Jump to content

Wilm Ihlenfeld

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilm Ihlenfeld

  1. Attached the facts as an image. A few more remarks: My numbers are generally bad at the moment - not only at shutterstock. Maybe it's the virus. Even according to the old earnings structure July and August would be extremely bad. I haven't uploaded anything to shutterstock since the end of May. Maybe this is also noticeable. However, I have uploaded new images to other agencies, and still the income is bad there, too. I have deleted some images from shutterstock. July 2020 was my worst July since 2011. July at AS was not good either but I had 27% more income there. August is on it's way to my worst month ever at shutterstock. Maybe at AS as well. Only 13% more than here. Desaster!
  2. Hi Alexandre, once again, thank you very much for taking the time to bring this subject to my attention! Yes, the problem with the missing persons is certainly also a problem. On the other hand, when I look at book series, such as Charlotte Link, Dan Brown, Frank Sch├Ątzing, Henning Mankell, Gil Ribeiro and many more, they are usually free of people. But, sure, it would certainly be beneficial to add to the theme. And, yes, that's also true, my images are not unique enough and mostly too static or a bit boring.
  3. Thank you very much, Alexandre. That's interesting, because I wouldn't have thought of three of your examples. The image of the ship I had sent there. I had made a subjective selection of images that I thought might come into question - a few examples are given below.
  4. I would like to thank Alexandre Rotenberg for the information about Arcangel. And thank you, Deb, for bringing this up once more. I did not know this agency before. Since I found 10 books with covers that were made with my images, I decided to apply there. Unfortunately I was rejected. The reasons were detailed and extensive. And I admit that most of my images are certainly unsuitable for book covers. I am aware that the typical microstock style is not suitable there. In addition, I would have had a problem with the minimum width of 4,500 px anyway - but I didn't have the info until after I had sent the application.
  5. Hmmm, first of all, thank you for the compliment. But compared to others I know, I sell only old, used LandRovers. Because they have much less images and sell much more. But regardless of that, you are an exception in my opinion. Obviously you are at the top end of the scale. So from my point of view it's not necessarily a question whether you sell videos or stills. Money can be made with both. Especially if you work hard. Which unfortunately very rarely applies to me. However: I wish you continued good sales!
  6. The 300 dpi rule is actually outdated. It comes from a time when most printers printed in 60 screen (60 lines per inch). Today a 70 or 80 screen is the standard. What is actually needed are images with about 350 or 400 dpi. If a printing company can print in a 100 screen, even considerably more. So: An image has a resolution of 4,500 x 3,375 pixels, then it is sufficient for a printing company that - printed in a 60 screen, for a size of 38,1 x 28,1 cm - printed in a 70 screen, for a size of 32,1 x 24,1 cm - printed in an 80 raster, for a size of 28,5 x 21,4 cm
  7. Doug, You have seven times the amount of videos in your portfolio here - compared to my amount of stills, and you earn seven times the amount of money per month here. So I don't necessarily see the huge advantage of videos over stills, which you keep promoting here. I find the statement a bit generalistic. I'm quite sure that any contributor can earn as much money with stills as you do with videos - if he/she approaches it in an equally structured and professional way.
  8. A bit more than $400 in average here. 1250 images - no videos. But the new revenue structure is pushing the average down.
  9. You're not serious, are you, Alex? I have to say, though: If it continues like this, as it did in the first week of August, it will be my worst month ever at shutterstock concerning income.
  10. RPD is down. $0.40. Incredible!
  11. You must pay attention to the language setting. If you keyword english, the language setting must also be set to "english" - otherwise you'll really only get garbage.
  12. 27% of all the downloads I had in June + July are those for $0.10. Another 13% are the downloads for $0.11 and $0.12. No, the situation didn't change. When I compare July 2020 with July 2019, I notice that my RPD has decreased by 33% - at level 5.
  13. Yes, I'd be interested in that list as well.
  14. If I understood you correctly above, you now only have 30 instead of 60 dollars - right? I had 19% more income in June 2020 than in June 2019 and 32% more income than in June 2018. But: According to the old compensation model, the difference would have been much higher. My loss compared to the old compensation model was 6%. The loss was only so small because I had some very good SODs and enhanced. Without them it would have been much worse. In July 2020 I had 7% more downloads than in July 2019, but still I made a loss of 29% compared to the old revenue model. This is definitely no reason to celebrate. If your friend made $800 in three days, that is an impressive income. Nevertheless only one question is relevant: How much would he have made in those three days under the old revenue model? $900? $1,000? $1,200? He can always calculate his loss himself. And that's what this is all about - nothing else. Income under the new system compared to income under the old system. I had over 900 subs in June + July for an average of $0.22 at level 5. I used to get $0.38.
  15. The largest provider at shutterstock has not uploaded a single picture here since the introduction of the new pricing structure. This provider is - like many other big ones - not an individual, but a company. Many photographers have to make a living from the images in the portfolio, models have to be paid, studio rentals and equipment have to be paid. Obviously they do not see the potential you see, otherwise they would act as you proclaim. But even they have economic constraints and can calculate. Just like other big players I know. Vendors with seven-figure microstock sales who have shut down their portfolios here. Who have decided that their work is worth more to them than the average 40 cents per download they get here despite the high level of providers. So, no, I do not believe you.
  16. In my eyes it is not your problem and you don't have to do anything. If the buyer doesn't use the image correctly, it's his/her problem.
  17. That's why I wrote "third world" in quotation marks. I have found a table that shows the average income in different countries. How reliable the table is, I don't know. But as far as Germany is concerned, the figure given is realistic as far as I know. So if a contributor from India used to earn $175 a month through shutterstock, but now only gets $120 (at the beginning of next year maybe only $80), then "shutterstock for life" is no longer applicable. In the end it doesn't matter in which country you live. We all get less. And the hardest hit are those who make their living from it - no matter where in the world they live.
  18. Marko, yes, shutterstock is a company that has built up a good structure so that contributors can earn money worldwide - no question about that. However, Shutterstock did not invest the time and money back then for us to make money, but rather to make money for shutterstock. For shutterstock to earn money with this business model, the company needs a product. We supply this product. The business model cannot exist without us. It is therefore a symbiosis - a quid pro quo. Now, the shutterstock company has had problems recently. Too little payout to shareholders, images agencies, where contributors - for whatever reason - make their images available free of charge, too high personnel costs for permanently growing image and footage volumes and storage space requirements and much more. Then came Corona. I think most of us would have accepted it if we had been told: "We have to temporarily improve our financial situation until the crisis is over". But a new, permanent revenue model has been introduced in a highly anti-social way. And this will also cause massive problems for contributors from "third world" countries. Because many of them have no other source of income. I therefore believe that your attempt at motivation will be shattered by the pitfalls of reality. There is nothing nice to talk about here. Here, shareholders and owners of shutterstock get more money, while the contributors in the "third world" are faced with a fait accompli and can do nothing about it. Robin Hood the other way around. There's not one single reason to "keep this world alive"!! Since both parties - shutterstock and us contributors - keep this model alive, why doesn't shutterstock go the same way they have forced us to? All employees, board members and owners receive lower salaries - in the same percentage as our income has decreased. At the beginning of the year, they will only receive the salary they received at the time they started at shutterstock. If the figures develop positively, the salary will gradually rise back to the original level. This "adjustment" would therefore be introduced "to reflect the changes in the market for creative content." These would be "fair opportunities for all" that keep shutterstock alive as a company in the market.
  19. My monthly statistics for July 2020 are ready. shutterstock: Although I haven't uploaded a single image since June 1st, 2020 and I had deleted an additional 10% of my images - and despite Corona I had 7% more downloads in July 2020 - compared to July 2019. This plus of downloads brought me a loss of income of minus 29% compared to July 2019, even though I would have to get 5% more commission through level 5, because now I get 35% - at the old highest level it was only 30%. As shutterstock wrote: "...and reward performance with greater earnings potential". So: I performed better than in 2019, because I had more downloads. But where are the "greater earnings", Kate? Where does the 29% loss of revenue come from? In July 2020 I had 117 subs for $0.10 The average income for all subs together is $0.22. This is a minus of 42% for the subs - despite an improved ranking. Since there are hardly any ODs, Enhanced and SODs left, this simply cannot be compensated. By the way, in July I earned 27% more at AS than at shutterstock. And this even though I didn't have any Enhanced or SOD on AS.
  • Create New...