Jump to content

GregDPhotos

Members
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GregDPhotos


  1. On 8/2/2020 at 2:52 PM, Milo J said:

    I have no idea why so many people are downvoting this announcement. It's a good thing, and something we've been asking for for a long time.

    If you don't want to upload anymore, then don't upload anymore. Easy as that.

    +1

    I disabled my portfolio - but I believe it's important to give credit where credit's due.


  2. The publisher probably took advantage of Shutterstock's "Asset Assurance" program, "a safeguard for brands using powerful editorial imagery in campaigns." (https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/introducing-asset-assurancetm-safeguard-brands-using-powerfulhttps://www.shutterstock.com/blog/asset-assurance-editorial)

    Here's where it's addressed in contributors' contract with SS: "You agree that Shutterstock may permit Content designated "Editorial Use Only" to be used in a non-Editorial manner at Shutterstock's sole discretion..." (https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en_US)


  3. 2 hours ago, Elena Umyskova said:

    The same story. Looks like stock owners collusion. So cost reduction started on SS, was planned on other stocks also.

    People, who has disabled sales, hang on there. It's important.

    Possibly. 4 days into this month, and my trend is even worse than last. "Somethin' ain't right." 😏


  4. Interesting experience for me. I disabled my portfolio at the end of May - so SS never got to pay me the lucrative 10¢. In June, my sales elsewhere was stable. In July... my sales elsewhere dropped like a rock. Interesting that this would happen as I significantly increased all portfolios (other than SS) in June and July.


  5. 32 minutes ago, Antonio Salaverry said:

    Ok, with 1 month of statistics I got 24% decrease in incoming (I'm currently level 4).

    It doesn't seem to be as bad as everyone is putting (For images, not videos). But yes it is bad, considering it was already too cheap.

    What was the change in your RPD?


  6. 21 hours ago, paulomachado_9 said:

    My adobe stock experience is not being very good, it takes a long time to review the photos, is this normal? I have photos taking 16 to 22 days for the reviewer to see, is it the same with you? best regards

    Usually 10-12 days for me. Used to be around 3 days; I've figured the delay has to do with COVID19 and/or increased volume from contributors migrating from SS.


  7. 1 hour ago, StockWithMe said:

    You're producing crap, there you go your answer

    Thank you for your feedback. Interesting that you fell for the trap. The truth is that the small size of my portfolio is due to notably higher level work I do that is not connected with stock.

    I would be more careful with judgment calls in the future if I were you. IMHO. Especially when it comes to contradicting reviewers at 2 agencies that are not SS or DT.


  8. 46 minutes ago, Mirko Rosenau said:

     

     

    StockWithMe. I can see your frustration with this situation as whole, but no need to talk like this.. Based on what I see in Greg's portfolio, he has not too many images in there. That is telling me he is in the beginning stage. This is a very great start. The images look probably better than what I had on my beginning. 

    So Greg, keep up the great work! I would only suggest to offer your images to agencies that respect their contributors and treat them right. Upload your work to platforms like Adobe where they pay a fair price. I gave Shutterstock not even 1 new upload since the new pay structure. 

    I appreciate your feedback. My SS portfolio was about twice the size (still really small) until I deactivated by 6/1... Wish I'd put more time into my Adobe portfolio before then. Though I suppose @StockWithMe would have preferred I stay on SS.


  9. 13 hours ago, Firn said:

    My experience is a different one.
    Adobe has done fairly well for me all year with an average price of 1$ per image, used to be either close to my SS earnings or above.
    This month I made about more than double as much on Adobe as on SS. No complains from me about Adobe.
     

    +1


  10. 4 hours ago, Tawrat Ferdousi Branding said:

    Do you think constant .10 c sells are depressing?

    Than look at this.

    On Adobe Stock I haven't had a single sell since 13 June.

    ---

    You have to admit other microstock sites are shit

    and that's why Shutterstock got the power to take this dicition.

    --

    After the BycottShutterstock trend I only given content to Adobe Stock 

    and this is the result I have got.

    And at the meantime with no new content and 0.10 c sell Shutterstock out performed..

    --

    Currently I have AVAILABLE EARNINGS $20.36 on Adobe Stock and on Shutterstock I have $24.56.

    and I am getting constant sells on shutterstock on one single vector image.

    --

    Don't get me wrong. I am not supporting shutterstock's huge 0.10c sell

    But you have to admit other sites are Shit as well.

    Hash truth or realty you say.

    --

    Thanks. 

    I am open to any kind of comment on this.

    image.png.e7131a532c7abff866231fe94c423a94.png

    AS has consistently out performed SS for me as far as revenue over the past year, in spite of a smaller portfolio and fewer downloads. But that's my experience, not everyone's.

    No data on P5 yet, as I've been there less than a month.


  11. I wondered the same thing. Went ahead and disabled. I figure if things get better (I can dream, right?), I'll re-upload and hope the content is picked up again when it's fresh. Or hope the images will show up as fresh simply because for practical purposes the content will be fresh for those who search for it.


  12. 2 hours ago, AKaiser said:

    They just banned @Wilm Ihlenfeld from posting to the forums for "hijacking other peoples' threads to share his negative views about Shutterstock".
    This is ... just ridiculous. 
    I don't know *any* person in this world being more factual and objective than Wilm. 
    Censorship at its best.
    *yikes*
     

    Perhaps we should all say our farewells, in case we aren't given the opportunity later.


  13. 20 hours ago, synthetick said:

    This is a new Shutterstock blog post - could this be the origin of these low video sales? https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/projector-shutterstock-integration

    Could be. Question about this program: Where are Projector users going to find the "millions of fresh, high-quality images and video clips to craft their designs" that they are promised?

    They're not talking about content that top-notch producers decide to leave on SS; they're talking about the content SS is counting on those producers CONTINUING to produce and provide to SS for 26 cents/clip download.


  14. 9 hours ago, Nirdesha Munasinghe said:

    I'm sorry guys this sounds like I have just crawled out from under a rock. In fact I have. 

    Can someone please tell me what's going on with the new pricing model? It says I'm at level 2 and my royalties are so low for subscriptions. Is there a place I can read up or can a kind soul please explain it to me briefly? 

    At level 2, you get a 20% royalty on photo sales, with a minimum payout of 10 cents. That means that you are likely to get 10-11 cents on most subs with a max of 98 cents; and $1.83-$2.90 per OD. I disabled my portfolio at the end of May because of the new royalties structure - so I have no first-hand experience - but from the various threads around here it sounds like 10 cents is the most common payout amount until level 6. Perhaps the best part of the structure is that on January 1, 2021, you'll automatically advance to a 15% royalty rate (and again on January 1, 2022...! 😬

    SS recently advised in a blog article that photographs recognize the value of their work and not work for free. I've followed their advice, and encourage you to do the same. But that's just me.


  15. 2 hours ago, Daniel Wiedemann said:

    How come I received $0.34 and $1.65 for a video sale? How is that ANYWHERE NEAR 25% (I believe I'm level 3)?

    image.png.bdc465c3666b0b6d1a39b0a7d0be3599.png

    image.thumb.png.99f32c371449683f9c841d6ee3aa9a00.png

    image.thumb.png.12cef034aada4f843ecc3bbf75d68a9e.png

    Perhaps the 34 cents was from a free trial? Don't know about the $1.65... some customers must be getting some super good deals! I mean, what could be better than paying $6.60 for a video on a site as excellent as SS? I wonder how they can sell videos for $6.60 and still pay their suppliers well...


  16. 10 hours ago, ribeiroantonio said:

    Ok. However in the listed price per images for subs there is only 12 options (4 monthly no contract, 4 billed monthly and 4 billed upfront). So far this month of June I already have sales for 18 (eighteen) different values (from $0.10 to $1.18). For ODs I have right now 4 (four) sales on single $ digit (from $1.80 to $2.38) and the listed price per image only states 2 (two) options on Standard Licence. The other ODs are Enhanced License and on double digit value.

    It is difficult to understand.

    I'm not sure what to say... Based on publicly available information, there are only 9 unique royalty amounts for subs at 30% (.1, .12, .14, .17, .49, .59, .75, .87, 1.47) and 3 for ODs (2.75, 2.94, 4.35). I don't see where the OD payments came from - the lowest payout you get should be $2.75! Help, @Kate Shutterstock ?

    Of course, video payouts are totally different...

×
×
  • Create New...