MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: stockman11 on June 23, 2023, 16:26
-
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.
-
same
edit: photo , illustration, >20k online files
-
Are you mainly a video or photo contributor?
-
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!!
-
+1
-
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.
Are you mainly a video or photo contributor?
-
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.
-
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.
That covers the reality of the situation. Lower percentage of a lower cost license.
-
Bad month here on SS too,it's not over yet but for now it could be the worst month since August 2020.
Too many 0.10 sales,I like work with SS,i don't have much to complain about,but these 0.10 cents must be reconsidered,it's too little and almost 0,at least 0.25 would be more fair and honest and in line with the times we live.
-
Entry level $0.25 was a very long time ago and is never coming back. The price SS sells to customers is now so low they'd lose too much money with every sale.
There's only one way its heading and thats iStock sub 1c sales.
-
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. >:(
-
This month i have -40% on revenue. Making lot of money by month. This month is very bas but still sell lot of photo :(
-
I'm having a horrible month on SS as well, literally the worst in 10 years. Too many 10c sales (even at higher levels), and the small amount of video sales I do have are sub $5 so even that doesn't make up for it. I don't know what SS is doing, it seems like they are failing miserably.
In the meantime, Adobe is stronger than ever in terms of revenue (despite their recent "EUR becomes USD" cash grab and influx of AI crap) because the RPD is still somewhat decent.
-
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.
Your experience with SS is identical to mine.
I wonder if their annual revenue is suffering in the same way as ours.
-
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
I did that in 2020 when they changed the commission structure. Every time I think to start uploading again I just can't do it for 10 cents a pop, even for images that are processed, keyworded and ready to go. AdobeStock is the only one that seems to be growing these days.
-
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. >:(
Same with me. June is unbelievable -- sales numbers suddenly down by 50% from previous months, huge income drop. Lots and lots of "single" sales between 10 and 20 cents. Not sure what's up with all the tiny singles.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am in the same boat and think I should stop uploading anything to shutterstock. All I get are 10 cts sales and that takes me no where.
-
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.
How bad is the video sales on Shutterstock now compared to pre-video sub days? I stopped selling video on Shutterstock in early 2021 because my sales came down to about 1/3 of pre-vide sub level.
-
My video sales are 70% below 2017...
-
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.
-
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/
-
My video sales are 70% below 2017...
Dropping from average of $38 to an average of $7 with some sales a few cents will do that.
They utterly demolished the video commission system and then made it even worse with the level system.
70% is roughly what i see as well.
-
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 had a BME on Pond5 last October. Of course, it wasn't a BME for overall stock video revenue because Shutterstock video sales was good before they started video sub and Adobe Stock started video sub too last year, but it was nice to see I can still get BME on Pond5 with 60% exclusive royalty.
-
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.
Tale as old as time; people have been advocating for years for a union or a contibutor-run stock site, there have even been a couple of attempts in the past (Stocksy comes to mind). But in the end, heavy competition from the market leaders made it nearly impossible to gain enough traction and become a big player. And how do you get all contributors working together in the first place? Joining a union can be risky for those who need the income. 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.
-
Unions are by their very nature political and the second you get political you have disagreements and conflicts.
Its a non-starter.
-
IMO constant talk about how much less you're making isn't going to draw the attention of the Boardroom Boys. They couldn't give a flipping *. But sharing ideas about resolving the problem of low commissions may draw the attention of agencies.
Ok, a self-run contributor site isn't going to work, in your opinion. But an active, on-going conversation is far more effective than individual contributors complaining about the pennies their now making.
The Boardroom Boys figured as long as they can make their contributors roll over and rub their tummies they can do whatever they * well please. So far it's working, IMO.
-
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.
-
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.
LOL!! Glad to hear you agree with me on this!! Yes, maybe he was just trying hard to sell his stock video tutorial videos. 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.
-
Yeah, screw Doug, the guy is incredibly arrogant and annoying.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
I remember this "calculation" too.
-
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.
-
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
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...
If it takes you longer than that you must be doing something wrong. How long does it take you ingest, edit, grade, and create the metadata? I assure you, 5 minutes is a very conservative number for me.
-
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
-
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. But I have better things to do with my time if I'm not being paid. You are indeed a lucky person.
If you really love doing metadata, and can prove you can actually do it competently, I've got 6500 4K clips that are edited, rendered, and just awaiting metadata before i can upload them. I'd be more than happy to let you do all the metadata just for fun. I won't charge you a thing for giving you so much fun, in fact, I would be very thankful for your help. 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.
-
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!!
-
U R the GOAT!!
Oh, I highly doubt that. I am absolutely certain that there are many people who could put my earnings and hourly wage to shame. I'm just a yeoman with a little side hustle. That's all.
-
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 and I'll do my best to get you headed in the right direction.
-
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.
-
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.
Good idea. My first real job was delivering newspapers when I was in Jr. High and that allowed me to buy my first camera. So, yes, that is an excellent place to start.
-
Good idea. My first real job was delivering newspapers when I was in Jr. High and that allowed me to buy my first camera. So, yes, that is an excellent place to start.
-
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.
Thanks!
But rest assured that I'm not doing all this for free!
I'm doing it for a lot of money and I'm enjoying it!
Based on your calculation, my my rate is ♾️/hour and that's so much fun! :D
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.
There is zero chance that I would ever share my trade secret with you!
Not even if you pay me for a crash course!
It is not up to you to judge my ability, but rather the other way around, since I am making ♾️/hour, and you are only making $348/hour.
;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.
-
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.
Well... you will have to learn it the hard way! Go back to grinding!
In life, you don't get success served on a silver platter! ;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.
I too love my job as a designer, enjoy it every day and couldn't imagine doing anything else. Nevertheless, I have to calculate correctly in order not to cheat myself and to be able to feed my family. And even if I enjoy driving a car, for example, I have to calculate the travel time to the customer. Likewise my travel times to Geneva, Amsterdam or Barcelona, even if I enjoy traveling.
I even have fun editing my images for stock. Still, I calculate that time in.
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.
-
I too love my job as a designer, enjoy it every day and couldn't imagine doing anything else.
Nice!
So you are also making ♾️/hour, according to the "Jensen logic"!
Lucky you!
;D
-
So you are also making ♾️/hour, according to the "Jensen logic"!
Lucky you!
;D
I enjoy taking photos and video. So obviously today i was pleased to learn that instead of seeing monthly income drop off a cliff in the last 3 years im actually earning infinite amounts of money per hour and am richer than my wildest dreams.
-
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.
Wilm, I am not responsible for, nor do I really care if other creatives are happy or not with their earnings. I wish them success, as I do all people in all professions, but their success or lack of success has nothing to with me. In fact, in my experience, creatives are some of the worst business people I've ever met. And you cannot be successful in stock if you don't know how to manage your time, your expenses, choose to create content that is in demand, be able to generate effective metadata, and have an efficient workflow. I would argue that "creativity" is one of the least important aspects of being successful at stock. I for one do not consider myself creative at all, yet I'm making what I feel is a decent income.
I hope everyone would agree it is very important for any stock contributor to figure out how much they are earning for the amount of time and effort they put into their portfolio. That is just business 101. If someone cannot quantity their earnings by hour, day, or some other metric that makes sense to them, how can they ever get a handle on the value of what they are earning? On the face of it, a $1000 of revenue sounds great, but if I had to spend 100 hours to earn that $1000, then it is not so good. Revenue always has to be viewed against what it took to earn that revenue. I hope we can all agree on that.
However, with that said, we don't have to agree on HOW we calculate the value of the time and effort that goes into our stock footage businesses. I have explained in great detail how I calculate my earnings. Other people may not agree with my formula. Fine. The point is that I have a formula that makes sense to me and I have explained it in detail. I don't expect everyone to agree that they should use the same formula. Other people can calculate their earnings using whatever formula that make sense to them. Only a fool would keep blundering along without stopping to take a look at the big picture of earnings vs. time and expenses.
What I don't understand is why people get so angry when I explain my formula. It brings out such hatred. Why is that? Why is it so offensive to people that I am willing to open the books to show my earnings and then explain how I calculate my hourly income? If you don't agree with my methods, fine, but what difference should it make to you? Why the anger?
I challenge anyone else to open their books and explain how they calculate their own earnings. People always want to take a crap on mine, but nobody else ever steps up to the plate and says "Here's how I do it, and here's why my method makes more sense to me." I could respect that even if my methods differ. Nobody does that. They just want to throw stones at me because I had the gall to go on record with my own earnings.
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour, and dumb stuff like you'd expect to hear from a 2nd grader. Are there no adults in the room who are willing to have an adult conversation without calling people names and throwing insults because they don't agree with someone else's formula? Does throwing out asinine statements about infinite earnings per hour lead to a meaningful conversation about this topic?
It's been a couple of years since SS shut down there forum, and so I come here now to read hundreds of postings by the same cast of characters bitching about the same stuff and tilting at the same windmills. Where does it all get them?
-
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?
-
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.
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.
In case you don't realize, it's an elementary logic tool, called "reductio ad absurdum".
You assume a hypothesis to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.
-
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.
-
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 avoiding anything.
Follow me:
Let's assume that your calculation leading to your claim of $348/hour is correct.
If that's true, then following the same "logic", my earnings are ♾️/hour, as shown above.
But this is absurd. Therefore the original assumption, your calculation, is wrong.
And silly.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Sorry, man, but it looks like you may have skipped some high school classes, back in the day.
But that's OK, since you were working hard distributing newspapers to buy your first camera.
I respect that 100%.
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
This knowledge is now widely available on the internet, for free, similarly to what you are selling in your look-at-me-and-get-rich-quick "course".
-
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.
-
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!
;)
Yup, that's exactly what I expected you to say.
-
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!
;)
Would you be so kind as to explain to the uneducated audience reading along here why this discussion is being conducted so aggressively?
Apart from the fact that I don't necessarily see the hourly wage as an adequate parameter for economic success in the stock photo business, I can follow most of Doug's arguments very well and would find the knowledge of his workflow interesting.
At least I don't see any reason for arrogant behavior towards Doug from my side - and before you get any stupid ideas, I didn't skip any high school classes and my latin is still quite fluent ;)
-
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" ;)
-
.
-
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.
-
.
You are losing the discussion here Zero by a mile. C'mon get up and fight :)
-
.
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. :)
-
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.
:)
-
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!
:)
-
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
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.
-
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!
:)
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.
-
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.
You're a liar. I challenge you to document a single time where I said stock was a way to "get rich quick". Just the opposite!!!! I tell people it takes hard work and a lot of time to build a portfolio that probably won't even pay anything back for months or years. I liken it to planting seeds and waiting for the harvest to come in. My message is that you can increase your odds of having a profitable "harvest" if you choose the right type kinds of seeds to plant, where to plant them, how to fertilize them, and more importantly how to drastically reduce the time and effort you put into your "farming". But no, it is not a scheme to get rich quick. And i have never said anything but that.
-
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.
-
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.
I'm sorry Ralf, we must have a language problem, indeed.
If something is not correct, then it is wrong.
"Wrong" and "correct" are antonyms.
-
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.
You can't be further from the truth.
Fyi, excluding July, my all-time number is 36.9% higher than yours, and my combined photo + video port is probably 4 times smaller than yours.
And yet, I am not claiming that I am making 1,500/hour, when I account only for the time spent keywording.
I am simply making ♾️/hour, because that's how the silly "Jensen financials" work.
;)
-
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?
Doug,
we've been through this too. At the time, you insisted that there was no money to be made with pictures, only with videos. From that discussion, you must remember that I don't offer videos. So I can't answer the last part of your question.
My average earnings per image are about $125, but that can't be compared to you because I've been around a lot longer than you.
As for the hourly rate, I come up with different numbers because I calculate it differently than you do. We've been through this too, but the amount of time per image varies a lot for me. My lucky shot made me an hourly wage of about $8,000. But I also have many images that have had tens of hours go into them that have not made me a dollar.
However I calculate it, I've never managed 5 minutes per picture.
The least amount of time, on average, is in the photos. Depending on the subject, just pressing the shutter where I was. Or setting up a tripod, making sure the lighting is right, shooting for maybe 30 minutes, post-processing, tagging, uploading, saving data...that was a bit more time.
The vectors took more time on average because I often made sketches beforehand.
And most of the time went into 3D renderings.
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.
I upload jpg files including IPTC data. When uploading to AS it still takes some extra time to take care of the most important keywords (which usually costs some more minutes).
-
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.
-
This thread is an embarassment and so pre-pubescent.
-
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.
Wim, thanks for the explanation and glimpse into your way of doing stock. There are many ways to skin a cat and how we judge the results.
-
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.
Exactly right. You have summed up my position very well. I don't understand why it gets people pissed off if I don't include my time shooting. Who wants to punch a clock?
-
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.
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, 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.
-
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.
Ha, ha. Hi Annie, it' good to know you are still around.
Welcome to MSG . . . and goodbye. This kind of crap isn't worth my time. I came by, made the little baby cry, and now I'll leave before he wants me to change his dirty diaper. I'll drop by next year to see them still bitching about Shutterstock and "the man" putting them down.
See ya.
-
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.
-
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 $348/hour (only to impress people), because only the keywording time matters, is a fallacy.
Anyway, it will be also interesting to see a tax return from Mr. Jensen, to understand if he truly claimed zero expenses, for this business. I have my doubts here, but even so, what I said above remains a fact: time is money.
-
Anyway, happy to report that today I had my best-ever sale at micros which coincidentally was at SS and not Alamy or Robert Harding.
Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.
-
Any reasonable contributor would laugh at what Doug says...
- 5 minutes to colour-grade the quality video, provide metadata and upload/submit
- 348$ 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.
-
Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.
Congrats Alex, but probably the wrong thread! lol
-
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.
Exactly. It's ridiculous to make $348/hr claim. It's disingenuous at least to make such a bogus claim to unsuspecting newbies. It's laughable. lol In reality, many people in the industry knows it can often end up less than minimum wage per hour after 3, 4 years of low/no sales.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/7rlaze.jpg)
-
I came by, made the little baby cry, and now I'll leave before he wants me to change his dirty diaper.
Seriously Doug... this is the level you expect us to go down to?
-
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.
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?
Or else, you do stock fotografy, or at least parts of it for the money and then you can calculate your earning per hour, either considering all time invested or only the time you would invest anyway, if you would not earn anything, because it is your hobby.
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.
Allt hat being said, the $348/hour is a different story. Even if we accept the premises for the calculations, I have some trouble believing the claim that Doug can process and keyword a file in five minutes. But that is a different issue.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
A realistic calculation, as several others have suggested, must be done like for a regular business, no matter if you may, or may not have fun doing that business (while wishing everybody to be lucky enough to also enjoy doing their main jobs, not just microstock)
Include the time spent planning, the time spent traveling (or a proportion of it), the time spent shooting, the time spent editing, storing the files, the time spent keywording, maintaining/upgrading your equipment, then deduct amortization and depreciation, and any other expenses, as indicated by the IRS rules (which, btw, are also allowing for some meal deductions, fyi), etc.
Basically talk to an accountant if all this feels overwhelming.
Only then you may arrive at the realistic hourly/rate, instead of that $348/hour non-sense based only on feelings, on fun or not fun. ::)
Btw, I didn't ridicule him. I simply proved him wrong.
-
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I think Doug's earnings can be easily bumped up to 600$ per hour. Some examples.
- If the person immensely enjoys keywording, it's a passion, so why include it in calculations? Should be dropped off the list.
- Resubmitting AI rejections and regular rejections from other agencies is actually fun. Looking at this green bar moving while a file is being uploaded is tantalizing. In fact, resubmitting is such fun that deleting an asset and resubmitting it again is a legit passage of time. So again, why count resubmissions toward time spent?
- Enjoy scouting locations before shooting? (Some drone pros do that before shooting footage). Why count this towards your time if you would do this for fun anyway.
- The list is long. Love flying planes or driving across the country? Total fun, who doubts it? Travel photographers can take it off the list.
- Need to buy SD cards and external disks? Spending money is fun, no need to include it. That's why people enjoy shopping on the weekends.
- Keeping up with backups of your footage and copying stuff over to external devices? Again, this is fun, people do it just out of passion for backups.
- Paying for stock submitter for multiple uploads? Love it! Charging multiple batteries? Fun! Oh, almost forgot.... the wonders of maintaining equipment. It's a dream come true.
And don't forget the spiritual aspect of it - laughing all the way to the bank is a liberating and enlightening experience.
There is literally an unlimited potential for inflating your earnings by excluding fun things. Give Doug some slack, he is pretty conservative with his exclusion list.
-
Btw, I didn't ridicule him. I simply proved him wrong.
I see no problem with ridiculing and lighthearted fun. After all, if we are being gaslighted it justifies a little pushback.
-
(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 :)
Here you go, show us more of your meme analysis skills:
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtntymLW/Screenshot-20230706-123109-Chrome.jpg)
;)
-
I recently found an image of mine on Shutterstock being offered as a "Free Download." I NEVER authorized this. I deleted all my images then and there. It was already not what it used to be since they messed with the forum. They can bite me.
-
8)
-
Looking for alternatives am looking for alternatives. Has anyone tried Art Storefronts? If so what has your experience been? Is it worth the money?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
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.
LOL.
-
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.
-
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.
AdobeStock 74.4
Shutterstock 35.2 (roughly $75 a month for the best people who volunteer to take the poll)
Dreamstime 3
iStock 29
Alamy 10
Deposit 2.8
Bigstock 2.5
I'm small time and used to make, on average, $100 a month on SSTK. Same images and more, some months just over $10 but on average is closer to $25. Keep in mind, the on average part. The only thing that props up SSTK is an occasional $50 sale, the rest are dimes.
AS now a consistent $50 a month. AS 979 images, SS 5,429 images. Yes they are in many instances different images, because of what each agency accepts. DT? HA! :-X A cross of images that are on AS and SS and it's taking years to reach the $100 to decide if I want to continue or drop them. Alamy pays 20% now and iStock actually trudges on, slow but steady.
Joining more agencies is not my answer. Working for the ones that pay and ignoring the bottom feeders and parasites, is my way to distribute. No reason to get so desperate for cheap pay, that will never grow or amount to anything significant. There is no Mid-Tier anymore. Barely a handful of good agencies, ($50 a month) and all the rest are low earners or low value.
Dump the chumps, work the ones that pay best. 8)
-
He's trying again to sell courses - fine by me, but not at the expense of gaslighting contributors into believing such outlandish claims.
That's not the only thing he makes outrageous claims about. On the old SS forum, he stated that I didn't have any experience selling stock videos. I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. I was selling stock videos on SS long before he joined that now extinct forum. And I had also sold videos through P5 as well.
Despite Doug Jenson's lies, I think I did okay with such a small video port on SS. In actual fact, it sounded like I did better than him when he first started on SS. In the beginning, I made three video sales from a port of 35 videos. I recall Doug saying that had about 200 videos or so when he first started on SS and made less sales than I did. Later on, I doubled the size of my video port and that effectively doubled my video sales.
-
Best month of the year on SS thanks to several good single sales,so a much better month than AS,i earned more than double on SS compared to AS this month.
Also on Depositphotos i had good sales this month,maybe this is due to the fact that i recently resumed uploading on DP after a break of a couple of years.
-
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.
Have others noticed the same trend?
-
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.
Have others noticed the same trend?
Just checked my last 3 month - about 1 in 40 sales was OD, that rate is decreasing for me too.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
that's not the problem,
they have deactivated my account due to copyright issue, that I have uploaded on adobe
-
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?
but they are not replying, if had any problem with my content they would at least tell me as before
-
I would wait until the Compliance team has reached a final verdict. If the proof you submitted is ok, your account will be reinstated. It's not useful and possibly counter-productive to keep spamming them for a reaction.
-
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.
that's not the 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.
-
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.
that's not the 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,
even I never used ai geneted term in title on adobe, shutter, because it not completely ai generated
-
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.
that's not the 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,
even I never used ai geneted term in title on adobe, shutter, because it not completely ai generated
But if it's partially AI generated, then you can't submit it to Shutterstock due to their decision not to accept AI generated content. If you broke the rules then this will be why they closed your account.
-
Content Submissions
Please note: Intentionally submitting content to which you do not own copyright or submitting content that infringes on the copyright of another artist will lead to immediate account termination.
Submitting content that infringes on the rights of any person. Including directly copying or excessive inspiration from work to which you do not own the copyright.
This exactly is what AI does!
-
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.
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/search/people-cooking?image_type=generated (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/search/people-cooking?image_type=generated)
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/arabic-domestic-kitchen-people-cooking-traditional-2264280661 (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/arabic-domestic-kitchen-people-cooking-traditional-2264280661)
30 000 ai generated people keyword images
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/search/people?image_type=generated (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/search/people?image_type=generated)
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/close-photo-person-pink-hair-ross-2285217411 (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/close-photo-person-pink-hair-ross-2285217411)
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/close-photo-3-different-photos-same-2295188063 (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/close-photo-3-different-photos-same-2295188063)
They also always show the prompt used
The "artist" is the Shutterstock generator.
But so far producers cannot upload ai content.
eta:
an image of Donald Duck
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/donald-duck-white-3d-very-happy-2240528003 (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-generated/donald-duck-white-3d-very-happy-2240528003)
guess noone is checking these files for copyright problems
-
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.
Except for all the stolen stuff on Shutterstock, which is a bit of a fly in the 'legally licensed' ointment. Still, I believe they make a guarantee to their customers, so they are obviously happy to take that risk.
-
I wonder if this is the grand plan. Not taking ai from contributors, but letting the customers prompt and create an ai collection for them.
Producer content then fill the data collection and the normal stock sales become the side show.
Some of those prompts are really well written, you can tell they come from art directors and media pros.
The customers brain basically becomes the prompting ai.
Or maybe add a prompt army from a low wage country.
Will be interesting to watch what they do.
-
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....
i had ai content accepted before the rule change
but when i asked if i could with images from their generator, they said 'no'. (maybe you can't submit made with their gen but DL & modified)
-
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.
that's not the 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.
-
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.
that's not the 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.
there is nothing can i do now for it ?
-
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.
Fantastic results though I see 227 would it be 250 to make quarter million?
-
Ha, ha! You're right. Oh well, I better use a calculator next time.
-
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?
-
9562 clips. ($23.80 x 9562 = $227,575)
0 photos.
-
Let's see if you can still do it in 2024.
-
Do what? I have sales every day.
-
Do what? I have sales every day.
Reaching the $250,000 - that's what I meant. Or will you manage the 828 statistically missing downloads within two or three months? I don't know how long you've been at it.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Yes Adobe is doing really well. Is Adobe earnings surpassing Shutterstock earnings on a monthly basis for you now?
No, Adobe has not surpassed Shutterstock yet, but every month they come closer. However, I have about 3x more clips at Shutterstock right now, so if you divide the earnings by the size of the portfolio then Adobe might be doing the best statistically.
-
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.
Are you using any app for your metadata, if you don’t mind me asking.
-
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.
-
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.
You probably remember correctly as I recall that too. 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.
-
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.
Yes, that is correct.
-
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.
-
I have made a similar lifetime amount on SS but sadly these days it is a very poor earner. However I did have a very good sales day a week ago when I got several EL's and cart sales on the same day! It (briefly) felt like the old days!
-
It (briefly) felt like the old days!
Yes, I love days like that! I just checked my account and found that I had a $180 download late last night after I'd gone to bed. A great way to wrap up April in the last hour of the month.
-
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.
-
And May is off to a good start too, with a $104 sale this morning. It does feel like the old days.
-
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.
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?
-
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 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
-
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
Doug has been around for years and has over 9000 videos. Claims are legit. Port is easy to find with a search.
-
and remember this is the same guy who last year they were making $348/hr!
That was last year. Now it is higher than $348/hour because the 9000+ clips in my portfolio have earned even more now. If you ask nicely, I could run the numbers again if you want an update. My numbers are completely legit, and whether you want to believe them or not doesn't change that fact.
and besides, i've made $666,000 so far with my NFT w more sales every day
Excellent. Keep up the great work. Stock is a big pie with plenty of slices for everyone.
What is your hourly wage so far on your earnings?
-
May is off to an even better start. Two sales today for $104 each plus another for $10. A nice way to start the month.
-
Deleted. Accidently posted twice.
-
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 video. 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 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.
-
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.
-
Congratulations on the great triple-digit sales!
I only had one video sale today, which is more in line with the thread title ;-)
(see picture)
-
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.
Wow.
-
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.
Fantastic! I never had a single sale that big. I think around $500 was my best, so yours is really impressive.
-
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.
I will have to focus more on quality and metadata. I only sold a video for the first time on pond5. But 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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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?
https://wirestock.io?ref=peter.klinger
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.
Good Point!
-
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? If they do it, how good are they? If you do it, why would you cut them in on your income when you have done all the work?
-
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."
-
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?
15% they do the metadata they do the uploads, no minimum cash outs by agency, as soon as you reach $30 you get paid, every month. Yes, you are giving them 15% to do the metadata and upload, forever, for all future sales. But 85% of something, is far more than 100% of nothing? ;)
You quoted Marketplace which has nothing at all to do with the distribution. You took something irrelevant and out of context.
-
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
I'll raise my hand. That is 100% correct. You cannot predict which images will be popular, so uploading a lot of potential winners is the best approach. Let the marketplace sort out the winners and losers. But each of those image you submit must be well-shot, well-graded, and have good metadata to even have a sporting chance of success.
-
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.
-
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.
They (Wirestock) went from terrible to, allowing us to add our own, to not so really good, and I don't know if they read ours anymore? You can be the best judge by looking at some agencies and files that are submitted by WireStock, because there's another down side. The name on the agencies is theirs, if that matters.
I wouldn't claim their metadata is above, basic, obvious, descriptions. I can give them a break, in some ways, because they don't know the details, but sometimes that's what sells a license.
I was only half serious, in saying, if you have 5,000 files, and you're too busy, a place like Wirestock is the answer. It still comes down to, give them 15%, let them do the work and make something, vs make nothing. I don't shoot enough to make it worth my while, while you appear to have a backlog of good work. Some people like them, many more people, don't feel there's a value in a paid account, and giving WS 15%. They do their own.
So the key to this is, nothing vs something, not about quality or best way to make money. Just a quick and easy way to profit, from your backlog.
-
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."
900 additional "maybe good pictures" is not what I generally mean, Pete. I have that too. I upload images that I could imagine have what it takes to sell. But I don't upload a single image that I'm absolutely sure is so bad or replaceable that it won't sell. And I'm wrong often enough.
There are so many images that everyone who uploads them knows or should know from the outset that they are "not good enough" compared to what is already there.
Nevertheless, many contributors hope that these images might sell after all, even though they secretly know or at least suspect that this will not happen, and upload masses of them. But the opposite is probably the case: these images may harm the overall ranking of the portfolio.
Doug sums it up well: "But each of those image you submit must be well-shot, well-graded, and have good metadata to even have a sporting chance of success."
This - at least in my opinion - is not sufficiently taken into account by many contributors.
-
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.
-
Uncle Pete, can you post a link to the page on Wirestock where they talk about generating metadata? I can't find it.
-
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.
-
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.
I dumped them my leftovers to be honest and Arcangel rejects (that were not similar to those accepted). Def not the most of commercial content so I'll take anything I can get with them :D Was basically just dump and let them keyword and forget about them...that is when they had that free option.
Neverthless, just checked and from those 3,000 I've earned some $600 over 5 years + $144 for the latest custom project on storytelling.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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".
That's what I was trying to say, portfolio size and the time being on the platform really matters. I think is the same case with each platform , instagram, YouTube . I would personally do the same, I will promote the old contributors and let the new one struggle or provide something really unique.
At the moment I only contribute videos to AS and P5, but as I said, I am certain sure that the new contributors have less chance to make same amount of money as the old contributors.
-
I am certain sure that the new contributors have less chance to make same amount of money as the old contributors.
I can't prove it, but I strongly disagree with that statement. Yes, someone with a larger portfolio may earn more total dollars -- because they have more clips that can earn. And someone who already has a good stable of high-earning clips will probably continue to make more money from those clips than someone just getting started. But I firmly believe that if I upload a clip today, and a newbie uploads a nearly identical clip today, and we both have the same excellent metadata, then we are on a level playing field for those clips. In other words, portfolio size, longevity, past earnings, etc. will not help my new clips earn more than the same clips from someone else.
-
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.
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!
Yes, distributors in general can be risky business. All your stuff is in one basket without much control, and that's never a good idea imho.
But not everyone takes it as seriously or professionally as you do. Some just want to dump their stuff and are happy with whatever it brings in while other have a very calculated approach with something that actually looks like a business plan. Some just don't have the time (or don't want to spend their time) to keyword, have way too many files sitting there doing nothing and I can understand why they dump them to a distributor. Plenty of examples from people that made quite some money that way that they wouldn't have made otherwise. That's the easy road yes, but not always sure it's lazy as they might be very busy or passionate outside microstock. Not up to me to judge any kind of approach, and it's each to their own preferences or needs. Whatever works. Microstock is probably a side hustle anways, and very few have or want to do what it takes to make a comfortable living from it.
I think many of us are somewhere in the middle along that road, and in many cases it means that the distributor gets the leftovers or even crapstock. So if I were a distributor, I wouldn't want to be in that place either, I would still want that quality content that sells as I would have to make money too. So I don't understand Wirestock. If you have quality content it really pays off to keep control and do the effort of keywording and uploading to personal accounts. If you have leftovers or crapstock, rejections (Wirestock has their standards too and if they don't the receiving agency has), sloppy keywording (not very sure this is still the case) probably result in low sales and you might even lose money due to paying the subscription fee. So who are they targeting? I don't fully understand, but apparently it's working as they are still around.
I agree that it's never too late to step in and that putting effort in it is the only way to success. But I feel like it became way more difficult, and success is way higher up the learning curve than it was in the past. A beginner or intermediate food photographer for example will have a hard time to break in, and might get discouraged pretty early in that process. I'm not very familiar with video, but I guess the same applies there. It's what competition does, and I think you have to ask yourself whether the hard work is worth the potential return, and whether equal hard work in other areas outside microstock woulnd't bring in more money :-)
-
I would be very careful with Wirestock.
I would be careful with any agency! Let's be reminded that I'm currently involved in a friviolous lawsuit via Alamy. Out of all the agencies Alamy would be the last I think this something would happen since perhaps I've naively thought that I'm covered under editorial licenses shooting out in public.
Lots appear contentious these days. Those experimenting with AI may be acting recklessly. Who knows one of my artsy Arcangel silhouettes of people may come back to haunt me, literally! Or my drone footage that was often borderline legal.
Wirestock are just a distributor, so they are at the mercy of their B2B model. They do have a "Wirestock Direct" channel but haven't had sales on there.
I do like Wirestock as at least they're trying to innovate. Check out their challenges page and custom projects, can earn $4 per image accepted. It's both fun and profitable. Their keywording was awful for a long time but they have made efforts to improve.
I've reviewed some turd agencies that have recently popped up and their business model is like something you'd see 15 years ago - wow you're offering subscriptions who would have thought of that!?
-
Check out their challenges page and custom projects, can earn $4 per image accepted. It's both fun and profitable.
It takes me an average of 5 minutes per clip to edit, grade, export, keyword, write a description, and upload. I wouldn't do that for $4 unless they guaranteed 100% acceptance of every clip I submitted.
-
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.
I think you covered that quite well.
I was only making a simple point, which has turned into many side discussions, variations, inspections, and contradictions.
Here's what I was trying to point out. If someone has 5,000 videos and is too busy with better ways to make money and more profitable endeavors. They could dump them on a distribution platform, and continue doing the more profitable work.Yes, another negative is, paying for 200 files a month, which is also limiting. Or some annual plan. How long would it take to upload 5,000 files? ;D
You also hit something in that WS makes deals. Someone with 5,000 video files, could probably say, here's what I have, and WS would jump at the volume and quality of someone established. But I can't speak for them or any promises of some hypothetical. I can say that, WS does make special deals, outside of the published.
Let me reduce this to minimal math. If I have 500 files, making nothing and I upload them "somewhere" and I make $1. I have $1, and doing nothing, I have NOTHING. Which is more? :)
Yes I know, there's no incentive to make $1, but $1, $100 or $1,000 is always going to be more than nothing. The only sure thing in this is, if someone does nothing, uploads nothing, I can promise them a sure thing. They will earn nothing.
-
The only sure thing in this is, if someone does nothing, uploads nothing, I can promise them a sure thing. They will earn nothing.
Sometimes nothing is better than something that takes more effort than it is worth.
I also want to be mindful of not uploading content that cannibalizes my own similar content. For example, I have about 5000 4K clips that are edited, graded, and waiting for metadata. But almost all of that content is similar to other stuff I already have submitted before. So, if I already have a dozen nice clips of elk bugling in Yellowstone, will another dozen significantly improve my earnings? Doubtful. Do I want to allow an agency to sell clips for $1 that are similar to clips that regularly earn $30 per download? No. Clearly uploading more and more similar content has diminishing returns.
If I really want to increase my earnings, I would need to create content that is markedly different from what I already have in my portfolio. And that is true for every contributor that already has a successful portfolio. If you want to earn more, you really need to spread your wings and come up with stuff that does not cannibalize what you already have working for you.
The problem is, I have no interest in shooting what I think will sell. I shoot what I want to shoot for fun, and any income it may earn is a secondary consideration. So, as long as I'm not willing to go shoot stuff like hipsters playing ukuleles on the beach or silver-haired senior citizens people cycling through a park while grinning like morons -- even though there is money to be made there -- my earnings will not increase in proportion to the size of my portfolio.
Excuse me now, while I go shoot another 200 clips of birds in flight. :-)
-
I can say that, WS does make special deals, outside of the published.
I aksed you earlier, but didn't see an answer. Can you post a link to the page on Wirestock where they talk about their service of generating metadata? I can't find it anywhere on their site. I hope you would agree that is a very serious topic to learn about before signing up. Where is it?
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :-\