Contributors never learn. I personally would rather not sell anything than sell below the "normal" price. I value myself, I value my work, I value my knowledge. I will never sell video for a dollar.

You're right... contributors never learn. They mistakenly think that selling video for a dollar or less equates to not valuing themselves, their work or their knowledge. An extreme example, but Coca Cola sell drinks for a dollar or less and they seem to be doing quite well for themselves. 

The important thing to remember is that the agencies are all out to make as much money as possible, so if they alter the way they, sell or the amount they charge, or the options they make available to customers... but the money is still split in the same way between us and them... then it's possible that (all things being equal) you're going to make as much money as possible as well. If the changes result in the money being split in a different way where we get a lower percentage than them... well yeah, that's a different barrel of otters altogether.

With a playing field that is changing from month to month as a result of new agencies, closing agencies, changes to royalties and changes to prices etc... how much money you have in the bank at the end of the month is the only true constant that I feel we should be focussing on. Sure, a drop in percentages or prices is bad, but it's hardly on Amnesty International's radar. It still amazes me how many people seem to be itching for any possible reason to earn less money than they are currently. You can barely go a day in here without somebody saying something like I used to earn $100 at this agency which I was happy with, and now I'm earning $75 which I'm not happy with, so I've decided to pull my portfolio as I'd be much happier earning $0. It's the textbook definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If I'd ditch my portfolio with every agency that did something I didn't like, then I'd be earning virtually zero dollars a month by now. Instead, I'm earning more than I ever have, even from subscription sites, two of which are my highest earners.

Sure... pride in your work, pride in your skills and knowledge and experience, not taking it lying down etc etc. That's wonderful, but this isn't government oppression. It's not human rights abuses. It's not anything that will ever get even a footnote in a history book. It's a business, an industry, one that's relatively new comparatively (especially if we just consider online stock), and as such is changing regularly. Taking photos and making videos may be an artform, but selling stock is a business and we should all be doing whatever we can to earn as much as possible for as long as possible. 

Google says 7200 JPY is $55.

How does your success with an agency, or the number of sales you get in a 3 year period, relate to whether they pay 40% or not? If they don't pay 40% then that's fair enough (exchange rate withstanding), but the number of sales you get doesn't dispute that.

Let the good times roll...

My knowledge of history is perfect. Yours zero. Nada.

Donald... is that you?!

I honestly can't see you making more money by going exclusive anywhere. It may have worked out for some, but I don't think a 50% increase in royalties can be offset by a 4/5/6 times drop in the number of agencies you submit to. If you want to simplify the process then I'd consider submitting to BlackBox. While it's not something I'd normally recommend for a number of reasons, if your goal is to make things simpler then that could be the way to go. 15% loss in your royalties, but just one upload required, and they do hit Level 5 on Shutterstock in the first week of the year... which is nice. 

People that use the word 'snowflake', are usually the biggest snowflakes of all. They're also the most likely to tell people to 'look things up' and to 'think for themselves', when the majority of their talking points have been thought for them. If you'd be so kind as to use the words awake, msm, elites, woke and sheep in your reply... then that'll be house on my conspiracy/anti-science/right wing bingo card. 

I don't recall seeing an announcement on it, and there doesn't seem to be anything on the Adobe help pages, but I'd be surprised if they're not doing it again (in some form or another) for 2022... hopefully Matt can clarify.

And if I had to guess which man in particular... my money would be on Zod.

Looks like a side profile of a man's hair, back of the head to the left and the gap for the face to the right. Sideburns in the middle at the bottom, hole for the ear just to the left of that, receding hairline top right and I guess the fuzzy bit in the middle is some kind of reflection.

Which specific sanctions are they breaking?

Yeah, because them Russian photographers have been the most vocal when it comes to pushing for war?