Fun facts about shutterstock, in case anyone is wondering 'how well' they are doing.

$654 MILLION  IN REVENUE in 2018-2019. After ALL expenses (i.e., jet planes, hotels, bonuses for execs, salaries, etc) - $54 MILLION in profit. Extra money. That they couldn't figure out how to reduce lower to lower their taxes. (Envato btw, also apparently $113 MILLION in 2019 according to a forbes article, but since they are private & apparently have some interesting accounting, not sure if the figure is accurate, understated, etc), after trying to minimize contributors money as much as possible).

Financial reports for public companies are fun to read, I highly recommend it. Here is the 2018 financial report for shutterstock.
https://investor.shutterstock.com/static-files/8b795c10-8df0-403b-811d-1f39f8f34393

HIGHLY recommend reading it. Highly doubt they are 'hurting' at the moment (as they did transition to subscriptions, which actually take more money out of a contributors pocket than straight commission sale the way it is structured) - but rather a price gouge from their contributor base. Obviously I haven't seen their 2020 financials, but based on experience I'd say it's a) a boost for the execs to give themselves a bit more money, b) positioning for shareholders to say 'hey look, ain't we doing great!'.

Also - for someone who thinks they might be getting a 'great deal' with the new structure (whether videos or images) - you have to look at the 'average' sale you make. For the first six months let say you are at 15%. If the next six months you are at 30% (or even say 40%) assuming you sell the same # of clips consistently (which btw are incredibly HIGH thresholds) - you are still worse off than without it. Because the 'average' clip comission is lower overall.

Read the report. Fun read.

Wrong, very wrong.

not sure exactly what this means as a contributor (not exactly sure how it differs before what was set up, and/or if it affects longterms sales... my feeling is shortterms sales may increase (people like 'broad' licenses) - but not sure what it means for you as a contributor long term? just received an e-mail that said...

================================================================================================================
We've made licensing easier! Starting today, everything sold on Pond5 - including Commercial and Editorial Video & Images, Music, Sound Effects, After Effects Templates, and 3D Models - is available with the broadest rights in the industry. Included in the list price, our Individual License provides worldwide distribution, across all media, forever. On top of that, you�ll also get $15,000 in legal coverage free-of-charge for a completely worry-free experience.
================================================================================================================

very frustrated with some of the reviewers who appear to just do an auto "100%" rejection because they are too lazy to do their job.

seems some of the reviewers shutterstock employs have figured out how to game the system, so are doing zero work, to get paid. (to be clear, not all of them - some do their job - I like those reviewers - it's the ones that don't do their jobs that I don't like).

seems the game is for those ones is - they wait as long as possible to review the items (i.e., say a week) - so it gives the "appearance" of being reviewed to the (semi-automated) metrics shutterstock uses - so they can paid for doing nothing. I'm all for reviewing & approving 'good quality' images & videos, and rejecting poor quality. But when you happen to land one of these reviewers who just wants money for nothing, so autorejects 100%, it's very frustrating.

Would be a great time now shutterstock to either weed out these poor quality reviewers - OR - a different company to do a better job than shutterstock.

seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

Before I go contacting shutterstock...

They only gave me $1.50 for a VIDEO clip? (Which they are selling at  a bare *minimum* of $51 on their subscription plan)

Their "cheapest" plan located here:
https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing/video

Is 25 sd clips for $1,299 (or $51.96 each)

Here they say regardless of plan, you get 30% for video...
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006640

SO........ how did they end up with $1.50? Anyone have any insight?

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).

a) 100% COMMISSIONS FOREVER! Aren't we great?
Translation: (We want a no-risk way of seeing what sells, then buy those clips dirt cheap)

b) SOZ - 50% COMMISSIONS NOW DUE TO "EXPENSES". BUT AREN'T WE GREAT?
Translation: (We bough all the dirt cheap clips that sold well, but now want a cut of the
periodic sales that we don't want to buy).

c) OMFG! MICROPENNIES FOR YOU CLIPS! MORE SALES FOR YOU! AREN'T WE GREAT?!??
Translation: kk, we've squeezed as much juice as we can out of the clips that don't sell
well - customers don't want to pay full price for those, but we can boost our subscriptions
making us craploads of money, and throwing a few crumbs their way.

d) WHAT? No one is signing up because they don't want to sell it for micropennies? Well,
we'll send them a PRETEND letter saying they were "specially" selected! (So storyblocks
sent out a letter to contributors saying "YOU HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO BE EXPEDIATED
FOR OUR MICROPENNIES PROGRAM!! AREN'T YOU EXCITED?!?!? APPLY NOW!"

e) Very few still get excited about the micropennies program, even with the "SPECIALLY
selected" program. So storyblocks says "FINE! You ain't gonna sign up? Well - we are
gonna try and FORCE to sign up then! SIGNUP FOR THE EXCITING MICROPENNIES PROGRAM,
otherwise we are going to KICK YOU OFF! EXCITING NEWS, EH?!?!?!?!"

Cost is a minimal factor here. (It literally is less than a penny to host 1000+ videos/month. As long
as you make more than 1 penny/1000 videos in sales, you are profitable).

The only real complaints they would have had would be from subscribers - who were paying a dirt
cheap price ($30/month) - and noticed there was a corresponding clip from the marketplace that
"looked" better for their project - so they complained, asking why should they have to pay $70 when
they have dirt cheap access to 100,000+ other clips.

So, the reason for the program is pure greed, and simply because they want to reduce customer support
questions specifically related to that.

They want to further dominate the video marketplace with cheap cheap content
(but great subscription revenue for them). They have already successfully decimated the
industries previous prices (getting other people to follow in the subscription battle/revenue
war), with contributors as the casualties.

Not that I think they will be hurting any time soon (they have such a HUGE library, they can now
auto-pilot it for at least 10-15 years making $30+ million/year in profit, with pretty much no effort.
The effort is logging in to your bank account and saying 'oh cool, I made $30 million this year!!).

I hope contributors are smart enough not to panic and think 'oh-oh, I better get into the MICRO pennies program!'.

I'm pretty sure everyone who "applies" will be "accepted", but that the "application" process was part
of a ploy to give a sense of "importance" to this micropennies program.

So, I guess good for them.

First, if anyone forgot - storyblocks/videoblocks already proved to be dishonest. They promised "100% earnings for authors" - then only a couple years later - said "meh, we only feel like doing 50-50". So remember that.

Moving on. Reading a few posts - seemed a couple people weren't sure about the math - so decided to make this post. Just in case anyone missed this -

POINT #1 - 60% is NOT of their TOTAL revenue, but rather an ARBITRARY random number they pick out of thin air

the "membership pool" is NOT "60%" of storyblocks ENTIRE membership base. They make about $30 million+ year.
It is NOT a portion of that.

RATHER. It is some arbitrary number they pick out of the air to decide what to split amongst authors. RIGHT in their text, it says:
"Instead of members paying for clips a la carte in the Marketplace, they pay for a subscription to access content in our Member Library. We then create a Member Library Earnings pool, which we divide among all contributors who participate in the program based on how much of their content is downloaded."

So out of that $30 million, maybe they pick $50,000 to split amonst all authors. Maybe less. Maybe more. Chances are - they are
will use simple math to figure out what is the bare minimum they can pay people to get them to participate. But its REALLY important
to note, the 60% is NOT part of that "$30 million" in revenue.

POINT #2 - Test market versus ACTUAL market

Their "test" market, and the actual number of users that participate will see COMPLETELY different earnings.

Using easy to understand numbers, Let's say, they've decided to be ultra greedy (proven), and ultra cheap, to split $50,000
amongst authors.

In the test group, they have 10 people. Site wide (educated guess) - they have 10,000+ contributors.

In the test: $50,000/10 = $5,000 per author. (for simplicity, assuming everyone had an equal # of downloads, so equal pay).

Let's say only 10% of the 10,000 contributors sign up (1000 authors).

Now, $50,000/1000 = $50 per author.

But wait! There is more! They have decided only 60% of those funds will be distributed. (Maybe for internal accounting, they've
decided they need a 40%'management' fee for the arbitrary pool funds they set). So $50 * 60% = $30/author.

ANDDDDDDD... of course, if they "feel" it is too little, or too much, they can of course at ANY time adjust the member amount.

POINT #3 - Canabalizing your other sales (maybe a TINY bit more money @ storyblocks - but a LOT LESS everywhere else)

It's already been happening for quite sometime when subscription type models were introduced - but why help storyblocks speed
up the process?

IF they actual did become "THE" "go-to" place for video (they alreayd have a HUGE membership of 150,000+ - but there are still
people on other sites like shutterstock/pond5/etc). But if you take your GOOD videos - and upload here - many will migrate
FROM pond5/shutterstock/etc - and just go to storyblocks/videoblocks. So that means 'byebye' larger sales @ pond5/shutterstock,etc
and welcome to $0.000000000000000001 sales @ storyblocks!

POINT #4 - More of your "stolen" content on the web

It's one thing for someone to "individually" pay $25/clip - and then "resell" it on the web. It's a lot of work, plus costs money.

BUT - if you like the idea of your ENTIRE PORTFOLIO being RESOLD by random individuals on the internet, or given away for free
as "warez" - then this is the way to go! Many individuals have something called "scrapers" - which basically download 1000's and
1000's of clips in hours, or even minutes - and then allows them to re-package it on the web.

And not only will it be incredibly difficult for you to control that, but it will most likely affect ANY kind of LONG term sales you COULD
have had...

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

a) DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM.
b) SHARE THIS WITH OTHER ARTISTS IN WEB FORUMS/EMAIL/FACEBOOK GROUPS
c) "optionally" tell storyblocks what a crappy deal this is and you don't like it. (Unlikely they care, because they didn't last time
people complained. And they might even decide to terminate your account, because they don't like complainers. But, if it makes you feel better, you can).

thought I'd just post some thoughts here...

if footage was "truly" exclusive and desirable, and pond5 reached out to outlets that desired this truly exclusive footage - i.e., what the authors submitted was very difficult to obtain else where and news footage firms wanted, say:
- semi/private meetings with celebrities, politicians
- special exclusive news coverage (i.e., building the wall, border crossings, natural disasters, rescue missions, etc)
- in action military footage, on the ground with soldiers, etc
- close up shots of exotic animals in various habitats
- unique shots (i.e., FPV) of say an eagle flying over mountains from the eagle's perspective
- unique computer graphic simulations/animations/etc (i.e., tech, space, medical, etc, etc)

AND... pond 5 had an in/did some heavy promotions with the news outlets, advertisting agencies, firms, with this footage...
AND... pond 5 priced it accordingly (i.e., say $1000/clip or higher)...

THEN... I think the exclusive would be an awesome idea...

But when you have the exact same footage being submitted as non exclusive, and stuff like:
- a video of your foot doing nothing
- a chipmunk with half its body cut off eating nuts
- a video of a tree on an overcast day shot with a low end camera

and as far as I can tell - the only thing pond5 is doing to promote 'exclusive' content is:

a) A watermark that says "exclusive" on it (can't even 'filter' exclusive clips any more - I think that option was available for 1 week or so, I seem to remember being able to do that)
b) Since you've now agreed "not" to sell the clip elsewhere - contacting 2-3 other agencies (i.e., adobe stock) just agreeing to list your clip there (i.e., submitting your clip on your behalf).

and oh, that's about it...

doesn't seem like such a hot deal...

Your thoughts?

I think I have cracked the code to determine what really is "good news"... (this post is a bit tongue in cheek).

If a site says they have "Good News!", its good news for them, but not for you.

If a site has "Great News!", then it really is good news for you.

Just received a payment notifcation from shutterstock, telling me they had "Great News!". And it really was great, I am going to get paid. So that really is good news!

Great news!

Your latest payment has been calculated and will be paid out later this month.

Total Payment: ----- (To be paid by 2019-05-15)


While most people seem to agree that non-exclusive account is better, there are a few that believe exclusive with Pond5 would be great. While of course it is your decision what you want to do - the expression "Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind... (immediate example is iStock, but there are many other agencies with their "good news!" e-mail broadcasts)...

Again, if you are thinking "soley" exclusive (i.e., Pond5 is your ONLY agency you have content on)...

a) You are placing a lot of trust in putting your livelihood in someone else's hands. Pond5 has just proven they will break that trust - so - there is nothing to stop them from breaking that trust if you go exclusive. 60% - but - maybe once they start getting sales, they'll get greedy - and you'll get another "good news" e-mail from them, telling you you only get 40%, or maybe 30%, due to hyperbole such as "market conditions" or "competition", etc, etc. So don't trust that you will get 60% forever, or even a long time.

b) Expression "don't put all your eggs in one basket" really holds true. Again - you are trusting that they have *your* best interests at heart, they don't. They have theirs. What happens if the relationship goes sour? Then you are screwed - your *one* income source now doesn't exist. Yes, of course at that point you could then scramble and start uploading to other agencies - but it would most likely be incredibly stressful the 1-2 month time period while you go to establish yourself on other agencies.

c) You are not likely to see the 'huge' boost in sales you are hoping. Educated guess - yes - you probably will see a 50%-100% increase in your sales @ 60% because of some additional marketing in this area, that will probably taper off after 5-6 months to about 20-30%. But - does that additional 20-30% increase justify putting all your eggs in one basket, and the income on other sites you will be foregoing?

Going "exclusive" - you are giving Pond5 the power to decide your income. You are letting THEM decide how successful your portfolio is. Be aware of that.

My educated guess is some contributors that have HUGE portfolios/staff/etc (because they are already making $500k+/year) - will create exclusive portfolios and will benefit from that marketing (the cost for them to 'test' out that sales channel will be small because they benefit from their existing current market position, and the marginal cost for them to create 'exclusive' content at the same time is virtually non existant). They'll just churn out a ton of content in addition to the regular content they produce. So you'll be competing with them.

It's your decision if you go exclusive - but - just be aware - IF you will ONLY be producing content to submit to Pond5:
- You are severely reducing your bargaining power.
- Pond5 has already broken the trust moving comissions from 50% to 40%, nothing to prevent them from changing this "shiny" exclusive % to say 50, 40, etc in the future.
- Overall - you are likely to see less income only having one income source, as opposed to taking the time to submit to multiple agencies.

If you do go exclusive, good luck!

---------------------------------------------

Title says it all. I'm genuinely interested in figuring out how can I make $150k/year from stock photos/videos?

It's fun to do - now I'd like to figure out how to reach those numbers. Figured I may as well ask in case anyone has some good ideas. Ideas/suggestions?

Perhaps - hypothetically - imagine you personally *were* currently making $150k/year from microstock. What would you have to be doing to acheive that?

Thanks!

Hi!

Please recommend a good video 'splicer'. I just want to be able to import a clip (say 1 minute long) - and then pick the start/end locations and split it creating a new output clip. I don't want it to actually "re-process/re-export" the video (i.e., which can take 1-2 minutes) - but rather it just resets the start/end markers and outputs a new clip in a few seconds.

The one I currently use doesn't really work for all videos (in that it doesn't set the start/end positions correctly) so I am looking for a new one.

Thanks!