Jump to content

Wilm Ihlenfeld

Members
  • Content Count

    1,619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilm Ihlenfeld

  1. I have deleted my complete portfolio there. It wasn't worth the time and didn't bring in any money.
  2. In Fotolia times there was an 8-tiered ranking. This no longer exists. Instead, there is a 3-level model for the remuneration of subscriptions. lifetime downloads: 0 - 999 = $ 0,33 1.000 - 9.999 = $ 0,36 10,000 or more = $0.38 https://helpx.adobe.com/de/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html
  3. Level 5 ODs 2,06 2,80 3,03 3,42 3,72 3,85 4,51 4,56 4,68 4,71 Subs 0,27 0,32 0,44 0,49 0,72 1,40 1,41 1,55 Average OD in July so far: 3.48 Average OD since introduction of new earnings structure: 3.18 Average Sub in July so far: 0.22 Average OD since introduction of new earnings structure: 0.22 I had 259 downloads for $0.10 so far. 🙁
  4. I would be very interested to know if the friend's agency has ever used all 750 downloads.
  5. Oh, at least now I have half an answer. The shutterstock support could not answer the question if we are paid and in which amount, but they wanted me to evaluate the support today. Personally this makes me sad. I am disappointed. I am angry. I am unmotivated. And I feel cheated by shutterstock and degraded to a fifth class "slave". Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, has made billions with the company. Today, he has the largest private foundation in the world with a philanthropic focus, one of whose aims is to fight poverty. Shutterstock is now helping his successors to continue the company's success story, so that at some point they will have enough money to set up a foundation to fight poverty. I am very sure that hundreds of thousands of shutterstock contributors - especially in the Corona crisis - would be thrilled if Microsoft already had a heart, and would pay appropriately for the images for the ads. Which obviously is not the case - otherwise the remuneration would be proudly announced here. What an incredible anachronism! Capitalism shows its ugly face. I find the whole development at shutterstock simply incredible. Is the water standing so high up to your neck? I'm sure that many of us providers are also up to our necks in water - you should consider that in all your actions! But it's the same as always and at the moment all over the world: Those who have the most will be given even more. And those who don't know how to find food for their children next week are being deprived of even more. What an antisocial society!!!
  6. Yes, it's true. For certain subscriptions you get more than you used to. The highest sub reported from Level 5 contributors so far was $2.28. The problem is, those are exceptions. Have you done the math? Probably not. I've done it. I know what I would have earned in the former highest level, and what I earn now in the new level 5. I had 730 subscriptions. These would have earned me $277.40 earlier. Now - with a level where I would have to earn 5% more, I have earned $163.42. This gives a return per subscription of $0.22. Instead of a 5% increase, I have a 42% decrease. If I take the beginning of the year into account, it will approximately be a minus of over 50%. These are facts you can ignore if it makes you personally happy - for whatever reason. But you cannot change reality with words.
  7. My numbers since July 1: At shutterstock I had 69% more downloads than AS, but 15% less revenue. But I admit: The review at AS takes a very long time at the moment. Maybe this is due to a large amount of images that otherwise would have been uploaded at shutterstock and now end up at AS. But of course I don't know that.
  8. It appears that some of the successful contributors do not share this view. I've only just checked. The largest contributor that shutterstock had had written the following under his vendor name: "Largest collection of abstract grunge backgrounds and textures. Over 1.5 million images. All you need in one portfolio!" Of the 1.5 million images, exactly 3 are left! The second largest contributor has not uploaded a single image for weeks. At least not at shutterstock! Maybe you should think about what kind of performance you are talking about. If my car would theoretically have a good performance, but I can't afford the fuel anymore, then there is nothing more to get out of it. The "potential" of the car can then no longer be exploited. Now you send a new shot list with recommendations. Almost all of them contain model photography. How are the contributors supposed to pay the models? And new contributors who accept the new price structure will certainly not be the ones who start taking model photography now. They can't even invest in camera equipment anymore. Maybe shutterstock does not notice it right away. But already in the medium term there will be an extreme loss of - from the customer's point of view - useful image material. Then your customers will say that they want to pay even less for bad pictures. Or they will go where the good, fresh image material is still available. It would have been a better way to prohibit providers who sell on shuttersock from offering it on free platforms at the same time by means of a contractual clause. This would have been a sensible approach to stop the downward trend in the price spiral. Every agency should do this. However, I am absolutely certain that shutterstock will catapult itself out of the market in the medium term.
  9. You could try Affinity products instead of InDesign and Illustrator. You can buy the software and don't need to subscribe it. It's very cheap.
  10. Was it an EL or an SOD, Evelyn? In terms of what a buyer is allowed to do with an EL an how much money he/she could earn with it, there is a big difference.
  11. It is of course true that many of the commissions are close together, which should be based on the exchange rate. Ultimately, we wanted to find out whether there was any traceability for the sometimes very different commissions. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Elsewhere in the forum a provider reported yesterday about a $0.10 OD. So obviously everything is possible. Probably we will see an Enhanced for $0.10 soon, because a special discount was granted for a certain buyer.
  12. Thanks a lot for your kind words, Annie and Rudy. I'm not entirely innocent. I guess I was a little too cynical in one of my comments. However, from my point of view, it was much less violent than many other comments that were posted in the forum in the past weeks. Anyway: It is shutterstock's forum and I have to accept their decisions. Let's see when they release geogif back into the wild. Annie, your pie charts are very interesting. And they clearly show a fact: We Central Europeans were obviously very much preferred in Fotolia times. And we were aware that we had it easier as Germans, Austrians or Swiss than other - international - contributors. Perhaps simply because the majority of buyers came from this area in the earlier days. But I never thought that the differences were so great. In my case, Fotolia/AS income amounts to 85.3% compared to shutterstock. When I look at the ratio in your pie chart, I really realize how advantaged we were. However, my figures are a bit distorted, because I've been with Fotolia/AS for 11 years and with shutterstock for only 9.5. If my income at shutterstock develops as it has since the beginning of July, it's only a matter of time before the ratio reverses and shutterstock slides down. My July RPD is as low as never before so far and dramatically lower than at any other agency. Without the lowered commissions reaching the buyers. It's all about money that ends up in shutterstock's pockets. So it has nothing to do with changes in the market, which we were told was the reason for the new revenue structure. iS is 25.8% compared to shutterstock. I have been there for 7.5 years. By the way: At Alamy I have a good 120 images. A few of them for over 3 years. I have uploaded images there that are doing well with other agencies. I just wanted to see if there was anything for me at the Alamy. My total income there: 1 US$. I can't calculate that in percent - I have to use per mil. Why that does not work there, I cannot explain myself. Steven, as far as I know, Debbie has not been suspended.
  13. Why did you get 2 downvotes for this? Am I missing something?
  14. Thanks, Milo. I didn't really understand the banishment exactly. I'm supposed to say hi to everyone at geogif, too. He doesn't know when he'll be allowed to visit the forum again.
  15. Hi Milo, after 9.5 years at shutterstock I can tell you my personal percentages of the small agencies compared to shutterstock: - 123rf = 17.3% (since 10 years) - DT = 8.4% (since 10 years) - DP = 5.4% (since 7.5 years) - CS = 3.9% (since 7.5 years) The size of my portfolio is nearly the same at those agencies. - BS = 2.6% (for 9 years) But at Bigstock I only have 800 images online and have uploaded nothing for many years. There I wait for the last payout and will delete everything there.
  16. Hi Iszurin, I can't see any approved photos. The link to your portfolio doesn't work.
  17. I stopped uploading on May 26, when the e-mail came in.
  18. Hello Chy, additional to the 3.80 and 3.84 ODs I had a 0.88 sub today. And, the same here: July started badly.
  19. Gray Photo Online, In my case I would come to completely wrong conclusions if I were to calculate like this. After all, monthly income can vary greatly - whether according to the old or the new income system. In my case, I took in 26.7% more in June 2020 than in June 2019, with almost the same portfolio size. But that gives a completely wrong picture. In order to know what effects the new system will have, you need to know how high your roaylties were under the old system. I have already compared some figures in this regard, as you can read in my last post ^^^above. Now to the special revenues, like SODs and Enhanced. I used to get 30% share, now it's 35%. I had two Enhanced for 70,75 US$ in June 2020. So in order to compare, I have to find out what the buyer paid. 70.75 x 100 / 35 = US$ 202.14 > that is waht the buyer has paid. Under the old system, I would only have got 30%. That means: 202.14 x 0.3 = 60.64 US $ My profit through the new system is 10.11 US$. I had two good SODs that gave more than the Enhanced. There I also have a profit. But: The loss in subscriptions is so high that I cannot compensate it with the higher revenues of ODs, Enhanced and SODs. In a nutshell: Without the revenue model change, my revenue would have been 32.7% higher in June 2020 than in June 2019. So, it's just the 26.7% I mentioned above. I have lost 6% due to the new system. So I must not be blinded by the fact that June 2020 was much better than June 2019. The less income I will have from big licenses like Enhanced or SODs, the bigger these losses will be because of those masses of badly paid subscriptions. Doug Jensen had written in another thread: "For the most part, June was an ordinary month. I earned $3385 from 106 downloads making my average $31.93 June 2019 was $2967 from 82 downloads, making my average $36.18. So the average commission was down 13%, but my overall earnings were up +16%. However, I have more clips in my portfolio now than I did a year ago, so it is tempting to call it a decrease in sales. it all depends on how you want to look at it. But ultimately, I've got $3385 more in my pocket on June 30 than I had on June 1." I don't know his levels, so I can't make a reasonable calculation - only a guess. But I am absolutely sure that he would have earned at least US$3600 or more in July 2020 with the old compensation model. His overall earnings might have been up +22% or more. So even he - with a high contributor level as well - has losses compared to the old model, even if the numbers look very good at first glance. And even a contributor who earns shutterstock at least US$ 65,000 a year in profit will be downgraded to level 1 from the first of January. For whatever reason. We have not been given a reason for this. Once again: There can be no question of a higher revenue potential. It simply doesn't exist.
  20. Andreas, here are my facts and figures - that I have already posted in another thread: June is over and I have calculated - for the period from June 03 to 30***. subs: - 152 downloads for 0.10 - 313 downloads for ø 0,29 - total: 465 downloads for ø 0,23 - subs according to old model: 0.38 - Loss: 39%. ODs - 36 downloads for ø 3.16 - ODs according to old model: 2.85 - Profit: 11%. Compared to the old model, I have a combined loss of 22% for these two license types. The above-average Enhanced and SOD revenues make up for this. Before I would have got 30%, now it is 35%. This results in a total loss for this month incl. Enhanced and SODs from June 3rd: minus 6%. ***I left out 01. and 02. June, because the numbers there were not clear yet. On 01. June the old system was still used and on 02. June the subs were wrongly calculated as SODs. This means for me as a level 5 contributor: My losses will level off at approx. 15% in an average month even though I've reached a higher level. I do not have the high Enhanced and SODs regularly. If I add the time I need to reach level 5 again in the new year, the losses will be significantly higher. I assume that there are also losses with level 6 contributors. If I pretend that I am level 6 and calculate 40% for me with the Enhanced and SODs, I get exactly 0% compared to the old system. If I include the ODs in the calculation, it might have been a plus of 2% to 4% - but that cannot be calculated reliably. Another Level 5 contributor has shown his figures elsewhere: Compared to May he's down 27% and compared to April it's down 47%, although he had slightly more downloads in June than in the two previous months. Based on almost 500 downloads. A third Level 5 contributor has a plus of 8%. However, if he deducted a very high SOD, it would have been a minus of 15%. Based on just over 1000 downloads. Conclusion: Shutterstock has calculated well - for themselves and the shareholders. The "higher revenue potential" is and remains a marketing phrase that has nothing to do with reality.
  21. Hi Folks, I was released from verbal prison today. Level 5 SODs - 3.84 - 3.80 Facts and figures: June is over and I have calculated - for the period from June 03 to 30***. subs: - 152 pcs. for 0.10 - 313 pcs. for ø 0,29 - total: 465 pieces for ø 0,23 - subs according to old model: 0.38 - Loss: 39%. ODs - 36 pcs. for ø 3.16 - ODs according to old model: 2.85 - Profit: 11%. Compared to the old model, I have a combined loss of 22% for these two license types. The above-average Enhanced and SOD revenues make up for this. Before I would have got 30%, now it is 35%. This results in a total loss for this month incl. Enhanced and SODs from June 3rd: minus 6%. ***I left out 01. and 02. June, because the numbers there were not clear yet. On 01. June the old system was still used and on 02. June the subs were wrongly calculated as SODs. This means for me as a level 5 contributor: My losses will level off at approx. 15% in an average month even though I've reached a higher level. I do not have the high Enhanced and SODs regularly. If I add the time I need to reach level 5 again in the new year, the losses will be significantly higher. I assume that there are also losses with level 6 contributors. If I pretend that I am level 6 and calculate 40% for me with the Enhanced and SODs, I get exactly 0% compared to the old system. If I include the ODs in the calculation, it might have been a plus of 2% to 4% - but that cannot be calculated reliably. Another Level 5 contributor has shown their figures elsewhere: Compared to May it's down 27% and compared to April it's down 47%, although it had slightly more downloads in June than in the two previous months. Based on almost 500 downloads. A third Level 5 contributor has a plus of 8%. However, if he deducted a very high SOD, it would have been a minus of 15%. Based on just over 1000 downloads. Conclusion: Shutterstock has calculated well. The "higher revenue potential" is and remains a marketing phrase that has nothing to do with reality.
  22. Sorry, Nirdesha, obviously I have posted the wrong link. Adrienne's link to the "new earnings structure for Contributors" is the link I intended to post here...
×
×
  • Create New...