MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: blvdone on March 03, 2021, 21:21
-
Very interesting. He has a great portfolio with 14,000 photos and 1,670 videos.
My February sales on Shutterstock was 1/4 of BME. So, maybe I did OK compared to many other contributors.
https://youtu.be/C1D4yDwihoI?t=241 (https://youtu.be/C1D4yDwihoI?t=241)
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/lofilolo?sort=popular (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/lofilolo?sort=popular)
-
What SS did was evil. It comes from a very dark place where only sociopaths dare the tread.
They were already making a lot of money, so they didn't need to cut artist commissions. They did it purely out of greed in the middle of a pandemic, while putting out phony virtue about BLM and social justice.
I honestly hope SS a quick death and Adobe Stock take their place at the top. At least Adobe have an incentive to keep artists happy because their biggest source of revenue comes from artists using their software. Shutterstock provide nothing else.
-
What SS did was evil. It comes from a very dark place where only sociopaths dare the tread.
They were already making a lot of money, so they didn't need to cut artist commissions. They did it purely out of greed in the middle of a pandemic, while putting out phony virtue about BLM and social justice.
I honestly hope SS a quick death and Adobe Stock take their place at the top. At least Adobe have an incentive to keep artists happy because their biggest source of revenue comes from artists using their software. Shutterstock provide nothing else.
Totally agree. I hope Shutterstock to go bankrupt and their stock option become worthless. Yes, them posing as social justice advocate is laughable. Total hypocrite if Shutterstock was a person. They pretend they care about artists by creating artist grant fund using a tiny portion of money they took from us with their new commission system. lol Shutterstock truly is a sociopath.
-
Its not only about portfolio size.
I also depends on average monthly uploads.
In early days of microstock it was possible to compete at a level of 1:1000.
For every 1000 Uploads at shutterstock, contributors were able to upload 1 Image.
Nowadays competition is getting harder and harder. A portfolio with 14000 images was great years ago. Nowadays there are about 2800 Competitors with more than 14.000 files at shutterstock.
Even if your images are better than 90% of the rest at shutterstock, nobody finds your images in this mass volume game.
-
Nowadays there are about 2800 Competitors with more than 14.000 files at shutterstock.
How do you know that figure? I should think it is much higher than that?
-
Didnt watch the whole video but his #1 site is earning $600 from 14,000 photos and 1,600 videos??? I realize cost of living varies all over the world but seems to be an incredible amount of work, time and expense for very little return. Not criticizing his work which clearly is very good but more of the ongoing decline of stock.
I've always kept track of return per image per month. At one time, my return from one micro was $2 PIPM. 14,000 images would have been $28,000US per month. A good RPIPM used to be over $1 for good content. Decent content was .25 to .50. Average was .10 to .25. His is at .04 for good images which is also about what mine is.
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
-
Nowadays there are about 2800 Competitors with more than 14.000 files at shutterstock.
How do you know? That's an amazing number.
-
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
-
I've already earned $12 more in March 2021 (in 4 days) than I did in the whole March 2020 on Shutterstock. :)
-
Nowadays there are about 2800 Competitors with more than 14.000 files at shutterstock.
How do you know? That's an amazing number.
There is a Website providing these numbers of Shutterstock artist.
https://microstockrank.com (https://microstockrank.com)
Guess Shutterstock is aiming to get it closed
Lolostock - https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/contributor/2366-Lolostock (https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/contributor/2366-Lolostock)
-
Nowadays there are about 2800 Competitors with more than 14.000 files at shutterstock.
How do you know? That's an amazing number.
There is a Website providing these numbers of Shutterstock artist.
https://microstockrank.com (https://microstockrank.com)
Guess Shutterstock is aiming to get it closed
Lolostock - https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/contributor/2366-Lolostock (https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/contributor/2366-Lolostock)
Wow. Thanks.
-
It doesn't tell you anything about sales. It's uploads I think
-
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
-
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
I think Shutterstock tried to discourage low earners to upload photos with the new commission tier system. To be honest, I'm all for that concept. But the problem is low sales this year with mostly $0.10 subs, unfair video commission tier system and disgustingly low price video subscription. So, I hope more contributors will un-license portfolio there especially those who had been big sellers there.
-
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
I think Shutterstock tried to discourage low earners to upload photos with the new commission tier system. To be honest, I'm all for that concept. But the problem is low sales this year with mostly $0.10 subs, unfair video commission tier system and disgustingly low price video subscription. So, I hope more contributors will un-license portfolio there especially those who had been big sellers there.
But they may also be discouraging a lot of people who produce good sellable content.
-
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
I think Shutterstock tried to discourage low earners to upload photos with the new commission tier system. To be honest, I'm all for that concept. But the problem is low sales this year with mostly $0.10 subs, unfair video commission tier system and disgustingly low price video subscription. So, I hope more contributors will un-license portfolio there especially those who had been big sellers there.
But they may also be discouraging a lot of people who produce good sellable content.
They sure do. I hope that'll be their miscalculation that'll bring them down and roll back what they did last year.
-
Portfolio size isnt the important thing at all. There used to be some sort of an Industrial guy with just 4000 images and he was earning well over 5K a month. The last I hear he was shooting assignments only but he said he was 70% down and that was over a year back! he deactivated his port needless to say!
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
This exact same post could be written 5, 10 or 15 years ago. There was someone somewhere saying the exact same thing about us when we were starting. There is a great quote from Nobel priced writer Ivo Andric who said - Every generation thinks that they are living through crucial events in history, but the truth is history is just repeating itself over and over again.
-
Portfolio size isnt the important thing at all. There used to be some sort of an Industrial guy with just 4000 images and he was earning well over 5K a month. The last I hear he was shooting assignments only but he said he was 70% down and that was over a year back! he deactivated his port needless to say!
If its who I think it is I woudn't take those claims too seriously :o.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Over the years, how many people used the equipment they already had vs buying new/better equipment because of stock? Better computer, camera, lenses, bag, tripod, etc. I'd bet a large percentage of people bought better gear once they figured out they could earn money. I started with a Nikon D50 and by the time I stopped investing time in stock I was using a Canon 5DMII.
-
It´s a different situation for illustrators. There is good quality open source software around which even old computers can handle.
What you need are creative ideas, no models, no studio, no expensive equippment, no travelling required. Different calculation.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
This exact same post could be written 5, 10 or 15 years ago. There was someone somewhere saying the exact same thing about us when we were starting. There is a great quote from Nobel priced writer Ivo Andric who said - Every generation thinks that they are living through crucial events in history, but the truth is history is just repeating itself over and over again.
Yes that's what I'm getting at. Many newcomers, including me 15 years ago, thought at that time that earning anything was great. The old time stockers weren't happy at all. Now a lot of us are the old timers. Every year the income bar gets set lower and the newcomers don't know or care. That's how its always been.
-
I believe that the old stocker are running short of new ideas. They are dreaming of the good old days, when they had the new ideas.
-
Portfolio size isnt the important thing at all. There used to be some sort of an Industrial guy with just 4000 images and he was earning well over 5K a month. The last I hear he was shooting assignments only but he said he was 70% down and that was over a year back! he deactivated his port needless to say!
If its who I think it is I woudn't take those claims too seriously :o.
Well it wasn't me that said it! it was an article in the Sony Image magazine last year and newsletter. Apparently some four stock photographers shoot lots of images for Sony Technicals using their latest cameras and in the newsletter they were talking stock photography!..so I don't know? just saying really.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
-
I believe that the old stocker are running short of new ideas. They are dreaming of the good old days, when they had the new ideas.
I have plenty of sellable ideas and there are still a lot of gaps in content. What I'm running short of is motivation to create new content due to lack of reasonable and profitable royalties.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
Right. Some of the sites had content requests along the lines of "attractive elderly couples playing shuffleboard on a cruise ship". So assuming you aren't already going on a cruise with your attractive elderly grandparents and their friends, this would seem to be a difficult, high effort and high cost shoot. Back when RM sites were paying top dollar you could probably quickly break even. Now? I doubt it unless you worked out some special deal for premium non-subscription licensing. Otherwise, it's a lot of pennies, nickles and dimes to turn a profit.
-
Well, there are many people who still believe that microstock is a gold mine. Lots of new people, and others who teach you, according to them, to sell photos. A very famous site in spanish is fotodinero.com. :(
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
Right. Some of the sites had content requests along the lines of "attractive elderly couples playing shuffleboard on a cruise ship". So assuming you aren't already going on a cruise with your attractive elderly grandparents and their friends, this would seem to be a difficult, high effort and high cost shoot. Back when RM sites were paying top dollar you could probably quickly break even. Now? I doubt it unless you worked out some special deal for premium non-subscription licensing. Otherwise, it's a lot of pennies, nickles and dimes to turn a profit.
I doubt it. I work with a couple of very high-end older agencies and its just the same with vanishing incomes! just a year back or so the average sale was around 100 dollars but today its around 10 or 15 dollars. Its just bad all over. If anything I recon micro-stock has given a "bad" name? its always had a sort of tarnished reputation but now people are actually sneering at it!
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
Right. Some of the sites had content requests along the lines of "attractive elderly couples playing shuffleboard on a cruise ship". So assuming you aren't already going on a cruise with your attractive elderly grandparents and their friends, this would seem to be a difficult, high effort and high cost shoot. Back when RM sites were paying top dollar you could probably quickly break even. Now? I doubt it unless you worked out some special deal for premium non-subscription licensing. Otherwise, it's a lot of pennies, nickles and dimes to turn a profit.
The thing is with so many people doing stock theres a very good chance that someone will actually be going on that cruise with a camera...and btw many elderly people can shoot stock.
-
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
If that were to happen which I doubt it wouldn't be a problem as people with those needs would have to source the images elsewhere for more $$$. If you have too many people expecting to make a living from high production value images it will always force prices down.
-
Is someone starting stock in 2013 classed as a 'veteran'? I started in 2009 and still feel that I don't quite qualify just yet!
-
Portfolio size isnt the important thing at all. There used to be some sort of an Industrial guy with just 4000 images and he was earning well over 5K a month. The last I hear he was shooting assignments only but he said he was 70% down and that was over a year back! he deactivated his port needless to say!
If its who I think it is I woudn't take those claims too seriously :o.
I wouldn't either. If that's who we think, was barely over 2,000 photos on SS and liked to brag on forums.
-
I reckon Shutterstock have got their back against a wall now. They can't cut contributor earnings to a meaningful cost-cutting level now less big producers of high quality content finally unlicense or withdraw their ports. Very unlikely they'll be able to raise prices on customers. Their other cost cutting avenues are drying up so contributor earnings is all they have left to savage. Their arrogance is almost certain they'll overreach to protect profits and share value and it's gonna come right back and hit them where it hurts and hard.
-
Portfolio size isnt the important thing at all. There used to be some sort of an Industrial guy with just 4000 images and he was earning well over 5K a month. The last I hear he was shooting assignments only but he said he was 70% down and that was over a year back! he deactivated his port needless to say!
If its who I think it is I woudn't take those claims too seriously :o.
Well it wasn't me that said it! it was an article in the Sony Image magazine last year and newsletter. Apparently some four stock photographers shoot lots of images for Sony Technicals using their latest cameras and in the newsletter they were talking stock photography!..so I don't know? just saying really.
Different than who would have immediately come to mind as some industrial guy "Lagereek" who claimed to be making $5k a month from 4,000 images. ::) And when you say now four stock shooters, that's completely different. Oh never mind you just made that up.
But now we see that it is you and you still make up numbers to support you false information, and phony claims, because you only have 2,400 images on SS. Not much new since last time you got banned from here for life?
Maybe I need to get rid of the cameras and prime lenses, get the latest iPhone, then shoot a bazillion cheap snapshots? Nah, I'm just not going to sell out my soul and go begging for dimes. I'd rather make my dimes with a DSLR and high quality lenses. Not very logical or practical, but at least I have some integrity left. ;D
-
I bought a Canon EOS D50, Alien Bees studio lights, and all the other misc stuff you need, to shoot stock. But I also did product photography/senior portraits with that equipment, which is what paid for it. What I made from stock was just mad money. If someone goes into microstock today with a similar plan, to use the equipment for better paying jobs too, it can be profitable. To spend all that money to solely shoot stock at $.10 a DL, not so much.
Today, I’d buy a good phone and use that. I saw a woman on TV with a ring flash fitted to her phone the other day. Why buy the big bulky DSLRs and flashes.
-
I reckon Shutterstock have got their back against a wall now. They can't cut contributor earnings to a meaningful cost-cutting level now less big producers of high quality content finally unlicense or withdraw their ports. Very unlikely they'll be able to raise prices on customers. Their other cost cutting avenues are drying up so contributor earnings is all they have left to savage. Their arrogance is almost certain they'll overreach to protect profits and share value and it's gonna come right back and hit them where it hurts and hard.
They have plenty more slight of hand tweaks they can do to the royalty structure to where you'd have no idea what you're earning. That will be the innovation to offset stalled growth.
Interesting that Royalty Free is what microstock invented and it's now probably a big cause of stalled growth. Customers can just keep using the same images over and over for their websites, mailers, financial reports and on and on. After they've been paying for years and have a huge amount of stockpiled images there's really not much of a reason to continue paying the monthly subscription. And I'm sure the massive copyright infringement from free-for-all copying of RF images online isn't helping. I can only hope for an implosion and correction toward more reasonable royalties.
-
I think RF came before microstock.
It doesn't look like there is much left for SS to "innovate" to keep the investors happy, but maybe screwing the little contributors more and just barely keeping the bigger production places happy. Also, I think people still get non - .10 downloads, especially for video - so that is an area that can be "innovated". Then they can just lower that .10 to .05 or .01 or whatever. At some point one would hope the contributors would all bail - but most of us have shown them that that is not the case at .10
-
The 'investors' are undoubtedly delirious with the coming of Stan the Man.
SSTK stock price has nearly tripled since his appointment on April 1st 2020.......who's the fool now? And with SS skimming off the top of every contributors old levels percentages from Jan 1st every year until they regain their higher levels again, how do you think that Q1 profits for the investors every year are going to look?
-
The 'investors' are undoubtedly delirious with the coming of Stan the Man.
SSTK stock price has nearly tripled since his appointment on April 1st 2020.......who's the fool now? And with SS skimming off the top of every contributors old levels percentages from Jan 1st every year until they regain their higher levels again, how do you think that Q1 profits for the investors every year are going to look?
I don't know who the fool is now, but I feel sorry for people whose minds are trapped in thinking they have no choice but to accept Shutterstock's unfair term upon contributors. I'm happy where I am now un-licensed from Shutterstock for the 2nd time and on its pace to the same sales total this month as last March but with only Adobe Stock and Pond5.
-
So you would have been on pace to make more this month than you did in March of last year, if your files were still available for sale on SS? Interesting.
-
I like this guy.
"...actually it's beyond a friendship gone sour, it's a bit like oh yeah I used to friends with this guy and now he breaks into my house and takes a dump in front of my kids on Christmas Eve" LOL ;D
-
I like this guy.
"...actually it's beyond a friendship gone sour, it's a bit like oh yeah I used to friends with this guy and now he breaks into my house and takes a dump in front of my kids on Christmas Eve" LOL ;D
His youtube videos are great!! Funny how he describes Shutterstock!!