Jump to content

Wilm Ihlenfeld

Members
  • Content Count

    1,558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilm Ihlenfeld

  1. I Have to admit that I am satisfied with September so far. Considering the fact that I haven't uploaded anything since 26 May, I can't complain. But today it was miserable.
  2. Well, I must admit that what I have written is not correct. Sorry! I had written that every 567th download this year was an Enhanced. This is not true. That was true for the last 10.000 downloads. This year the balance is actually better. Every 460th download was an Enhanced. In this respect, Marcel could soon be on the verge of success. Awana as well. Debbie should actually be even more motivated. Unfortunately I have no consolation for Sari at the moment - I can only keep my fingers crossed.
  3. Oh, Deb, I can motivate you there. Since the beginning of the year the rate has been much better. This year every 567th download was an Enhanced.
  4. I took a look in my stats. On average every 700th download is an Enhanced for me.
  5. Andreas, so that no false impression is created here: I have made the calculation based on my current figures. Just like you, I simply took my current figures and compared them with what I would have received with these current downloads if the remuneration had not been changed. Whiteaster now knows how the 8% loss comes about. With the subs and the ODs it is quite obvious. With the Enhanced and the SODs I calculate it that way: I find out what the buyer paid. Currently I get 35% for Level 5. Let's say - fictitious figures - I got $100 for 10 SODs together. Then the buyers have paid 100 x 100 : 35 for these SODs = $285.71 Because 35% of $285,71 is $100. But under the old revenue system I would only have got 30%. 30% of $285,71 is $85,71. So with the new revenue model I would have a profit of $16,29. That sounds good, of course. But it doesn't do me any good. Simply because the subs eclipse everything else. Too few ODs, Enhanced and SODs to make up for the losses in subs. And I'm absolutely sure that shutterstock did the same calculations before the new revenue structure was introduced. I am very certain that all contributors are making losses. No matter what level they have reached.
  6. Sorry, balajisrinivasan, i didn't want to go over your milestone with my stupid remark. Congrats!
  7. Please do not exaggerate! 15 Cent sounds like fake news.
  8. I have sent you a PM. All of this are real numbers.
  9. Just a completely fictitious example with rounded numbers: 1000 subscriptions Now $234.84 Formerly $380.00 Loss: $145.16 (minus 38.2%) 10 ODs Now $32.80 Formerly $28.50 Profit: $4.30 (plus 15% - rounded because of the occasional ODs for $1.24) 1 Enhanced Now $37.20 Formerly $32.00 Profit: $5.20 (plus 14.3%) 10 SODs Now $43.10 Formerly $36.90 Profit: $6.20 (plus 14.3%) A total gain of $15.70 is then offset by a loss of $145. Do you understand by the fictitious example why I have a total loss. Of course, this would look completely different if you had calculated the example with 100 ODs, 10 Enhanced and 100 SODs. That's what I wanted to say: The losses with the subs can hardly be balanced with the gains with the other licenses, because the subs make up such a high percentage.
  10. This is due to the very high percentage of subscriptions, Whiteaster. Most of the downloads are the subs - and the velust is so extremely high. In the months when the ODs, SODs and Enhanced are not so numerous, the loss is therefore also much higher than 8%.
  11. Since it would take me a while to reach level 5 again, it could be 15% or 20% or even more.
  12. I have now calculated my numbers. Old level 4 = 30% according to old income structure / new level 5 = 35% according to new income structure. Since June 02 (on June 01 the old model was still used) up to and including September 17, it looks like this: Subs according to new revenue model: ø $0.23 Subs according to old revenue model: ø $0.38 loss: 38.2% ODs according to new revenue model: ø $3.28 ODs according to old revenue model: ø $2.85*. Profit: approx. 18%* Enhanced according to new revenue model (35%): ø $37.26 Enhanced according to old revenue model (30%): ø $31.94 Profit: 14.3% SODs according to new revenue model (35%): ø $4.31 SODs according to old revenue model (30%): ø $3.69 Profit: 14.3% For me personally this results in a loss of approx. 8%*. *In the ODs there were also small ODs for $1.24. I had these very rarely. But at this point I can't compare them exactly, because I can't filter out the counterpart with the new revenue structure. So here there can be +/- 1% deviations. I assume that my loss due to the downgrade in January will be over 10% annually.
  13. Yes, that's right, Tony. There are alternatives!
  14. That is exactly the problem, Tony. In corona times, the situation is not rosy for many creative people as you/as we all know. And it is precisely this situation that Shutterstock shamelessly and immorally exploits. Because they know that many contributors are driven to the revenues of Shutterstock – even if these have been drastically reduced. Am I willing to forego four-figure revenues? If this continues to develop as negatively as it is at the moment, probably yes. Probably by December 31. Then there are the large contributors (consortia). They have built up a microstock infrastructure with corresponding running costs. Which still have to be served. I think they just can't do without thousands of dollars a month, even though there is less money now. Some of them – unlike me – are still uploading. If they wouldn't do it, they would probably have to close their "shops". Shutterstock knows that too. And shamelessly exploits it to serve the shareholders. But those large contributors will invest less money in models etc. A shooting of hundreds of photos with only one model. This will eventually become unattractive for the buyers. They migrate. A vicious circle – caused by shutterstock and in the medium or long term to their own disadvantage. I am sure of it. Can I balance my shutterstock income with Alamy? In my case: No. I have only uploaded about 200 images so far. But there are a lot of images that bring a lot of money elsewhere. I had exactly 2 downloads at Alamy in the whole year 2020. One for $1 and one for $22. By the way, the total income I am shown is $22, not $23. I think that Alamy should be interesting especially for editorial contributors. I am not one of them. In my opinion, it is not fair that many contributors claim that everyone should close their account at shutterstock. The less money you make per year, the easier it is. But when it comes to many thousands of dollars, it's just not that simple anymore. For some contributors it's all about economic survival in the crisis.
  15. This table does not help much. Because it does not even begin to cover what reality is. In my view, it's not intended to be comprehensible either, because otherwise shutterstock would have to disclose all its deals with customers. And they certainly don't want that. You can get a rough impression of what it all involves here: https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100381-the-variety-of-sub-and-odd-sales/ This list is no longer complete, because we have not fed Chy (thanks for the work, Chy!) with new data at some point. What is the point? There is no recognizable pattern and no recognizable regularities. I can show you a screenshot of how my subscriptions looked like today. And note it immediately: Today I only had one for 10 cents. Sometimes it's 10 - at Level 5. But there are probably also half or third cent amounts. Because 42 cents can hardly be divided by 3 downloads. Fact is: At Level 5, 28 subscriptions have brought in 5.40 Euros so far. Before the new revenue structure, it would have been twice as much, namely 28 x 0.38 = $ 10.64. Level 5 is really worth it!
  16. You have an impressive portfolio! One more example for great work that is worth to earn much more.
  17. If I wasn't so lazy, I could also show the revenue chart what it would have looked like if shutterstock had kept the old revenue structure. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
  18. You have written several times that your "normal" videos sell particularly well, not the videos that have rocket launches or similar unique or exotic content. Since you have very good sales figures, this is a sure indication that you have to be very good at keywording. In this respect I believe every line you write. I cannot say for myself whether I am doing everything right. But I try very hard to pay attention to the right keywords. Probably it could be done better. However, I have always maintained that keywording is at least as important as the picture or video itself. That is also the reason why it takes so much time.
  19. Ah, okay, now I get it. Thanks, Debbie and Doug - I indeed didn't know the expression. Well, September will certainly be better than August. Whether it will be much better remains to be seen. Depends on how many of those 10 cent things come in. Or better said - how many high SODs and enhanced. I will report...
  20. Sorry, Doug, I don't understand, what you mean. 🤔
×
×
  • Create New...