My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
SS now pretty much sells ALL of its products massively cheaper than before *and* gives contributors a far lower percentage of that cheaper deal price.
Mine is down about 80% on 2017, same on RPD so its not just a case of uploading more and more.
The various cuts of going from minimum $0.38 for photos down to effectively $0.10 etc.
Video used to pay well and ive got about 1400 videos. But you used to get $40 per clip, thats now down to $1 to $8.
The level system then further trashed earnings as you get paid a LOT less earlier in the year and even when you've levelled up you're miles off what you used to have.
Moving to a percentage based earning as well means whenever SS sell things more cheaply (always....) you now get a percentage of that new low figure so make even less from the sale.
It all adds up.
SS now pretty much sells ALL of its products massively cheaper than before *and* gives contributors a far lower percentage of that cheaper deal price.
Without going into earnings and incurring the wrath of SS, im significantly north of $1000 per month in reduced earnings since 2018 although the amount of downloads has actually increased.
AS is slowly, steadily improving. Its got fewer images and videos (no editorial) and as of last year overtook SS in average income and continues to pull away.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
I don't know what happened with sales in June on Shutterstock, but the number of sales is half of what it used to be compared to the average of the past several months.
I have a feeling that they made changes to the search results because my bestsellers have stopped selling. Generally, sales have been stable (fluctuating by a few percentages), but June saw a 50% drop overnight! Has anyone else experienced this?
The only thing I've noticed is better sales of new files, but that doesn't compensate for the decline. >:(
I'm having my second best month of the year on Shutterstock with a mix of low and higher commissions on videos and download numbers overall are pretty good. So take heart that your poor month is probably temporary because I've had some very slow periods during this year when others are reporting all is peachy. Appears that internal 'adjustments' will impact different ports either negatively or positively.:o
I'm having my second best month of the year on Shutterstock with a mix of low and higher commissions on videos and download numbers overall are pretty good. So take heart that your poor month is probably temporary because I've had some very slow periods during this year when others are reporting all is peachy. Appears that internal 'adjustments' will impact different ports either negatively or positively.:o
The comissions are NOT cut "temporary" from 0.38 to 0.10.
I'm having my second best month of the year on Shutterstock with a mix of low and higher commissions on videos and download numbers overall are pretty good. So take heart that your poor month is probably temporary because I've had some very slow periods during this year when others are reporting all is peachy. Appears that internal 'adjustments' will impact different ports either negatively or positively.:o
The comissions are NOT cut "temporary" from 0.38 to 0.10.
True but don't rely on subs to build earnings, get more videos uploaded.
I'm having my second best month of the year on Shutterstock with a mix of low and higher commissions on videos and download numbers overall are pretty good. So take heart that your poor month is probably temporary because I've had some very slow periods during this year when others are reporting all is peachy. Appears that internal 'adjustments' will impact different ports either negatively or positively.:o
The comissions are NOT cut "temporary" from 0.38 to 0.10.
True but don't rely on subs to build earnings, get more videos uploaded.
Videos don't sell for $23 a piece anymore either, you're lucky if you get an RPD from $5 to $12 or so.
My highest video sale this month was $5.27, the lowest was $0.25. It's a joke.
True but don't rely on subs to build earnings, get more videos uploaded.
Which have been cut from an average RPD of $38.00 to an average of about $7.00 with some going for as low as $0.60.
My video sales are 70% below 2017...
The SS and their treatment of contributors is a prime example of how unions are born. It's no different than the "boardroom boys" of a company mulling over how they can squeeze their employees out of more money before the employees finally are fed up and unionize.
From my perspective that would entail contributors creating their own microstock site and contributors signing an agreement that this site would be the only one that they will contribute to.
It's a complicated scenario. How can the microstock group ensure that contributors are adhering to the agreement they signed and not continuing to feed the SS and other agencies with their images and clips using another erroneous name? And how can contributors initiate the site? Can enough money be raised to create and maintain the exclusive site? Will enough contributors sign up and build an agency that reaches the top 5?
50% for the contributor's exclusive agency and 50% of the buyer's money for the photographer/Videographer would be incentive to get things moving.
The SS boardroom boys and their trained monkeys. How can we, as photographers and videographers, change the current industry standards? Unionization. IMO.
I am not someone who has ever depended on commissions. I'm concerned about the contributors who used their earnings to
feed their families. In the pre-SS days when commissions were a
lot higher, the money was a part of the essential need for those of
us who really depended on commissions to move forward. Those are the people I think most about and why I feel the SS and other agencies are immoral and corrupt.
I interviewed Doug Jensen, veteran stock footage contributor, with a portfolio of 9,187.
Question: In terms of sales volumes and revenue, have you experienced a decrease in the past two years since our last interview?
Answer: "If you define “sales volume” as being the total number of clips that are sold, then that number has remained fairly consistent since we last spoke. Unfortunately, my revenue, which is ultimately the metric that matters most, has dropped by more than 50% during that same time period. I attribute this to two things: First, Shutterstock made a lot of changes to their commission structure that have hurt contributors. And second, Shutterstock is really pushing customers towards a subscription-based sales model which results in overall lower pricing per clip — thus lower revenue for the contributors who created those clips.
Here’s how I see it: If a customer pays an agency $50, does it really matter to the agency whether that $50 covers a single download or a hundred downloads? $50 is $50 of income to the agency no matter how you slice it. But the agency didn’t put any effort whatsoever into shooting, editing, uploading, or creating the metadata, so they don’t really care whether that $50 covers one download or a hundred downloads. It’s still $50 of income (minus the commission) to their bottom line. But to the average contributor, it is devastating because we only get a very small slice of that $50 if the customer is downloading multiple files. The way the subscription model works, the more clips a customer downloads, the less money any individual contributor will get for their slice of the pie. The bottom line is that when you have agencies that are offering customers unlimited 4K and HD downloads for as little as $50 per month, who do you think loses? The contributor."
Link to full interview:
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/06/28/interview-with-doug-jensen-stock-footage-expert-fresh-insight-after-2-years/
That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum. Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh.
That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum. Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh.
Yes. The dude is an arrogant know-it-all type, who was caught with his pants down on multiple occasions.
He was there to sell his "course" to those gulible enough to pay for something that is widely available for free.
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
He was making ridiculous claim of making $300/hr or something on stock videos, but he didn't calculate his expenses for equipments, travel and his labor hours shooting footages because "he enjoys shooting". Total BS. Many end up making less than minimum wage these days in reality.
That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum. Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh.
Yes. The dude is an arrogant know-it-all type, who was caught with his pants down on multiple occasions.
He was there to sell his "course" to those gulible enough to pay for something that is widely available for free.
People contribute to SS from all over the world, and in some low-wage countries, the revenue from SS is still enough to feed their families. So good luck convincing them to join your union.Wow! A statement I can image the Boardroom Boys making when justifying cutting commissions by 80%: "Sure, we've got contributors who used their commissions to feed their families. They bought rice, vegetables and maybe even took their families out for dinner once in a while when sales were good...but they can still buy them rice."
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun. ::)
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun. ::)
If that is true, then you are a very lucky person. I hate doing metadata, so that will always be a chore for me and I absolutely must be paid well for doing it. As shown above, I'm at $348 per hour right now, but I'd keep doing it for 1/3 that. If it gets down to less than $100 per hour that is the day I will stop submitting.
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun. ::)
If that is true, then you are a very lucky person. I hate doing metadata, so that will always be a chore for me and I absolutely must be paid well for doing it. As shown above, I'm at $348 per hour right now, but I'd keep doing it for 1/3 that. If it gets down to less than $100 per hour that is the day I will stop submitting.
I am not lucky! ♾️>348. Therefore I am better, despite my lack of talent!
Imagine that! ;D
Hey guys, your favorite arrogant jerk has arrived at the party!! How ya'll doing? It is nice to feel your love. Kisses to everyone.
I thought you might like an update on my continued success with stock footage.
As of July 3, 2023
Lifetime earnings at Shutterstock: $217,011
Lifetime earnings at Adobe: $23,938
Lifetime earnings at Pond5: $12,000 (approximate)
Lifetime earnings at Getty: $13,977
Total: $266,926
Number of clips in Shutterstock portofilo: 9187 (with far fewer clips at other agencies)
Average earning per clip (so far): $29.05
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
5 minutes = 12 clips per hour
12 x $29.05 = $348 per hour
So, I've already earned $348 per hour for my work, and those clips continue to earn money everyday. Not as much as they used to due to Shutterstock's changes a couple of years ago (completely out of my control), but I still have a nice steady income stream from work I already did a long time ago.
I have never hidden the fact that I do not factor in my time to shoot stock because I only shoot for fun. There is nothing in my portfolio that I didn't want to shoot or regretted shooting. It is all fun to me. No different than other people going fishing or golfing or hiking, etc. which they don't expect to be paid for. Only a moron can't understand that shooting for stock can be a legitimate leisure activity. Just because you hate it doesn't mean other people don't get pleasure from shooting.
I have also never hidden the fact that I do not factor in the cost of my camera equipment or computer hardware/software because I already own them because I actually work in the TV/video production industry. My gear is already bought and paid for from other sources and would be just sitting on the shelf gathering dust when I am not working on a paid gig.
So my income for the actual the work and drudgery of stock (creating the metadata) is $348. The numbers don't lie. They are just facts.
Now, if YOU think shooting stock is work or a chore or you hate doing it for whatever reason, then YOU should factor that into your own calculations. If YOU only use your camera gear for stock and never for any other purpose, then YOU should probably factor those costs into your own calculations. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT.
So, my friends, success is its own reward. Please continue with all the put-downs, insults, and name-calling you want. I'm laughing all the way to the bank while you're all just still whining about how the agencies are out to get you. Get over it. If you want to play the victim card, be my guest.
U R the GOAT!!
I think I have to buy his "How to make $$$ uploading videos to Shutterstock" tutorial video. I'm nowhere near making $350/hr. I've been doing this totally wrong way.
I think I have to buy his "How to make $$$ uploading videos to Shutterstock" tutorial video. I'm nowhere near making $350/hr. I've been doing this totally wrong way.
That might be true about doing it the wrong way. What is your process? I'd be happy to take a look at your best clips and give you some free feedback on the subject matter, editing, grading, and of course, the all important metadata. Post a link.
I think I have to buy his "How to make $$$ uploading videos to Shutterstock" tutorial video. I'm nowhere near making $350/hr. I've been doing this totally wrong way.
That might be true about doing it the wrong way. What is your process? I'd be happy to take a look at your best clips and give you some free feedback on the subject matter, editing, grading, and of course, the all important metadata. Post a link.
It's OK. I'm too embarrassed after seeing your $$$ figure. I totally suck at this. I should go back to delivering newspapers.
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun. ::)
If that is true, then you are a very lucky person. I hate doing metadata, so that will always be a chore for me and I absolutely must be paid well for doing it. As shown above, I'm at $348 per hour right now, but I'd keep doing it for 1/3 that. If it gets down to less than $100 per hour that is the day I will stop submitting.
I am not lucky! ♾️>348. Therefore I am better, despite my lack of talent!
Imagine that! ;D
Congratulations! I envy your willingness to do it all for free.
Please point me to some of your clips so I can judge your ability. This is gonna be great for both of us!! Makes me feel a little like Tom Sawyer.
PS. There is no chance that I would ever share my trade secret with you!
Not even if you pay me for a crash course! ;D
PS. There is no chance that I would ever share my trade secret with you!
Not even if you pay me for a crash course! ;D
That's a shame. I already had my wallet out.
Nice!
I too love my job as a designer, enjoy it every day and couldn't imagine doing anything else.
So you are also making ♾️/hour, according to the "Jensen logic"!
Lucky you!
;D
We have discussed this at length in the past.
From my point of view, this is misleading. There are millions of creatives who love their job and have fun doing it. And there are millions of creatives who are still barely able to make a living because they miscalculate. They sit too long on projects that pay poorly because they want to deliver an excellent result, even if the pay is only enough for an average design.
At least, that's how I see it with calculating the hourly rate. And stand by my statement that a calculation of 5 minutes per file is unrealistic from my point of view.
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
Of course it is childish to say you have infinite earnings. Do you have all the money in the world? I think not. Case settled.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
In case you don't realize, it's elementary logic called "reductio ad absurdum".
You asume the premise to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.
I am not avoiding anything.What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
In case you don't realize, it's elementary logic called "reductio ad absurdum".
You asume the premise to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.
You're just avoiding the question with childish statments like that. "It's wrong becuase I say it is wrong". Childish
I'll ask you again . . .
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Lay it on the table so we can be enlightened at to the correct way to do it that meets your standards. I am listening. Here is you chance to actually post something of substance rather than throwing stones.
I am not avoid anything.What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
In case you don't realize, it's elementary logic called "reductio ad absurdum".
You asume the premise to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.
You're just avoiding the question with childish statments like that. "It's wrong becuase I say it is wrong". Childish
I'll ask you again . . .
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Lay it on the table so we can be enlightened at to the correct way to do it that meets your standards. I am listening. Here is you chance to actually post something of substance rather than throwing stones.
Follow me:
Let's assume that your calculation leading to your claim of $348/hour is correct.
If that's true, then my earnings are ♾️/hour, as shown above.
But this is absurd. Therefore the original assumption, your calculation, is wrong.
And silly.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Wow, you are really a piece of work I've given you multiple opportunities to explain yourself but you won't do it. Childish. I will not waste time discussing it with you any further. If anyone else would care to enage in an adult conversation and compare methods I would be a happy to do so. I have no time for trolls.
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like. What should I do differently? What is wrong with it? Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.
In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.
The floor is yours.
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like. What should I do differently? What is wrong with it? Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.
In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.
The floor is yours.
The beauty of the reductio ad absurdum method is that you don't have to show WHY a hypothesis is wrong. You just prove it is.
Besides, I am not here to help you to understand how to better run your business.
I only did you a favor by showing that you made an error. You're welcome!
So accept that your calculation is wrong (and silly) and try to figure out WHY by yourself.
Good luck!
;)
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like. What should I do differently? What is wrong with it? Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.
In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.
The floor is yours.
The beauty of the reductio ad absurdum method is that you don't have to show WHY a hypothesis is wrong. You just prove it is.
Besides, I am not here to help you to understand how to better run your business.
I only did you a favor by showing that you made an error. You're welcome!
So accept that your calculation is wrong (and silly) and try to figure out WHY by yourself.
Good luck!
;)
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. ::)
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" ;)
.You are losing the discussion here Zero by a mile. C'mon get up and fight :)
No worries, the dot was just me noticing that I misspelled Ralf's name, and clicking the wrong button to fix it. :).You are losing the discussion here Zero by a mile. C'mon get up and fight :)
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. ::)
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" ;)
Thank you Zero for your reply.
However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.
As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.
I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.
Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing.
Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.
From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive.
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. ::)
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" ;)
Thank you Zero for your reply.
However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.
As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.
I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.
Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing.
Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.
From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive.
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.
I also do something else full time.
But if you understand the "Jensen logic", which wrongly claims that he is making $348/hour, because he only accounts for the time spent keywording, then you also must agree that those who have fun shooting (while doing something else full time, like us) AND also have fun keywording, must be making ♾️/hour.
Presenting his absolute numbers while leaving out his $348/hour silly falacy should be perfectly fine.
:)
Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.
But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly ;D
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. ::)
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" ;)
Thank you Zero for your reply.
However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.
As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.
I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.
Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing.
Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.
From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive.
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.
I also do something else full time.
But if you understand the "Jensen logic", which wrongly claims that he is making $348/hour, because he only accounts for the time spent keywording, then you also must agree that those who have fun shooting (while doing something else full time, like us) AND also have fun keywording, must be making ♾️/hour.
Presenting his absolute numbers while leaving out his $348/hour silly falacy should be perfectly fine.
:)
Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.
But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly ;D
Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.
But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly ;D
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
:)
The point is, the vast majority of stock video contributors agree that his calculation of $348/hr is BS because we the professionals always calculate business expenses into account. And the way he was acting like arrogant bully on Shutterstock forum, everybody remembers that not so favorably. I have many enemies who dislikes me on forums, but he does too it seems. And since he already made those "Get rich quick with stock video" tutorial videos, he had to advertise "$348/hr" when in reality probably majority of people who try doing stock videos end up making less than minimum wage especially since Shutterstock started the video subs in 2020.
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.
Perhaps you can get No Talent to present us with his "approved" formula for measuring the financial success/failure for someone's stock footage business. I have tried to get it out of him, but he just wants to call names and throw rocks. Not one thing he has posted is helpful to the conversation. See if you can get him to give us his approved formula and I'll plug my numbers into and see where things stand. Good luck, though, because we both know he has no such formula. He's a troll, hiding behind a fake (but appropirate name) with nothing to contribute except animosity towards others.
At least, that's how I see it with calculating the hourly rate. And stand by my statement that a calculation of 5 minutes per file is unrealistic from my point of view.
Yes, it might be unrealistic from your point of view because you do things differently than me. Obviously, you are welcome to do things anyway you want to, but that doesn't mean I can't do what I say I can do. I can't free-climb Half Dome in three hours or run a 100 meter dash under 10 seconds, but that doesn't mean other people can't do it.
Yes, I really can process 12 clip per hour (edit, grade, export, generate metadata, and upload) without batting an eye. Actually it is closer to three minutes, but I like to be conservative and say 5 minutes. How can I do it? Because I have a workflow and system in place that allows me to do it. And through my online master class and in-person workshops, I have taught hundreds of other people to use the exact same methods to speed up their workflow too. Here's a secret: The less time I spend creating my content, the more money I earn per hour of my time. It is that simple. If someone can cut their time to create content in half, they have instantly doubled their hourly income. It is as simple as that.
Some contributors are like a cobbler working in their little home workshop to create a perfect pair of shoes by hand. While other people, like myself have more of an assembly line approach where speed and efficiency are king. You might be building a house with a pocket full of nails and a hammer, while I'm using a high-powered nail gun to get the same job done faster. You might be an author banging away on a manual typewriter, while I'm cruising along with a word processor to get the same work done in a fraction of the time.
Why is it that people can't understand that workflow, and the tools we use, actually matter to the bottom line? And that someone else may have a better way of getting the job done.
May I ask what software you use to edit, grade, export, and upload?
May I ask how you generate and manage your vast library metadata, and how you use are able to use older metadate to automate the creation of metadata for new clips?
May I ask how you shoot your footage and what tools you use onboard your camera, and during ingest, that will make you more efficient in post?
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
:)
My calculated hourly wage is in any case significantly lower than yours. Considerably lower! Because the images didn‘t fall from the sky - I had to create them. This time of creating them was fun. But this time still is part of my calculation. And that is the main difference to your calculation.
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
:)
Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions.
Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot.
Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet.
Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway.
If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.
Sure thing.Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
:)
Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions.
Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot.
Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet.
Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway.
If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even if you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.
Well, it looks like the UFOs have finally arrived, transported us back in time and landed us back in the old Shutterstock forum. The never-ending argument, Doug's hourly rate calculation. ;D
Welcome to MSG, Doug.
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.
Any reasonable contributor would laugh at what Doug says...
- 5 minutes to colour-grade the quality video, provide metadata and upload/submit
- 348$ per hour earning rate
- not including travel and fuel costs in the calculation.
C'mon, guys, why are you splitting hairs and dealing with semantics when such BS is being shovelled right in front of you?
It defies logic and experience on such a spectacular level that even the discussion about it should seem preposterous.
He's trying again to sell courses - fine by me, but not at the expense of gaslighting contributors into believing such outlandish claims.
I came by, made the little baby cry, and now I'll leave before he wants me to change his dirty diaper.
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
Not really, I am not doing "nothing", I am spending TIME on this lucrative hobby. But time is not free. Time is money.
Time may be taken away from doing some even more lucrative business.
Or from learning a new skill than may pay back much more in the future.
Or simply, time is taken away from the family. I am sure that many of us know well how many times our partners were upset with the amount of time we spent on this passion.
Not accounting for ALL the time spent doing this work, while claiming that money is falling from the sky at a rate of $348/hour (only to impress people), because only the keywording time matters, is a fallacy.
Anyway, it will be also interesting to see a tax return from Mr. Jensen, to understand if he truly claimed zero expenses, for this business. I have my doubts here, but even so, what I said above remains a fact: time is money.
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour?
You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby?
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour?
You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby?
Obviously that's absurd. It is a logical tool used to prove that the Jensen hypothesis is flawed.
My point is that Time is never free. Time costs money even when you do something you enjoy.
Time is probably our most expensive resource, and it must be accounted for.
Think about this:
Would you swap your life with Warren Buffet - one of the richest and most respected people in the world?
Or with a person with only 100 USD in her/his pocket?
Buffet is 92. The poor person is 18.
Doesn't your example show the opposite of what you claim? Obviously, there is no equivalency between money and time.
Buffet cannot buy himself more time with his money (or only to a limited degree with better healthcare) and the 18 year old person cannot necessarily monetize the years they have ahead of them.
Not necessarily. If you work from 9 to 5, you have an hourly wage right (probably a monthly salary but still).
Doesn't your example show the opposite of what you claim? Obviously, there is no equivalency between money and time.
Buffet cannot buy himself more time with his money (or only to a limited degree with better healthcare) and the 18 year old person cannot necessarily monetize the years they have ahead of them.
No it doesn't. If you consider Time as being free, meaning no Time is factored in the equation, then you have something divided by zero, in other words the absurdity of ♾️.
Or $348 as per "Jensen's financials", when you only consider 5 minutes for keywording, without considering the Time for planning, shooting, processing, etc.
Obviously, when you factor all this missed Time, then the infamous $348/hour will fall down fast to realistic values.
Playing games, because you enjoy gaming, is not free. You could use that Time to shoot and process clips, for example.
So playing games for fun, is depriving you of that revenue, costing you the money you missed.
You should always treat Time as a valuable resource, which is never free. This why we have the expression "wasting Time".
Those who chose the 18 years old option are evaluating Time at more than $110 Billions (Buffet's worth) / 74 years difference/ 365 days per year / 24 hours per day = ~$170k/hour >> $0/hour
Not necessarily. If you work from 9 to 5, you have an hourly wage right (probably a monthly salary but still).
Then you have to commute to work. One takes ten minutes, the other two hours. This time is not factored in. Then you probably drink coffee in the morning, you take a shower (who wants to smell when getting at work?). You eat breakfast because you need some energy to do your work. You sleep during the night to be able to do your work the next day.
So it can be quite arbitrarily what you may count or not as being part of how much time it actually costs to make this hourly wage/monthly salary.
You count in this and that. Doug counts in this and that. You disagree but both of you are not wrong or right.
And in that sense Doug came out better asking you for your calculation with an open vision while you only ridiculed him and did not show how you would calculate stuff.
Btw, I didn't ridicule him. I simply proved him wrong.
(https://i.imgflip.com/7rlaze.jpg)The last time I saw Jeniffer she didn't look like the photo on the right, close, but not exactly. So that means that Doug is right because this statement is false :)
The last time I saw Jeniffer she didn't look like the photo on the right, close, but not exactly. So that means that Doug is right because this statement is false :)
Interviewer: Good to catch up with you again DJ so since SSs new payment tier system and the introduction of A.I. and free give aways, have you found that your bottom line has moved south at all.
DJ For sure but you know because I listen to my own advice ... via my online course ... I have managed to diversify to soften the blow. And my average income from stock is a modest $348.00 per hour.
Interviewer Only Fans right?
DJ *smirk ... feetfinder ... bunions and calves like canned corned beef next to a bar fire, who knew.
Interviewer Before you discovered your new audience what kept the money rolling in?
DJ Well it was being modest and quietly humble. I think having someone to look up to in the industry really was what saw my meteoric rise in popularity with the gullible iPhone owners of Bangladesh struggling through their formative years. And of course they saw a famous, rich, videographer who's talent bordered on prodigy and yeah, they thought collectively, they wanted some of that. Of course I was duty bound then to rise to the heights of the pedestal everyone I had ever met put me on. And I exceeded their expectations. Obviously. I taught them they needed three things to equal my success.
1. My course.
2. State of the art computer.
3. A Shutterstock profile.
That's it.
Interviewer What about a camera?
DJ I don't count that because I already had a camera.
Interviewer A camera set-up worth in excess of $60,000.00+ bucks.
DJ Whinging about equipment wastes my time. If you want to be a successful stock videographer then you'll buy professional equipment but not before you've bought my course.
Interviewer You've also got access to regular rocket launches and regularly film and TV location contracts.
DJ Right and the money I make from stock footage is just stuff I would film anyway even if I didnt have those press passes and contracts. I would just do it from much, much, further away.
Interviewer Well thanks DJ it has been my honour to catch up.
DJ If anyone does want to change their life and become a less worthless human for once and excell please find my course at alphamalesnapper.com/ronburgundy and remember ... you're only one snap away ... ☝️😉 ... from the top.
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
According to the earnings rating, Adobe is double SS.
He's trying again to sell courses - fine by me, but not at the expense of gaslighting contributors into believing such outlandish claims.
I just noticed that I have not had any OD sales since the middle of May. About 5% of my sales used to be OD's, but now there are none.Just checked my last 3 month - about 1 in 40 sales was OD, that rate is decreasing for me too.
Have others noticed the same trend?
see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
that's not the problem,see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
You've redacted the software you used from your screenshot, but if it's Midjourney, or other AI, then that's your problem.
but they are not replying, if had any problem with my content they would at least tell me as beforesee these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
that's not the problem,see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
You've redacted the software you used from your screenshot, but if it's Midjourney, or other AI, then that's your problem.
they have deactivated my account due to copyright issue, that I have uploaded on adobe
I have uploaded on both since last 3 years when AI generation was not much popular, I upload as illustration and it is very difficult to tell if it is AI generated as it looks like illustration and edited completely, this is not the same as the image generated by Midjourney etc, thats the reason why my images approved,that's not the problem,see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
You've redacted the software you used from your screenshot, but if it's Midjourney, or other AI, then that's your problem.
they have deactivated my account due to copyright issue, that I have uploaded on adobe
It was just a thought, as Adobe take AI content, but Shutterstock won't take it because of copyright issues. If it's AI, then the removal of your account for copright reasons make sense.
I have uploaded on both since last 3 years when AI generation was not much popular, I upload as illustration and it is very difficult to tell if it is AI generated as it looks like illustration and edited completely, this is not the same as the image generated by Midjourney etc, thats the reason why my images approved,that's not the problem,see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
You've redacted the software you used from your screenshot, but if it's Midjourney, or other AI, then that's your problem.
they have deactivated my account due to copyright issue, that I have uploaded on adobe
It was just a thought, as Adobe take AI content, but Shutterstock won't take it because of copyright issues. If it's AI, then the removal of your account for copright reasons make sense.
even I never used ai geneted term in title on adobe, shutter, because it not completely ai generated
But they take ai images that are generated by their own ai generator. Look through the collection, there is a lot of ai content that is labelled as ai generated.
I guess the difference is it was done on their own engine which is trained on legally licensed content.
But they take ai images that are generated by their own ai generator. Look through the collection, there is a lot of ai content that is labelled as ai generated.
I guess the difference is it was done on their own engine which is trained on legally licensed content....
that's not the problem,see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
You've redacted the software you used from your screenshot, but if it's Midjourney, or other AI, then that's your problem.
they have deactivated my account due to copyright issue, that I have uploaded on adobe
there is nothing can i do now for it ?that's not the problem,see these two screenshots ⬇️
No reply even after many emails and 19 days ?? my account has not been activated even after proofs ?
i emailed them multiple times and with different E-mail address also. now they are not responding.
I think my account was deleted by Shutterstock on the first day without any valid reason. They are not responding, and it seems they cannot recover it. Do you consider this to be Shutterstock's fraud? What do you think?
what should i do now ?
Wait?
You've redacted the software you used from your screenshot, but if it's Midjourney, or other AI, then that's your problem.
they have deactivated my account due to copyright issue, that I have uploaded on adobe
I saw that and it sure looks unusual that they would close your account for uploading your own images. I would think that instead of telling you it was copyright infringement and as others have suggested, AI, then they should tell you that, not some vague claim against you personally.
Good Luck.
I am happy to report I have now crossed the quarter million dollar earnings threshold at Shutterstock.
That's an average of $27.06 per download.
That's an average of $23.80 per video in my portfolio.
The earnings just keep rolling in.
I am happy to report I have now crossed the quarter million dollar earnings threshold at Shutterstock.
That's an average of $27.06 per download.
That's an average of $23.80 per video in my portfolio.
The earnings just keep rolling in.
Do what? I have sales every day.
Okay, I understand now. No, I doubt I will hit $250K lifetime earnings this year at Shutterstock. But in 2025 for sure. Shutterstock is slipping lately so probably won't make another $23K in 2024. Fortunately, Adobe is rising to take up the slack.
Yes Adobe is doing really well. Is Adobe earnings surpassing Shutterstock earnings on a monthly basis for you now?
like many,I know you from the days of the SS forum,excellent work,congratulations! :)
I don't think anyone who starts producing videos and uploading them to SS today,will ever be able to achieve these results.
I seem to remember that until a few years ago you used to make over $30k in a year.
luckily there is Adobe,otherwise microstock would have no future!
like many,I know you from the days of the SS forum,excellent work,congratulations! :)
I don't think anyone who starts producing videos and uploading them to SS today,will ever be able to achieve these results.
I seem to remember that until a few years ago you used to make over $30k in a year.
luckily there is Adobe,otherwise microstock would have no future!
No, I'm not making $30K per year at Shutterstock, but the earnings keep rolling in month after month with virtually no effort on my part. And quite a few newer clips that I've uploaded are making good money now. I have had a pretty busy last couple of years with regular work and have not had the time to upload very many new clips. I'm still out shooting regularly because I enjoy it, but doing the metadata is another story. I've got a backlog of about 5000 4K clips that are all edited and graded. Will I ever find time to do the metadata and get them earning some money for me? I don't know. Too busy with other work to even think about it right now. Metadata is the bane of my existence. It takes time to do it well, and if you don't take that time, then why upload at all? Without good metadata it is just a waste of time.
like many,I know you from the days of the SS forum,excellent work,congratulations! :)
I don't think anyone who starts producing videos and uploading them to SS today,will ever be able to achieve these results.
I seem to remember that until a few years ago you used to make over $30k in a year.
luckily there is Adobe,otherwise microstock would have no future!
No, I'm not making $30K per year at Shutterstock, but the earnings keep rolling in month after month with virtually no effort on my part. And quite a few newer clips that I've uploaded are making good money now. I have had a pretty busy last couple of years with regular work and have not had the time to upload very many new clips. I'm still out shooting regularly because I enjoy it, but doing the metadata is another story. I've got a backlog of about 5000 4K clips that are all edited and graded. Will I ever find time to do the metadata and get them earning some money for me? I don't know. Too busy with other work to even think about it right now. Metadata is the bane of my existence. It takes time to do it well, and if you don't take that time, then why upload at all? Without good metadata it is just a waste of time.
like many,I know you from the days of the SS forum,excellent work,congratulations! :)
I don't think anyone who starts producing videos and uploading them to SS today,will ever be able to achieve these results.
I seem to remember that until a few years ago you used to make over $30k in a year.
luckily there is Adobe,otherwise microstock would have no future!
No, I'm not making $30K per year at Shutterstock, but the earnings keep rolling in month after month with virtually no effort on my part. And quite a few newer clips that I've uploaded are making good money now. I have had a pretty busy last couple of years with regular work and have not had the time to upload very many new clips. I'm still out shooting regularly because I enjoy it, but doing the metadata is another story. I've got a backlog of about 5000 4K clips that are all edited and graded. Will I ever find time to do the metadata and get them earning some money for me? I don't know. Too busy with other work to even think about it right now. Metadata is the bane of my existence. It takes time to do it well, and if you don't take that time, then why upload at all? Without good metadata it is just a waste of time.
ok,I thought I remembered a post on the old shutterstock forum,where you showed that for the first time you had reached $30K in a year,but if you say no then I remember wrong,maybe it was someone else.
however you have achieved incredible results,but well deserved,the work you did was extraordinary.
Yes i agree,metadata is as important as the content itself,perhaps even more important in some cases.
so in proportion you are earning more on Adobe,given that on SS you have 3 times more videos,interesting,this shows that even with videos Adobe has now surpassed even Shutterstock.
If I'm not mistaken, I think Doug's response above refers to more recent and current yearly earnings where he no longer makes 30k a year on Shutterstock like he use to.
Are you using any app for your metadata, if you don’t mind me asking.
It (briefly) felt like the old days!
Are you using any app for your metadata, if you don’t mind me asking.
No, I am not aware of any app that will ease the burden of metadata. It is something you have to do manually if you want good results. Like I said before, without great metadata you're just wasting your time, no matter how good your clips are.
I do, however, have a custom Apple Numbers spreadsheet that stores all my metadata and significantly makes the submission process faster and easier. It uses auto-fill from similar clips, counts the characters in my description and alerts me if I go over the limit; shows the number of keywords and alerts me if I have too many or not enough; segregates editorial clips; etc. It helps, but still hate doing metadata.
I can average 12 clips per hour doing the ingest, editing, color grading, export, and all metadata. 5 minutes per clip.
Thanks, I thoughts you use Ai tags or description using apps like Xpiks or other similar apps.
Thanks, I thoughts you use Ai tags or description using apps like Xpiks or other similar apps.
AI is crap for stock. In my experience, it can't tell the difference between a smokestack and a rocket; between a goldfish and a salamnder; between an airplane and a cross. I could go on an on, but anyone who relies on AI is leaving money on the table. If buyers cannot find your images, then they cannot buy them. Simple as that.
BTW, we don't get paid for images or clips because that is the fun stuff most people would shoot for free. We get paid for the boring drudgery work of creating metadata. More than anything else, that's what separates the the successful from unsuccessful.
If anyone honestly thinks AI can replace a human for creating effective metadata, I will challenge that person to show me some examples.
I am happy to report I have now crossed the quarter million dollar earnings threshold at Shutterstock.
That's an average of $27.06 per download.
That's an average of $23.80 per video in my portfolio.
The earnings just keep rolling in.
How many images you have in your Port?
I am happy to report I have now crossed the quarter million dollar earnings threshold at Shutterstock.
That's an average of $27.06 per download.
That's an average of $23.80 per video in my portfolio.
The earnings just keep rolling in.
How many images you have in your Port?
hard to accept their questionable claim as a newbie without a portfolio, so w/o a link doesn't matter what numbers they post
and besides, i've made $666,000 so far with my NFT w more sales very day
and remember this is the same guy who last year they were making $348/hr!
and besides, i've made $666,000 so far with my NFT w more sales every day
Thanks for heads up, I have started stock last year, and I am using Ai description and Keywords, there aren't big money in stock, so don't want to sink too much time. Any advice for a newbie like me?
Thanks for heads up, I have started stock last year, and I am using Ai description and Keywords, there aren't big money in stock, so don't want to sink too much time. Any advice for a newbie like me?
Actually, there is good money in stock. Maybe not as much as a few years ago, but still plenty profitable for the amount of time I invest into it. The best advice I can give you is to do your own metadata. You have to put in the work if you want the rewards. There are no shortcuts.
Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help. I've seen your portfolio, and I think even If I would have good metadata, I won't be make big money, your videos are way superior than mine.
I had quite a few 3-digit sales last year but none so far this year. Image below is the biggest single sale I had in September last year and in fact biggest single sale I've ever had on a video.
I had quite a few 3-digit sales last year but none so far this year. Image below is the biggest single sale I had in September last year and in fact biggest single sale I've ever had on a video.
Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help. I've seen your portfolio, and I think even If I would have good metadata, I won't be make big money, your videos are way superior than mine.
And other people's videos are way superior to mine. It makes no difference. :-)
You cannot predict what customers are looking for. If you have subject matter that is in demand; if you shoot, edit, and grade it competently; and if you have excellent metadata, you will succeed. That is the recipe for success.
ut I have very small port of 800 clips. Obviously I won’t compete with people that has 10k+, and being longer on the market.
ut I have very small port of 800 clips. Obviously I won’t compete with people that has 10k+, and being longer on the market.
The size of another contributor's account does not give them an advantage. Every clip has to stand on its own merits. In other words, if I have 10,000 clips and you have 800, but we both have two clips that are very similar, mine does not have an advantage just because my portfolio is bigger than yours. There is no reason not to submit good content that meets the needs of buyers.
But if yours is already longer on the market, and sold quite a few times (due to lower competition at that time) then the newer one will generally end up lower in the rankings, get less views, and yours will have the advantage. Right? (Of course, all depending on competition and saturation, as the algorithm mixes new content with established content. Niche markets are easier to break into than highly saturated area's of the market)
But if yours is already longer on the market, and sold quite a few times (due to lower competition at that time) then the newer one will generally end up lower in the rankings, get less views, and yours will have the advantage. Right? (Of course, all depending on competition and saturation, as the algorithm mixes new content with established content. Niche markets are easier to break into than highly saturated area's of the market)
But now you are talking about something entirely different. Yes, an older clip that has been successful and sold multiple times does have an advantage. But that has nothing to do with the overall size of the contributor's portfolio or how long the contributor has been a contributor. That is the myth I was trying to dispel. Please read my earlier post again, and I hope you can understand the difference.
But to address the point you are making, don't assume that the best-selling clip last year of a toddler eating spaghetti is going to continue to dominate year after year. The algorithms are constantly trying to promote newer clips to keep the content fresh on the site. In my own case, many of my clips that used to sell almost every day hardly ever sell at all anymore. Why is that? Well, it is because other similar clips have probably pushed them off their pedestal. That's what competition does. And it has nothing to do with the size of the contributor's portfolio. My point is that it is never to late to get your feet wet. If you sit on the sidelines and say "it's too late", then you are guaranteed of 100% failure.
I've got a backlog of about 5000 4K clips that are all edited and graded. Will I ever find time to do the metadata and get them earning some money for me? I don't know. Too busy with other work to even think about it right now. Metadata is the bane of my existence. It takes time to do it well, and if you don't take that time, then why upload at all? Without good metadata it is just a waste of time.
ut I have very small port of 800 clips. Obviously I won’t compete with people that has 10k+, and being longer on the market.
The size of another contributor's account does not give them an advantage. Every clip has to stand on its own merits. In other words, if I have 10,000 clips and you have 800, but we both have two clips that are very similar, mine does not have an advantage just because my portfolio is bigger than yours. There is no reason not to submit good content that meets the needs of buyers.
Here you go, Wirestock, my link. Upload and let them do the work, the data and distribution to all the agencies. You just keep working on what keeps you busy and WS makes you more money. 5000 files should make you far more, on all the agencies, than it does sitting on your hard drive?
I have a similar view. The size of a portfolio is of course an important factor from a purely mathematical point of view.
Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel.
Of course, I don't know how the algorithms work. So I can only make assumptions. But I am firmly convinced that an extreme expansion of the portfolio with the pure goal of mass can even be very harmful for the findability of the images. I believe that a small portfolio with well-ranked images can be damaged if countless poor-quality images are added to it. But once again: I can't prove that.
Here you go, Wirestock, my link. Upload and let them do the work, the data and distribution to all the agencies. You just keep working on what keeps you busy and WS makes you more money. 5000 files should make you far more, on all the agencies, than it does sitting on your hard drive?
It looks like you are giving up 50% of your commissions. Is that correct? If so, what do you get for giving up half your income in perpetuity?
Fifty (50%) percent of the month’s total revenue generated and actually paid to Wirestock for subscriptions to the Wirestock Marketplace (“Marketplace Subscription Revenue”) will be paid to contributors of Marketplace Content (the “Total Contributor Share”). You agree and understand that Wirestock will keep the remaining fifty (50%) percent of each month’s Marketplace Subscription Revenue. You agree and understand that the monthly amount you earn and the method by which Wirestock determines your earnings each month from the month’s Total Contributor Share will be determined by Wirestock, in its sole discretion, and Wirestock may change how it calculates your compensation from month to month, without advance notice to you. You agree and understand that the specific method by which Wirestock determines, in its sole discretion, how to compensate you from the month’s Total Contributor Share will be published in Wirestock’s FAQs, found here, and the FAQ related to Marketplace compensation is hereby incorporated by reference into these terms.
Who does the metadata, you or them?
Who here knows that this great image they just made is going to be a success, and has never been wrong? Or who here, has uploaded something, not so special, that probably wasn't going to work out, but it took off and unexpectedly sold. Raise Your Hand? ;D
You quoted Marketplace which has nothing at all to do with the distribution. You took something irrelevant and out of context.
You quoted Marketplace which has nothing at all to do with the distribution. You took something irrelevant and out of context.
That's why I asked. They have a terrible website so, don't blame me for not understanding. Where do they talk about metadata?
As for giving up 15%. Nope. Not gonna do it unless they can show me how good they are at metadata. That is the key to success. Adobe offered to do metadate for me a few years ago and it was a joke. I'd have to see some examples before committing.
I have a similar view. The size of a portfolio is of course an important factor from a purely mathematical point of view.
Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel.
Of course, I don't know how the algorithms work. So I can only make assumptions. But I am firmly convinced that an extreme expansion of the portfolio with the pure goal of mass can even be very harmful for the findability of the images. I believe that a small portfolio with well-ranked images can be damaged if countless poor-quality images are added to it. But once again: I can't prove that.
With a similar point, people who say images need to age, to make better sales, are neglecting the math and fact, that you only know what sells, after the fact. So of course, after years, you will see what has sold more, than in weeks or months. The time is the difference, not because images will sell better, but because they HAVE sold better.
If we only know whether more images, made more sales, because there are more, or because the popularity of some images, which is hard to predict, is only because the cream rises to the top. I mean in this way. 100 great images and that's it, or 100 great images and 900 maybe, good enough images. If we know what a "great Image" is, then the only advantage would be, from the 900 others, we might have misjudged some, and they will make more total sales, than the just 100 images. :)
Who here knows that this great image they just made is going to be a success, and has never been wrong? Or who here, has uploaded something, not so special, that probably wasn't going to work out, but it took off and unexpectedly sold. Raise Your Hand? ;D
Back to the great 100 theory. The other 900 may not be significant, but there could be a sleeper in there, and there could be a dud or two in the best 100.
That's the only reason I'd say more is better. Pure math. Otherwise, "Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel."
Just a quick and easy way to profit, from your backlog.
Pete, I'm looking at Alexandre Rotenberg's figures.
He has 3,000 files online at Wirestock. In March that earned him $7, in February $10, in January $4. In December and November 2023 it was $5 each.
Of course, I can't automatically transfer from Alexandre to other contributors. But his numbers suggest to me that Wirestock is not a good model.
But if yours is already longer on the market, and sold quite a few times (due to lower competition at that time) then the newer one will generally end up lower in the rankings, get less views, and yours will have the advantage. Right? (Of course, all depending on competition and saturation, as the algorithm mixes new content with established content. Niche markets are easier to break into than highly saturated area's of the market)
But now you are talking about something entirely different. Yes, an older clip that has been successful and sold multiple times does have an advantage. But that has nothing to do with the overall size of the contributor's portfolio or how long the contributor has been a contributor. That is the myth I was trying to dispel. Please read my earlier post again, and I hope you can understand the difference.
But to address the point you are making, don't assume that the best-selling clip last year of a toddler eating spaghetti is going to continue to dominate year after year. The algorithms are constantly trying to promote newer clips to keep the content fresh on the site. In my own case, many of my clips that used to sell almost every day hardly ever sell at all anymore. Why is that? Well, it is because other similar clips have probably pushed them off their pedestal. That's what competition does. And it has nothing to do with the size of the contributor's portfolio. My point is that it is never to late to get your feet wet. If you sit on the sidelines and say "it's too late", then you are guaranteed of 100% failure.
Just a quick and easy way to profit, from your backlog.
But I won't profit at all if the metadata is crap. 85% of nothing is the same as 100% of nothing. Beleive me, I could do some half-assed metadata myself and FTP the clips myself and not give up any percentage. But why waste my time?
If someone could demonstrate to me they could do excellent metadata I'd gladly give up 25%. But they can't. It takes effort to describe the content correctly and choose the right keywords and exclude unhelpful keywords -- but they won't make the investment in time and attention. Metadata is king!! Most people totally underestimate it's importance. 9 times out of 10 people have asked me to look at their portfolio because they aren't getting sales, it turns out their metadata is crap.
But if yours is already longer on the market, and sold quite a few times (due to lower competition at that time) then the newer one will generally end up lower in the rankings, get less views, and yours will have the advantage. Right? (Of course, all depending on competition and saturation, as the algorithm mixes new content with established content. Niche markets are easier to break into than highly saturated area's of the market)
But now you are talking about something entirely different. Yes, an older clip that has been successful and sold multiple times does have an advantage. But that has nothing to do with the overall size of the contributor's portfolio or how long the contributor has been a contributor. That is the myth I was trying to dispel. Please read my earlier post again, and I hope you can understand the difference.
But to address the point you are making, don't assume that the best-selling clip last year of a toddler eating spaghetti is going to continue to dominate year after year. The algorithms are constantly trying to promote newer clips to keep the content fresh on the site. In my own case, many of my clips that used to sell almost every day hardly ever sell at all anymore. Why is that? Well, it is because other similar clips have probably pushed them off their pedestal. That's what competition does. And it has nothing to do with the size of the contributor's portfolio. My point is that it is never to late to get your feet wet. If you sit on the sidelines and say "it's too late", then you are guaranteed of 100% failure.
I must have been misunderstood or not have made myself fully clear. I'm with you regarding the size of a portfolio not influencing individual asset ranking. I don't believe that purely the number of assets you have influences the individual ranking of those assets. I mentioned the advantage an older asset can have because @Faustvasea also mentioned competing against well established assets, and up to a certain point he's right about that. And yes, new assets are mixed up in the search results of a customer, so if the new one matches the quality and content the customer is looking for, it will get sold and will keep on getting views to generate more sales. Until it is outcompeted again. Of course, competition is still increasing, and I have the feeling (no hard claim) that libraries are growing faster than customer demand which means it gets more difficult to break into certain niches. So I understand why some contributors start making weird assumptions about rankings.
I think we're on the same page, but nobody really knows how the algorithms work. The only agency I know of giving some transparency about their algorithm was Indivstock, and they are very small and irrelevant. Yet they have a rather complex algorithm in place with a lot of bonus or punishment factors for content ranking. Portfolio size was not of any influence, but popularity in general was. (data from 2022)
+ 3.00% Artist bonus in general as well as keywords and titles of images predominantly without "spam" keywording, also title.
+ 2.00% Artist bonus in general as well as portfolio mostly popular.
+ 2.00% Artist bonus in general as well as portfolio mostly "outstanding".
I am certain sure that the new contributors have less chance to make same amount of money as the old contributors.
I would be very careful with Wirestock.
I would be very careful with Wirestock.
I wouldn't get into bed with them or any of the other similar services, which I will not name.
Just look at their website and notice the lack of information they provide to potential contributors. Their "service" is clearly aimed at a certain demographic who doesn't really want to do the hard work of running a stock footage business or be bothered with the details. If someone has the attitude, "hey, why not send them some stuff and if it makes a couple of bucks, that's a couple of bucks I wouldn't have had otherwise." Fine. But that is a lazy way to try to make money from the content you have created.
And then, when their earnings amount to practically nothing, they will announce "See, there's no money in stock anymore. I missed the boat". But they never actually did the work or put in the effort that is required to become a successful contributor. They took the easy way and it didn't pay off. What a surprise!
I would be very careful with Wirestock.
Check out their challenges page and custom projects, can earn $4 per image accepted. It's both fun and profitable.
Just a quick and easy way to profit, from your backlog.
But I won't profit at all if the metadata is crap. 85% of nothing is the same as 100% of nothing. Beleive me, I could do some half-assed metadata myself and FTP the clips myself and not give up any percentage. But why waste my time?
If someone could demonstrate to me they could do excellent metadata I'd gladly give up 25%. But they can't. It takes effort to describe the content correctly and choose the right keywords and exclude unhelpful keywords -- but they won't make the investment in time and attention. Metadata is king!! Most people totally underestimate it's importance. 9 times out of 10 people have asked me to look at their portfolio because they aren't getting sales, it turns out their metadata is crap.
I would be very careful with Wirestock. You also will need to take a monthly subscription in order to get your content distributed to agencies. $14.99 for 200 submissions per month. On top of the 15% commission they take.
I tested them when it was still free, except for the 15% commission, and the keywording done by them was below par. That said, content uploaded through Wirestock gets sold on the agencies.
I got increasingly more dissatisfied with them, as they just do what they like with your content without giving much transparency or control over it. They onboard new agencies as they like, and some of them are agencies you might not want to be affiliated with (bottom of the barrel stuff). Back then, their site was also full of bugs which took forever to fix. In the end, the monthly subscription killed it for me, and now I just take the money from what I uploaded back then.
I would only use them for content you don't really care about, and never plan to upload. So if you have a few thousands of useful clips that are sitting there and you don't plan to upload it you might give it a try. In that case, I would contact them directly, and try to work out a deal. 200 assets/month upload limit is ridiculous and will take you forever.
The only sure thing in this is, if someone does nothing, uploads nothing, I can promise them a sure thing. They will earn nothing.
I can say that, WS does make special deals, outside of the published.
Hmmm, I guess Uncle Pete is ghosting me or he has no answer to a simple question. Either way, I think that confirms exactly what I thought about Wirestock.
here's what WS says
https://wirestock.io/about-us what we do
here's what WS says
https://wirestock.io/about-us what we do
Thanks for the link. I must say I am overwhelmed my the amount of detail they provide:
"Here at Wirestock, we eliminate all the manual steps such as keywording and captioning".
That's it. Not a single scrap of information beyond that one sentence. And if that doesn't convince me that they know what they are doing, nothing will. :-\
Hmmm, I guess Uncle Pete is ghosting me or he has no answer to a simple question. Either way, I think that confirms exactly what I thought about Wirestock.
Pete is busy promoting his crapstock portfolio...
here's what WS says
https://wirestock.io/about-us what we do
Hmmm, I guess Uncle Pete is ghosting me or he has no answer to a simple question. Either way, I think that confirms exactly what I thought about Wirestock.
note, though, you can't have them submit to any agency you've already submitted those images to
note, though, you can't have them submit to any agency you've already submitted those images to
And you don't always have control over that. If they onboard a new agency and it's one that you are already submitting to via a personal account, you might end up in a situation where they submit images that are already there... and get accepted. Easy to miss such notification from them because their mails tend to end up in a spam folder or you just might be on holiday and miss it. I have that with Getty (via iStock on my personal account, and via Wirestock). And they sell via both channels. I haven't seen any consequences of that, but I guess theoretically it can happen that one of the accounts get suspended.
Anyhow, that's a situation you have with any distributor. Same with EyeEm in the past.
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
Identical experience for me too.
Nearly every sale now is a Single Other for 10 cents. Adobe will never offer exclusive, but if they did, I'm with you.My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
Identical experience for me too.
This. In the 20 years I've been doing this, I've never even considered an exclusive agreement, but if Adobe offered one, I'd drop the rest of them, inlcuding SS. They used to be 50% of my total revenue, now they are 10-20% while adobe is 60-80%.
So far this month, I've had almost exactly the same number of downloads at Shutterstock as at Adobe.
The average sale at Adobe has been $11.60
The average sale at Shutterstock has been $16.47
That's about 40% more income for the same number of sales. Shutterstock isn't what it used to be, but it is still king.
Just curious, are you in the USA?
Just curious, are you in the USA?
Yes, why do you ask?
Only because in other previous posts (by other stills photogs), there seemed to be a trend where US based Shutterstock contributors seemed to be complaining about dropping SS sales and contributors outside the US seemed to be happier with their SS results.
Only because in other previous posts (by other stills photogs), there seemed to be a trend where US based Shutterstock contributors seemed to be complaining about dropping SS sales and contributors outside the US seemed to be happier with their SS results.
Just to be clear, I only sell video. Stills is a waste of time.
Nevertheless, I am also experiencing fewer sales and lower revenue at Shutterstock. On the other hand, Adobe is slowly rising, but still not as good as Shutterstock by total dollar volume or per-clip revenue.
this month shutterstock slows down. anyone experience that ?
this month shutterstock slows down. anyone experience that ?
I'm on track for the BME on SS, SS is performing very well for me overall, AS it's lower than usual this month.
this month so far on Adobe I have earned 650% more than on SS,but I haven't uploaded to SS since September 2023.
this month so far on Adobe I have earned 650% more than on SS,but I haven't uploaded to SS since September 2023.
The Shutterstock is an embarrassment continues. I've earned 2.6 times in just 5 hours on Adobe Stock than I have in 10 days on Shutterstock.
For me SS is by far the best agency and the number of sales are constant.
For me SS is by far the best agency and the number of sales are constant.
For me SS is by far the best agency and the number of sales are constant.
Download numbers are quite good there but I see you have 10x more photos than mine and few less videos. How's the revenue-per-download going? That's where I've seen the biggest hit to earnings.
To give an indication of how far my Shutterstock port has fallen in terms of sales...
Last year in May, my Adobe revenue was half of SS. Downloads were about a quarter of the downloads I had on SS.
This year, Adobe revenue is double that of SS. Downloads are almost equal and slightly higher on SS (SS downloads are down 50 percent from last year though). The revenue is double because my Adobe RPD is about 1$ while on SS it's 25 cents. This despite the fact that I have the same images on both ports. In fact, my SS port is bigger because of editorials.
To give an indication of how far my Shutterstock port has fallen in terms of sales...
Last year in May, my Adobe revenue was half of SS. Downloads were about a quarter of the downloads I had on SS.
This year, Adobe revenue is double that of SS. Downloads are almost equal and slightly higher on SS (SS downloads are down 50 percent from last year though). The revenue is double because my Adobe RPD is about 1$ while on SS it's 25 cents. This despite the fact that I have the same images on both ports. In fact, my SS port is bigger because of editorials.
But overall revenue (AS + SS) how is it compared with the last May?
Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?
Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?
Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?
Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?
Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?
Not since June 6th, but somewhere earlier this year. Sudden drop in sales volume of let's say 50% and never recovered, despite regular uploading.
A lot of people are complaining about significant lower sales volume, so it seems to be a more general thing. On the other hand, some folks also report to see very little impact and they keep their volumes on par or even see a rise.
Strange. I know sales volumes can highly depend on quality and type of content, and comparing between contributors is very difficult, but those sudden drops are weird.
I only sell photos on Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. I have 2x more photos on Shutterstock because they accept editorials. But my revenue is 1/3 of Adobe Stock. Shutterstock definitely isn’t for creators. They are for their stockholders. Squeeze squeeze squeeze!!I would ditch SS if i could but they take editorial.Adobe is better for creators & Alamy is for editorial but sales there are very poor for me.
If this were a flower shop or restaurant, etc with similar numbers it would have been forced to close long ago.
If this were a flower shop or restaurant, etc with similar numbers it would have been forced to close long ago.
If this was a flower shop and they promised to pay you $10 an hour, then every year, dropped your wages, so 2019 $10, 2020 $9, 2021 $8... 2024 $5, but the employee keeps coming to work (as in, keeps uploading to SS) then why would the business care? They get the job done, the business profits, they pay less and less, and the workers may complain, but they keep coming to work. :o
I tend to think that a couple hundred images and videos ago, SS decided, they didn't really need new content, just pay pennies for the old. And if people leave, what does SS care, they have hundreds of millions of images already.
But there will come a point when it's absolutely not viable anymore. Perhaps if I'm earning just $50 from 15,000 images and 4,000 clips at Shutterstock on any given month it's really time to never upload again. I wouldn't close the account because at that point it's 100% passive.
For me SS is going better and better, last month was the BME for income and downloads.
Over 4 digits income this month and still one week left to go.
For me SS is going better and better, last month was the BME for income and downloads.
Over 4 digits income this month and still one week left to go.
I tend to think that a couple hundred images and videos ago, SS decided, they didn't really need new content, just pay pennies for the old. And if people leave, what does SS care, they have hundreds of millions of images already.
I tend to think that a couple hundred images and videos ago, SS decided, they didn't really need new content, just pay pennies for the old. And if people leave, what does SS care, they have hundreds of millions of images already.
Id agree but also add SS seems to be transitioning itself to a big-data company not a media stock agency. Its got the vast database of images, videos complete with descriptions and keywords. They see the money in offering subsections of that as datasets for AI training and production.
They dont really NEED any more content so will be happy to slow or stop it at some point once the transition is complete.
A nice surprise this morning at Shutterstock. My highest image sale ever.
It's an editorial photo from the 50s with 2 American celebrities.
A nice surprise this morning at Shutterstock. My highest image sale ever.
It's an editorial photo from the 50s with 2 American celebrities.
A nice surprise this morning at Shutterstock. My highest image sale ever.
It's an editorial photo from the 50s with 2 American celebrities.
June 2024 was my worst month on SS since August 2009, a few months after I started. Of course I stopped submitting there when they changed the system in 2020 so that doesn't help. Every time I think I should just go ahead and submit my already processed and key worded images to them it just isn't worth the bother for 10 cents a pop.You and I share similar experiences and game plan. I'll keep my hard earned images with the SS and collect my pennies but they're not going to get another submission until they return to the original minimum compensation of $0.35 I "enjoyed" in 2009 when I first started submitting to them. If everyone adopts the same strategy it'll force their hand. The SS and other agencies will have to listen to all of those who have worked so hard building their portfolios.
Same with me.June was my worst month on Shutterstock.
Anyone get paid from Shutterstock yet?
I see that the issue is widespread. I haven't had it this bad since June and now July for the past 9 years, even though I've been uploading to Shutterstock since 2014. Back then, my portfolio was a fraction of what it is now, and uploading new content didn't feel like throwing it straight into the trash. I've also noticed that very few subscriptions are selling; only on-demand images are moving.
I see that the issue is widespread. I haven't had it this bad since June and now July for the past 9 years, even though I've been uploading to Shutterstock since 2014. Back then, my portfolio was a fraction of what it is now, and uploading new content didn't feel like throwing it straight into the trash. I've also noticed that very few subscriptions are selling; only on-demand images are moving.
Maybe buyers are shifting over to Adobe Stock, as sales there keep increasing?
Same with me.June was my worst month on Shutterstock.
Anyone get paid from Shutterstock yet?
June 2024 was my worst month on SS since August 2009, a few months after I started. Of course I stopped submitting there when they changed the system in 2020 so that doesn't help. Every time I think I should just go ahead and submit my already processed and key worded images to them it just isn't worth the bother for 10 cents a pop.
June 2024 was my worst month on SS since August 2009, a few months after I started. Of course I stopped submitting there when they changed the system in 2020 so that doesn't help. Every time I think I should just go ahead and submit my already processed and key worded images to them it just isn't worth the bother for 10 cents a pop.You and I share similar experiences and game plan. I'll keep my hard earned images with the SS and collect my pennies but they're not going to get another submission until they return to the original minimum compensation of $0.35 I "enjoyed" in 2009 when I first started submitting to them. If everyone adopts the same strategy it'll force their hand. The SS and other agencies will have to listen to all of those who have worked so hard building their portfolios.
July 2022: $543.15
July 2023: $683.47
as of 8 July 2024: $2.70
These last four days is what Shutterstock should look like... and reflects the sales activity as it was last year until December when there was a drop that never really recovered for the first half of 2024.You sound like a troll working for the SS. What part of monthly earnings with the SS are a fraction of what they were more than a decade ago for contributors? Are you
Anyone else seeing a lift in higher paying sales?
These last four days is what Shutterstock should look like... and reflects the sales activity as it was last year until December when there was a drop that never really recovered for the first half of 2024.You sound like a troll working for the SS. What part of monthly earnings with the SS are a fraction of what they were more than a decade ago for contributors? Are you
Anyone else seeing a lift in higher paying sales?
contributing to the SS hoping that the majority of your sales with the SS will drop from $0.35us to $0.10us and then perhaps to $0.05us but you can still look forward to an occasional lift in higher paying sales?
Comparison between Shutterstock and Adobe Stock after 15 days of July 2023 & July 2024:
July 2023:
Shutterstock : $426.10
Adobe Stock : $263.23
July 2024
Shutterstock : $97.31
Adobe Stock : $283.03
On track for the worst month in 11 years.
July 2023 $510
July 2024 $64
On track for the worst month in 11 years.
July 2023 $510
July 2024 $64
Best month on SS since im doing stock, both revenue and downloads, keep up the good work SS.
On track for the worst month in 11 years.
July 2023 $510
July 2024 $64
This might explain why we saw a huge drop in sales. The King is back
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/peopleimages-yuri+a (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/peopleimages-yuri+a)
Best month on SS since im doing stock, both revenue and downloads, keep up the good work SS.
Congrats! What percentage of your earnings are from videos and what percentage from photos on Shutterstock?
30% video, rest images.
August 1 - 6, 2023: $289.34
August 1 - 6, 2024: $21.77
August 1 - 6, 2023: $289.34
August 1 - 6, 2024: $21.77
My August, 2024 is bad, but my August, 2023 was horrible.
August 1 - 6, 2023: $22.42
August 1 - 6, 2024: $177.84
Starting August 8, 2023, the month picked up tremendously, so I am still holding out hope for this August.
August 1 - 6, 2023: $289.34
August 1 - 6, 2024: $21.77
My August, 2024 is bad, but my August, 2023 was horrible.
August 1 - 6, 2023: $22.42
August 1 - 6, 2024: $177.84
Starting August 8, 2023, the month picked up tremendously, so I am still holding out hope for this August.
again, given the wide variability month to month, single month comparisons aren't as useful as 3 or 4 month running averages
statistically, even worse!August 1 - 6, 2023: $289.34
August 1 - 6, 2024: $21.77
My August, 2024 is bad, but my August, 2023 was horrible.
August 1 - 6, 2023: $22.42
August 1 - 6, 2024: $177.84
Starting August 8, 2023, the month picked up tremendously, so I am still holding out hope for this August.
again, given the wide variability month to month, single month comparisons aren't as useful as 3 or 4 month running averages
this is comparing a single week of a single month
Does anyone else have a similar experience? It breaks my heart to see how my once-favorite stock photo site is hitting rock bottom.
I've found hourly and even minutely comparisons to be statistically reliable and informative.
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
I stopped uploading to shutterstock in 2020. Was all in but 10 cents is not worth the trouble. Im not very succesful at all in these stock companies but adobe stock is doing better for me than shutter ever did. Shutter was great with video sales.
Does anyone else have a similar experience? It breaks my heart to see how my once-favorite stock photo site is hitting rock bottom.
My August is surprisingly bad. I may not hit $1K. And this at an agency where it wasn't uncommon for me to hit $5K - $7K per month just a few years ago! Guess everyone who wanted my clips got them.
Does anyone else have a similar experience? It breaks my heart to see how my once-favorite stock photo site is hitting rock bottom.My August is surprisingly bad. I may not hit $1K. And this at an agency where it wasn't uncommon for me to hit $5K - $7K per month just a few years ago! Guess everyone who wanted my clips got them.
I can only imagine what your production costs must be if you're making what you claim to make in the microstock business!
I can only imagine what your production costs must be if you're making what you claim to make in the microstock business!
Production costs? For me, basically zero. It’s me in a spare room in my free time churning out video clips when the inspiration hits.
Curious what your port numbers are, do you have both stills and video?
Curious what your port numbers are, do you have both stills and video?
Mostly video. Over 10.000 clips at multiple agencies. And a handful of stills.
....
I stopped uploading to shutterstock in 2020. Was all in but 10 cents is not worth the trouble. Im not very succesful at all in these stock companies but adobe stock is doing better for me than shutter ever did. Shutter was great with video sales.
....
I stopped uploading to shutterstock in 2020. Was all in but 10 cents is not worth the trouble. Im not very succesful at all in these stock companies but adobe stock is doing better for me than shutter ever did. Shutter was great with video sales.
your choice, but the 10c cheapest sale isn't a true measure - i can't remember anyone here reporting their RPD was < $.20 /image -- mine varies from$.50-.75 /image - only slightly less than AS but with higher actual income/mo (which is what really matters)
....
I stopped uploading to shutterstock in 2020. Was all in but 10 cents is not worth the trouble. Im not very succesful at all in these stock companies but adobe stock is doing better for me than shutter ever did. Shutter was great with video sales.
your choice, but the 10c cheapest sale isn't a true measure - i can't remember anyone here reporting their RPD was < $.20 /image -- mine varies from$.50-.75 /image - only slightly less than AS but with higher actual income/mo (which is what really matters)
...Same here.
Does anyone else have a similar experience? It breaks my heart to see how my once-favorite stock photo site is hitting rock bottom.
Here's the real embarrassment for Shutterstock Inc.
On full public display, sinking share prices across all periods. If it's a bit hard to see in the attachment then below is a list of the results.
The only 'green' shoot is its MAX period share price which increased 49.23% but that's across almost 12 years.
Clearly investors are not invested in this company. Not surprising.
Down 4.79% -1.65 Today
Down 10.47% -3.84 5 Days
Down 20.83% -8.64 1 Month
Down 29.81% -13.94 6 Months
Down 31.03% -14.77 Year-To-Date
Down 24.48% -10.64 1 Year
Down 5.93% -2.07 5 Years
Up 49.23% +10.83 MAX (Since October 2012)
Weird, some people are seeing growth and others are seeing virtual collapses. Maybe it's geographic?
Weird, some people are seeing growth and others are seeing virtual collapses. Maybe it's geographic?
more likely portfolio contents - i sell many editorial images on SS but AS doesn't accept editorial
and then depends whether you concentrate on food, people, travel, etc
that's why it's so, difficult to compare - most of my editorials have people/ crowdsWeird, some people are seeing growth and others are seeing virtual collapses. Maybe it's geographic?
more likely portfolio contents - i sell many editorial images on SS but AS doesn't accept editorial
and then depends whether you concentrate on food, people, travel, etc
I have editorial on both (AS generally accepts editorial without people), ..
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
I see that the issue is widespread. I haven't had it this bad since June and now July for the past 9 years, even though I've been uploading to Shutterstock since 2014. Back then, my portfolio was a fraction of what it is now, and uploading new content didn't feel like throwing it straight into the trash. I've also noticed that very few subscriptions are selling; only on-demand images are moving.
what can I say. from 220-280 sales per day in 2017-2021. Now I have about 20-30 per day :-[. I have no idea what's going on there but the algorithm hates me.
It's getting worse from month to month in my case.
Has anyone seen an increase in their earnings this year from uploading new content to SS?
Has anyone seen an increase in their earnings this year from uploading new content to SS?
Yes, this summer I mainly uploaded new material. The new images have led to an increase in income. (The spike in June is due to a single $500 sale).
Has anyone seen an increase in their earnings this year from uploading new content to SS?
No however for me the algorithm appears to have changed. Previously about 90% of my stuff sold was older content (3 years or older). The last few months its shifted to about 75% of newer content (3 years or even a few months) vs older. Ive never seen that before.
Sales volume is down about 30%, im breaking "worst month for a decade" records every month now in terms of revenue.
Also noticed almost all sales are now low value SODs not subscriptions. Previously subs made up 90% of sales.
Also noticed almost all sales are now low value SODs not subscriptions. Previously subs made up 90% of sales.
No however for me the algorithm appears to have changed. Previously about 90% of my stuff sold was older content (3 years or older). The last few months its shifted to about 75% of newer content (3 years or even a few months) vs older. Ive never seen that before.
Sales volume is down about 30%, im breaking "worst month for a decade" records every month now in terms of revenue.
Also noticed almost all sales are now low value SODs not subscriptions. Previously subs made up 90% of sales.
The same thing is happening to me unfortunately. I also stopped selling my bestsellers three months ago on SS and my earnings have decreased by 30-40%.
The only positive aspect is that I am selling the new files, something that is not happening on Adobe Stock.
Usually, in the last two years, I am sending 100 photographs per month (only photos, no videos, no AI). This September I sold about 60 images on Shutterstock created from August 1st onwards ... while the opposite is happening on Adobe, where I only sold 2 photos sent in the same period.
So, now on SS I sell the new files, while on AS only the old ones ... 3 months ago it was the opposite. Unfortunately with these algorithm changes I am losing $300-400 per month ... and I am full time and this is not a good thing. :(
Shutterstock continues to be my best seller.
So far this year, I've sold 3.5 times more images on SS than on AS and made 3.25 times more revenue.
That said, I've stopped uploading to AS because approval takes months and is extremely inconsistent. 99% of my uploads to SS are approved in less than 48 hours.
Shutterstock became very worst for me, Adobe stock is working well for me.
All of sudden sales and earnings on Shutterstock dropped this year, 40-60% earnings down.
After the earnings down...
Like some people said before, Shutterstock kept those earnings within limits. Not earning more than some limit.
Shutterstock became very worst for me, Adobe stock is working well for me.
All of sudden sales and earnings on Shutterstock dropped this year, 40-60% earnings down.
After the earnings down...
Like some people said before, Shutterstock kept those earnings within limits. Not earning more than some limit.
I only wish they would do that for me. Feb/March are triple what Jan and other months are. June way up, July and August dropped down. There's nothing even or limited.
I interviewed Doug Jensen, veteran stock footage contributor, with a portfolio of 9,187.
Question: In terms of sales volumes and revenue, have you experienced a decrease in the past two years since our last interview?
Answer: "If you define “sales volume” as being the total number of clips that are sold, then that number has remained fairly consistent since we last spoke. Unfortunately, my revenue, which is ultimately the metric that matters most, has dropped by more than 50% during that same time period. I attribute this to two things: First, Shutterstock made a lot of changes to their commission structure that have hurt contributors. And second, Shutterstock is really pushing customers towards a subscription-based sales model which results in overall lower pricing per clip — thus lower revenue for the contributors who created those clips.
Here’s how I see it: If a customer pays an agency $50, does it really matter to the agency whether that $50 covers a single download or a hundred downloads? $50 is $50 of income to the agency no matter how you slice it. But the agency didn’t put any effort whatsoever into shooting, editing, uploading, or creating the metadata, so they don’t really care whether that $50 covers one download or a hundred downloads. It’s still $50 of income (minus the commission) to their bottom line. But to the average contributor, it is devastating because we only get a very small slice of that $50 if the customer is downloading multiple files. The way the subscription model works, the more clips a customer downloads, the less money any individual contributor will get for their slice of the pie. The bottom line is that when you have agencies that are offering customers unlimited 4K and HD downloads for as little as $50 per month, who do you think loses? The contributor."
Link to full interview:
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/06/28/interview-with-doug-jensen-stock-footage-expert-fresh-insight-after-2-years/
"That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum. Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh."... I had completely forgotten about Shutterstock's forum. That certainly went away fast after they lowered our commissions.
For me SS has outperformed AS several months this year, incl. October despite FireFly bonus and Extended License on AS.
Dismissing SS is premature IMHO. But to each their own.
10 years ago the SS paid a minimum $35us per HD sale. I guess today's generation of contributors are far more happy with sales versus income. :'(For me SS has outperformed AS several months this year, incl. October despite FireFly bonus and Extended License on AS.
Dismissing SS is premature IMHO. But to each their own.
i'm seeing this too. for months (maybe a year) adobe was about 5x shutterstock but starting around may ss starting catching up. oct is the first month where ss beat as (by about 50%). i, like many others, was prepared to dismiss them after months of minuscule sales but now that they are competitive i think you're right.
I think SS changed the search algorithm for pictures/videos again from 1st of November, I was checking a lot in the last months where my files where located in the pages and for the last 3-4 months they prioritize the new files which jumped my sales a lot, over 100 assets on daily basis, now I see they went back to the most downloaded assets back on the front pages, I already see an impact, curios if anybody else saw any impact in volume of sales for the 1st of November compared with the last months.
10 years ago the SS paid a minimum $35us per HD sale. I guess today's generation of contributors are far more happy with sales versus income. :'(For me SS has outperformed AS several months this year, incl. October despite FireFly bonus and Extended License on AS.
Dismissing SS is premature IMHO. But to each their own.
i'm seeing this too. for months (maybe a year) adobe was about 5x shutterstock but starting around may ss starting catching up. oct is the first month where ss beat as (by about 50%). i, like many others, was prepared to dismiss them after months of minuscule sales but now that they are competitive i think you're right.
After SS cut the contributor rates, I never submitted again. I started at SS in 2012 and with less than 1,000 photos and no video I was making a consistent $200-$300/month from 2014 until 2019. After the executive bandits arrived (2020 and left 2022?) sales dropped below $100/month and now I don't even reach payout (<$25) some months. Hasn't cost me any effort at all since I stopped submitting, so anything my now 'vintage' archive brings is free money.
I forget the name of the CEO (or whatever title he had) who ushered in the crushing of contributor earnings but he must have made out like a bandit with all his stock options.....and within a couple of years he was gone...greener pastures on the horizon and thanks for all the folding greenery in my pocket!
... Over the last few years I have culled my agencies down considerably and now there are 4. It wouldn't take much incentive to do something I thought I'd never do and go exclusive with Adobe.
... Over the last few years I have culled my agencies down considerably and now there are 4. It wouldn't take much incentive to do something I thought I'd never do and go exclusive with Adobe.
of course, you have to remove all your images on other sites, not just stop uploading
It is unclear why the authors' income has decreased. It seems that buyers are leaving Shutterstock, but why.
It is unclear why the authors' income has decreased. It seems that buyers are leaving Shutterstock, but why.
It is unclear why the authors' income has decreased. It seems that buyers are leaving Shutterstock, but why.
My subscription sales started disappearing back in July this month next to nothing.
Single and others going for 10 to 15 cents.
SS are a ghost of what they used to be.
It is unclear why the authors' income has decreased. It seems that buyers are leaving Shutterstock, but why.
My subscription sales started disappearing back in July this month next to nothing.
Single and others going for 10 to 15 cents.
SS are a ghost of what they used to be.
My port has moved from about 85% sub sales to 75% "single" sales of a similar value.
From that i guess they have fewer subscription buyers than before.
I have to rant again,
November is shaping up to be one of my worst ever at SS.
All the algorithm wants to do is sell just one of my videos, it's bizarre.
Adobe frequently sells both my new and old vids, while recognizing the better ones which sell even more.
The weighting at SS is definitely off. All it needs is a small adjustment and it could make such a difference, so frustrating.
What's the point in uploading more content there?
Hasn't been worth uploading to SS for ages now because new photos just aren't selling,
Hasn't been worth uploading to SS for ages now because new photos just aren't selling,
You can speak for yourself, the new photos are selling very good if you produce the right quality, my downloads doubled this year compared with last year on SS and the new material is selling very well for me.
The last few months new stuff appears to be selling far more than it was prior to that for a long time so i suspect something changed.
Ive had a few images take off including one that now seems to be a daily seller (for no clear reason that i can see, its average at best). I havent seen that for a new image for several years.
Same here - I have the feeling that we are experiencing the melt down of the whole microstock industry.
The fact that Shutterstock is now merging with iStock only confirms my impression....
For me, volume on Shutterstock is pretty good and well ahead of this point in 2024. RPD, however, is poor so far and well behind 2024. So plenty of low value sales and I need a few higher value ones to pull the RPD up. But early days still.
What really matters in the end is the bottom line.
RPD is one way of understanding changes to the bottom line - double your images and double your sales but bottom line is unchanged - it probably is because the RPD has dropped. If you double your images and sales number doesn't change but RPD is the same - it is probably due to falling sales per image and not RPD. ....
RPD matters because it represents the average price that you sell your work for. Microstock is a business and, in a business, you can't work out if you are making money if you don't know what your sales price is.you need more than sales price to determine if you're making money. again, my AS RPD is 2-3x that of SS but SS brings in more cash , often 2x or more.
RPD matters because it represents the average price that you sell your work for. Microstock is a business and, in a business, you can't work out if you are making money if you don't know what your sales price is.you need more than sales price to determine if you're making money. again, my AS RPD is 2-3x that of SS but SS brings in more cash , often 2x or more.
so reporting JUST RPD is meaningless - at best, it's only half the equation - you need to consider actual income = RPD * sales.
RPD matters because it represents the average price that you sell your work for. Microstock is a business and, in a business, you can't work out if you are making money if you don't know what your sales price is.Well, if you look at it that way, RPD is as important as volume. Both go together in terms of earnings. And earnings in relation to effort is what really counts if you see it as a business. In other words, how much do I earn at an agency against which effort. In that regard, submitting to Adobe or Shutterstock is more or less comparable. iStock requires more effort Motion Array even more.
...
Well, if you look at it that way, RPD is as important as volume. Both go together in terms of
earnings. And earnings in relation to effort is what really counts if you see it as a business. In other words, how much do I earn at an ency against which effort. In that regard, submitting to Adobe or Shutterstock is more or less comparable. iStock requires more effort Motion Array even more. ...
...
Well, if you look at it that way, RPD is as important as volume. Both go together in terms of
earnings. And earnings in relation to effort is what really counts if you see it as a business. In other words, how much do I earn at an ency against which effort. In that regard, submitting to Adobe or Shutterstock is more or less comparable. iStock requires more effort Motion Array even more. ...
again, RPD is worthless as a measure of usefulness or performance- my RPD from alamy is $30 but actual % of my income is < 5%. similarly, pond RPD has varied from $2 to $15 but overall income is again < 10% since actual sales (ie INCOME) is just a blip (tho welcome) on monthly sales
if RPD were important i'd be concentrating on alamy & pond rather than AS & SS which provide 90% of my income. i heartily endorse those who make their decisions based on RFD since it pays for my additional international travel!
bottom line - SS pays more bills than AS, no matter what the RPD says. everything else is window dressing & bragging rights
Have to agree with the above.
My January SS wasn't too bad even with the levels reset (not as good as before but better than any Jan under the "new" system.
Feb im seeing the same download numbers but despite having levelled up, ALL the sales are tiny. Im under half the RPD for last month.
Absolutely everything is a low value SOD or Sub. I have "sold" 2 videos though.... at $0.25 each.
...
Well, if you look at it that way, RPD is as important as volume. Both go together in terms of
earnings. And earnings in relation to effort is what really counts if you see it as a business. In other words, how much do I earn at an ency against which effort. In that regard, submitting to Adobe or Shutterstock is more or less comparable. iStock requires more effort Motion Array even more. ...
again, RPD is worthless as a measure of usefulness or performance- my RPD from alamy is $30 but actual % of my income is < 5%. similarly, pond RPD has varied from $2 to $15 but overall income is again < 10% since actual sales (ie INCOME) is just a blip (tho welcome) on monthly sales
if RPD were important i'd be concentrating on alamy & pond rather than AS & SS which provide 90% of my income. i heartily endorse those who make their decisions based on RPD since it pays for my additional international travel!
People are worshiping the stat Oracle, instead of the money and the images. Are we in business for money or for stats?
People are worshiping the stat Oracle, instead of the money and the images. Are we in business for money or for stats?
I think that to understand WHAT sells, WHERE sells, and HOW sells you need only one thing: numbers. Data analysis.
50% of what I earned is due to my images' quality and 50% from data analysis. Every type of data is important for something.
I think I sell much more than you, I have almost 20 years of experience in this business.
If you do it as a hobby and I do it for work, it's probably because you haven't taken care of the analysis of agency sales, your competitors' sales and the sales of your images. In addition to not improving the quality of your images. 8)
Wow check this out... SSTK share price on 19 February 2025 (today) closed at just $26.96.
This is the lowest since 15 February 2013 - 12 years ago!
See image below and check their other periods at [url=http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sstk]www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sstk[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sstk[/url]) where every period is in the red.
Clearly their poor treatment of contributors has not helped Shutterstock Inc and when they turned off a lot of contributors, they just up and walked out the door... and a lot of customers walked out with them.
And here we are today with falling sales, commissions and earnings, and the terminal decline in SSTK share price.
Wow check this out... SSTK share price on 19 February 2025 (today) closed at just $26.96.
This is the lowest since 15 February 2013 - 12 years ago!
See image below and check their other periods at [url=http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sstk]www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sstk[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sstk[/url]) where every period is in the red.
Clearly their poor treatment of contributors has not helped Shutterstock Inc and when they turned off a lot of contributors, they just up and walked out the door... and a lot of customers walked out with them.
And here we are today with falling sales, commissions and earnings, and the terminal decline in SSTK share price.
no support for any of that - if low payments to artists was a factor, would expect the stock to rise! many other factors at work, none related to the small number of artists who have withdrawn - competition, rise of aigen which SS has refused to accept, decreased demand... etc
Clearly their poor treatment of contributors has not helped Shutterstock Inc and when they turned off a lot of contributors,
@Uncle Pete
I believe that all these numbers are useful to guide strategies.
The more accurate the data analysis, the fewer mistakes you risk making.
Sorry for any mistakes, but it's Google Translate's fault ;)
speaking of ai, i haven't had a "contributor fund" payment in ages. have others been getting anything? ss has been terrible for me for 3 months now.
In the last few days a lot of sales on SS, but almost all in the range of $0.10-$0.15 (level 5).
In the last 3 days SS sales are 3 times those of Adobe for me.
In this moment Adobe can't grow anymore, SS sells a lot but the RPD is low, high priced sales have disappeared. Not a good situation.
I was hoping that SS would lose market share to Adobe (which has the highest RPD), but it's not happening as I expected.
Very true but yesterday was a good day for me at least on SS, I had so many of these days last year, lets hope they are coming back this year.
In the last few days a lot of sales on SS, but almost all in the range of $0.10-$0.15 (level 5).
In the last 3 days SS sales are 3 times those of Adobe for me.
In this moment Adobe can't grow anymore, SS sells a lot but the RPD is low, high priced sales have disappeared. Not a good situation.
I was hoping that SS would lose market share to Adobe (which has the highest RPD), but it's not happening as I expected.