Yeah, I’m saying that Shutterstock makes more money than Envato. I’m not sure where you’re getting your info. And the reason I mentioned payout percentages was because it makes a big difference to actual profit, rather than just revenue. SS payout 25%, if you’re lucky. As you know, Envato payout around 36% to non-exclusive and 50% minimum to exclusive… with most of the best selling items getting around 70%. So when Envato have paid out $500m to authors, their revenue will probably be around $850m (gross profit of $350m). When SS payout the same, their revenue is going to be $2bn (gross profit of $1.5bn).
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the number of reviewers. Stricter reviews are stricter reviews, whether you have 1 or 100 reviewers. I don’t think the issue is higher quality clips not being approved anyway.
Why? Maybe if having more reviewers resulted in higher quality clips, but it doesn’t. Just having clips reviewed quicker won’t bring in more customers.
Seasonal footage would probably be one good reason for getting files reviewed promptly, but then again, a snowman from 2017 is going to look pretty much the same as a snowman from 2016.
Something along the lines of a famous Lannister: “I enjoy you, and you’re clever, but you’re not as clever as you think you are”.
A higher number of reviewers will always result in faster sifting through the queue. Regardless of strictness. More quality clips will be approved over a given period of time. Pair that with stricter reviews and the VideoHive portfolio will increase in quality faster and faster, making it more and more possible to compete against the veterans.
A quick search or look through the bestsellers will give any buyer an idea of the overall quality of the site.
No matter how you look at it, a higher number of quality clips will result in more buyers. It’s better if that happens in 1 year than in 10 years.
There are big, big gaps in the VideoHive portfolio with lots of common subjects missing or with only low quality clips. If those gaps are filled, more serious buyers will start looking this way and abandon the other sites.
Well it’s $2bn to $350m… they don’t discount that heavily. That’s my point. You said Envato make more than SS and they don’t. That was the whole point of all the things I’ve said related to SS. Just to be clear… hopefully.
With “making more money” I meant profits. The money that is actually left to hire one more reviewer. I will correct myself and say that Envato are close to Shutterstock.
Envato 2015: $33 million pre-tax profit.
Shutterstock 2015: $34.27 million pre-tax profit.
The difference is not that big. Those are the actual numbers. Not a “$1.5 billion SSF estimate”. Do some research.
I’m willing to bet that Envato make more and more each year and the 2016 numbers (which we don’t have access to) are close to or higher than Shutterstock (SS 2016 number is 44.5 but who’s to say Envato didn’t grow as much? You’d have to ask Collis).
Surely $33 million would be enough to hire one more Hungarian reviewer and see contributors happy, and the site grow. Call me crazy, but it might just be enough for two.
By the way, P5 is not even in the same universe. Hopefully they have increased sales but in 2014 they had $20 million in SALES. Barely, if even, making a profit. They were not profitable in 2013.
There is no such thing as pre-tax profit. Pre-tax income is gross revenue. A company’s “profit” occurs after all taxes and business expenditures are paid.
I think what you meant to say is Envato’s 2015 Revenue was $33M.
However, that $33M is the revenue they generated over the course of that fiscal year, not how much money they have available to spend or invest back into the business.
But to address your point about hiring 1 or 2 more reviewers to help with review times… the Stock Footage category is handled by a dedicated team comprised of several reviewers. Adding another employee or two certainly wouldn’t make any difference
It’s not about how many reviewers Envato hires, its about implementing tools that make reviewers’ jobs more efficient, which is already occurring. By my estimation, the expected review time has been dropping over the last 30 days.
You’ve got to be kidding me thinking that the Envato revenue was only $33 million… Don’t belittle people when you know absolutely nothing.
The 20 top ThemeForest authors alone are responsible for a revenue of around $23 million…
I don’t see a single piece of stock footage in your portfolio so how do you even have a clue about those reviewers? 1 more person added to 3 is a 33% increase which is a big difference. That must be obvious?
My apologies! I clearly misunderstood the meaning of your understanding of Envato’s “$33M in profit”. I took it with more of an accusatory tone, and perhaps I was mistaken in doing so. It left me with the impression that you think Envato had $33M of extra cash laying around at the end of 2015 that they did nothing with (or could have done more with).
Thanks for the apology, but they DID have $33 million laying around for hiring one more reviewer. Presumably MUCH more this year/2016 (since they doubled profits from 2014 to 2015). You don’t pay taxes BEFORE salaries.
Right, but my main intention in responding to you was to assure you that 1 or 2 reviewers isn’t going to make a difference with the kind of backlog Videohive is currently experiencing.
Perhaps you missed it, but there is a paragraph in the afr.com article about company leadership encouraging staff to “make the right decision, opposed to the profitable one”. So my takeaway from your comment was that you were accusing Envato of being predominantly concerned with turning a profit, which is clearly inaccurate.
If we have 3 reviewers today, just one extra is a 33% increase. That doesn’t make a difference? Of course it does! 33% is a lot.
Let’s say 10,000 clips are uploaded per week.
3 reviewers can review 3,000 clips each per week. A total of 9,000 clips. (example numbers)
This results in an increasing review queue.
Add one more reviewer and they can now review 12,000 clips per week. The review queue gets shorter by 2,000 clips per week. There must be many, many, many thousands of clips currently in the queue.
I don’t really understand how you can claim that 33% is not a big difference? Even if there were 5 reviewers (which I’m quite sure there aren’t) that’s a 20% increase, which is also enough to make a difference.
Based on the numbers you provided, that means a single reviewer would need to download, inspect, and provide feedback for 1.25 items per minute, which seems like quite a torrid pace to keep up over the course of an 8-hour day (with no breaks)!
Do you know how many clips are uploaded each week?
Do you know how many clips one reviewer can review per week?
If you have the actual numbers I’d love to see them.
Since you claim that “there is no such thing as pre-tax profit” and seem to not understand basic logic I’m having a hard time agreeing with you or taking your “knowledge” seriously.
Spending even close to a minute per clip seems incredibly ineffective, but only the people behind the scenes would be able to provide actual data.
I would imagine the reviewers would have instant access to each clip they’re reviewing (they’re buffered over night) so there is no waiting time between each clip. Most clips are around 10-15 seconds and a decision would easily be made within 10-20 seconds. These aren’t AE projects…
And before you say it - judging from what’s getting approved they do not read titles nor descriptions. And especially not tags. And especially, especially not categories…
This is great news, and hopefully we won’t see blown out highlights with white balance off the charts as much.
It doesn’t change any of the logic and reasoning in this thread, but it’s good news. At least for high quality producers. It should decrease the review time and increase the overall quality of the VideoHive portfolio. Just like I wanted.
The reviewers must also be more consistent in their reviews, so that an HD version of a 4k clip isn’t rejected for example.
The news certainly is encouraging, and I’m hoping it’ll alleviate the stock footage backlog that’s been far too high for far too long.
On the surface, hiring more reviewers seems like the simplest and most logical solution to the problem, but clearly the backlog was a bit more complicated than adding manpower.
I definitely agree with you that the review process needs to be more consistent (especially with the HD/4K resolution issue), which goes along with implementing better systems to provide the reviewers with better tools to reduce mistakes.
Things certainly appear to be headed in the right direction!