Quote from: Faustvasea on May 01, 2024, 16:12

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.

Quote from: Faustvasea on May 02, 2024, 05:10

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)

Quote from: Roscoe on May 02, 2024, 11:57

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.

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?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 02, 2024, 15:34

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.

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.

Quote from: Wilm on May 02, 2024, 15:22

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? 

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.

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.

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 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.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 02, 2024, 16:06

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 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.

Quote from: Roscoe on May 03, 2024, 01:35

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 :-)