hard to replace but the majority do not and from an MS point of view, wont be missed.

We need to stop thinking the sites need or care about us in the slightest - they dont.

iStockPhoto.com / Re: June Royalties are in
« on: July 26, 2019, 07:43 »
Not for me. My video sales are still growing........might be because I do not submit anything to Getty/Istock nor any of the new video subscription schemes........

sold 2 videos to Foxtel (Australia's #1 cableTV company) for .... 78c each. meh.

Yikes! is that 78c as in $0.78 each?
yes. 2 drone videos, 78c per video. I am very unimpressed.   the videos aren't spectacularly original, except they are of the beautiful coastal area I live in (northern sydney), and i flew my drone from my balcony so effort was low.... but 78c!! effyuu getty.

78cents is insulting. I lament the old days when prices were much higher.
when were "those days" ??? supposedly video is still the only place to make money. Getty has closed the gap on that very quickly.

It is great to have this mentality as long as you know to differentiate your product. I have a few images that I just don't sell under 300$ whatever the use and some licenses have gone for 2000+$ (that is direct sales). I know they are just unavailable anywhere so I can command price. That are my top feeders that sell very few times and do not by any means make the bulk of my income(....)

Hi Everest, where is the place for those sales? The ones of 300/2000 ; where is the place in which you can set the price?

Hi Zorba I set my prices for a few group of images through my website managed with Photoshelter. Here I can set Right Managed prices. Also RF is possible but not for me as I am still exclusive with Istock/Getty on the image front. As usual the problem is getting your image seen by potential prices not the price by itself. Many of those images where in RM collections at Getty and I disagreed with lower and lower prices so I cancelled my RM contract with them and all those images got free. I immediately put those on sale on Photoshelter. Many clients contacted me after to purchase those images that I guess where in lightboxes on Getty. those 10-200$ became 300-2000$ I did refused everything lower I just don't cared to sell at lower prices those specific images. Many clients paid those prices without a blink. So Getty, all agencies and most photographers are leaving a lot of money on the table.

But as time went by from my contract cancellation fewer and fewer clients contacted me as I think very few people search through the photoshelter engine. I put those images in places like pinterest so they got a better SEO as Photoshelter is known for being very bad in that department. From time to time I still make a direct sale but it is only a small fraction of my yearly income.

But as we all know it is more important being noticed that the price that makes sales as long as you have unique images. My 2000$ sale for example was a book cover. They wanted exclusive rights forever I refused and we finally set for 2 years exclusive rights. I guess there was not a better option available elsewhere or the work/cost to design that book cover again was higher.

Many years ago I sold also an exclusive license for 2 years use in Germany through Getty for 23000$ to a Pharma corporation. I am sure that number that seems stratospheric for us was a drop in the sea for that company. Nowadays an advertisement photo production goes easy from 15000 to 40000$, a commercial for TV much more (I know as I have worked 10 years as a location scout). Micro or nano prices are great for 95% for clients that have low budgets or need large number of images continuously. But there is still a pool of customers that has budget for many zeros. They are a fraction of the stock market, you cannot count on them to make a living unless your work is truly specialized and unique ( I give you an example plates (backgrounds) for cars) but they exist, reaching them is what is not easy, a few thousand is not a problem for them.......

iStockPhoto.com / Re: June Royalties are in
« on: July 19, 2019, 16:40 »
Bad but again not surprised as I am focused at videos and not uploading any of those to Getty/Istock so it is obvious that with no fresh blood sales are fading away.....

It is great to have this mentality as long as you know to differentiate your product. I have a few images that I just don't sell under 300$ whatever the use and some licenses have gone for 2000+$ (that is direct sales). I know they are just unavailable anywhere so I can command price. That are my top feeders that sell very few times and do not by any means make the bulk of my income.

Middle and bottom feeders are stock agencies (long is the time gone where I could open a monthly Gettyimages statement and see a 23k or 10k sale). But the argument that you can place everything under different prices is plain stupid, buyers ARE price conscious and who is telling you they are not is lying big time. So offering dozen of your 4k files for the same price as one file sold at Adobe ot P5 is shooting yourself in your feet. Go for the bottom feeders and the middle and the top but with different products. it is called Market segmentation and you see it everywhere everyday. You cannot buy a Audi at the price of a Skoda whatever discount you can have with the Audi. They are under the same group ( Audi Volkswagen Skoda and Seat) many things in common but each product has its own price.

I know they are not digital products, movies are and they don't end start in Netflix and the like unless directly produced by those platforms. For a good reason. If they would people would not go to the cinema buy the DVD rent digitally first. They will end up as a sub but will try first not to leave a penny of customers on the table. We should all follow that same strategy to be successful at this business.

I'm not preoccupied with selling to the bottom feeders... I'm preoccupied with selling to the top feeders, the middle feeders AND the bottom feeders.

Spacestock : I really wonder about your sale strategy. You produce very sellable content. My clip average 25$ return per sale. Obviously you sell more if you participate in subs but I still have doubts that you are making more being in SB and Envato subs scheme(don't know if you supply to Getty/Istock too) than to stay with the pay per download options (Videohive Shutter P5 Adobe and Storyblocks).

Is it always difficult to predict and subs seem to work when there are not many players in the market. This is what made Shutter photographers happy back then where there were not millions of files added to the library per week. Even at that time I decided to stay exclusive with Istock when there were no subs there. I was making 12-13k month with 3000 images (no model at that time). Situation has changed alot but in the subs game contributor always loses at the end even if at the start it seems a viable option.

Video sales are very far away in volume than those of images so a return of pennies (Getty) or fractions of a dollar is not going to make it up in volume.

In any case good luck with your path. Your content deserves to make a healthy income.

Not since May, but I'm sure some people are. Now I'm receiving payments from the exciting new Member Library Program! It's a new opportunity for me to make as much money as possible from my content! Did you know that contributors are making more money and Storyblocks' customers are gaining access to great content?!

Please tell me how many clips do u have in the Member Library and how much money do u get ? an average per clip ? Thank u.

Early days, so hard to say for certain, but I'm on track to earn roughly $1.50 per clip this month. I have 340 items.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock FTP login being declined
« on: July 05, 2019, 14:57 »
No connection for me either.....

Hope they get to the top They are doing a lot of things right.........

I just purchased a Mavic 2 Zoom and as it can get a little noisy I did some more tests with Neatvideo 5 and now I have to say that it is superior to Davinci resolve 15 Studio in noise removal. I would say speedwise both are not fast which is to be expected but the results I get from Neatvideo are better than those with Resolve. I finally purchased it. Have been a user of Neat Image for many years. I am glad I tried again and got a little better profiling the noise characteristicas before removing it as I did in my firsts trials.

Thanks again for bringing up this topic as it made me try the software.


I downloaded the demo version yesterday and was disappointed. No real improvement in speed nor quality using it on Davinci Resolve 15 Studio. The Flickr and Noise reduction work quite well and I would say are faster than Neat Video 5. But I have to say that I also did not dig enough to see if I could improve results but speed wise it is quite slow.
I have an i7 8700 32gb Ram and Nvidia GTX 1070. with SSD disks
I have not tried with DVR, I use it with After Effects and Premiere Pro.
I have a computer with similar specs to yours and I have no speed issues at all

iStockPhoto.com / Re: May's numbers are out.
« on: June 20, 2019, 00:47 »
Worst month in many years. Unfortunately the downward trend in my case is accelerating. Fact is that I have only supplied very few images for the last years. I am concentrating more on footage now and as I don't supply to Getty Istock because of their low royalties it is not surprising that the income is going down. I am slowly compensating the income fall from them basically with 2 competing agencies.

I downloaded the demo version yesterday and was disappointed. No real improvement in speed nor quality using it on Davinci Resolve 15 Studio. The Flickr and Noise reduction work quite well and I would say are faster than Neat Video 5. But I have to say that I also did not dig enough to see if I could improve results but speed wise it is quite slow.
I have an i7 8700 32gb Ram and Nvidia GTX 1070. with SSD disks

VideoBlocks / Re: another good news from storyblocks?!!
« on: June 12, 2019, 01:02 »

95% of Stock image used today is disgustingly fake and far from reality but also dirty cheaps and this is because you can see it everywhere. Fake emotions fake diversity fake smiles and acting. Clients basically don't care, good enough for most of them. It is what it is.

I agree that the push for fake "diversity" would be better spent in pursuing a closer step to realism but we are sooooooo far from it.

VideoBlocks / Re: Storyblocks - any signs of life?
« on: May 14, 2019, 13:23 »
Unfortunately no sales there anymore. I wrote them a few weeks ago that I will no longer supply new files as it is a waste of time. They totally crumbled as a revenue option for stock footage.

Envato / Re: Envato Elements New Earning Opportunity.
« on: April 29, 2019, 13:56 »
I received it and declined. It would be terribly unfair to sell my clips for 199$ at some agencies and at the same time dozens of those files could be downloaded for a couple of dollars on Elements. Now if you are only on P5 and selling your clips for 5$ each you might consider it......

iStockPhoto.com / Re: $ 0.00077 Lowest Earning on Istock
« on: April 20, 2019, 09:49 »
Tested the waters with videos, uploaded a couple. One sold for 20 cents and the other 11 cents.
Couldn't believe it.
I don't think I'll be uploading any more!

They are just using video to retain photo customers so they give those crazy prices. Their footage library is much lower in quantity and quality compared to the alternatives stock footage sites. They have no other choice than to try to retain customers with rock bottom prices. You have to decide if this strategy is the best way for you as a supplier.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11


Microstock Poll Results