Great humility all around from the Envato family:
https://www.afr.com/wealth/people/how-envato-succeeded-without-external-investors-20191003-p52xb0


This one is about how they succeeded without mothers, too.
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/envato-accused-failing-working-mothers/

Great humility all around from the Envato family:
https://www.afr.com/wealth/people/how-envato-succeeded-without-external-investors-20191003-p52xb0


This one is about how they succeeded without mothers, too.
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/envato-accused-failing-working-mothers/

To be honest Envato are just FoS

Especially after they decided to get rid of the revenue share scheme unless you jump thru hoops to get images accepted and then instead of the $200+ per month expect to make $10 to $20 and look forward to Getty style $0.01 cent sales or $0.00 sales thru Elements.

It really doesn't surprise me they treat mothers like this.

Quote from: vectorblazer on October 27, 2019, 21:50

Great humility all around from the Envato family:
https://www.afr.com/wealth/people/how-envato-succeeded-without-external-investors-20191003-p52xb0


This one is about how they succeeded without mothers, too.
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/envato-accused-failing-working-mothers/

To be honest Envato are just FoS

Especially after they decided to get rid of the revenue share scheme unless you jump thru hoops to get images accepted and then instead of the $200+ per month expect to make $10 to $20 and look forward to Getty style $0.01 cent sales or $0.00 sales thru Elements.

It really doesn't surprise me they treat mothers like this.

If you're making $10 to $20 in bonuses then that means you were making $15 to $30 in sales...so you didn't find it a bit out of the ordinary that you were making $300 a month in bonuses?

The bonuses were a compensation for getting only $0.005 for an image instead of $10.
So it was only reasonable that they were going to make it up for contributors, somehow.
Yet, as mentioned here before, they've taken it down after two years because they didn't need more contributors nor care.

Regarding getting a %100 on a sale with referral:
They changed their affiliate system recently, so while all the old links referring to their sites still work - getting them traffic and money -
The people who referred them using the old links aren't getting commissions anymore. Outrageous!
Yes, another incredible FoS move.

Wonder how many more Envato staffers / boot lickers are gonna come in here and try
to portray them as some humanitarian organization.
Pretty sure that the wife's current "NGO Venture" (as mentioned in here: https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/analysis/envato-cyan-taeed-milkshake/ )
Is just for money laundering and tax evasion . 

Funny to compare this CEO couple vs Canva's CEO couple....
Not only is their company practice uglier, but they are also are in real life very unattractive.
While Canva folks are very good looking outside, and inside (at least in comparison to Envato).

...and distribute the remaining bonus to their pet producers?

I think a producer that has a large portfolio of items that are consistently downloaded in high volumes would be considered a 'pet producer' no matter the agency. Envato, Shutterstock, Alamy etc. The bonus is now just linked to your downloads, just like your earnings are linked to your downloads on Envato and every other site out there. That's not favouritism, it's just you ability to produce desirable content.

Weird that the anti-subscription crew are decrying a move that makes the whole system ever so slightly more like a non-subscription site.

Would you still be complaining about the change to the bonus system if your bonus had increased by $300 rather than decreased by $300? Surely the ends don't justify the means, right?   

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 28, 2019, 14:15

If you're making $10 to $20 in bonuses then that means you were making $15 to $30 in sales...so you didn't find it a bit out of the ordinary that you were making $300 a month in bonuses?

And for photographers, those "sales" on elements are often zero. Zero commission on zero sales, yet hundreds of images downloaded every month.  This is the danger of sites like Elements where there is no cap or limit on the downloads. Yet, there are always those non-photographers defending Elements who will suggest that you are at fault for not being able to make enough sales to earn a decent bonus. During the previous month, 48% of my sales earned me $0.00, with the rest only between $0.01 and $0.20. I just quit elements this month and I hope other photographers will do the same. Sites like Elements are the real danger to the stock industry and should not be supported.   

A great idea giving up on Elements ~ its obvious what they are up to.

Are you being paid by Envato to spout this defense of their practises?

They moved from an unfair bonus system to a fair bonus system. What's there to defend? I mean previously you'd get a $300 (give or take) bonus if you were generating $2000 in sales and you'd get a $300 bonus if you were generating $2 in sales. How is that fair?

So let's say Shutterstock announce they're going to average the total revenue and pay an equal amount to all contributors every month.... as a result, you get half what you're currently making? You can't honestly say that's a fairer way of doing things? But I'm guessing you'd say it was fairer if your earnings doubled though! 

Bear in mind that Envato are so picky that even high quality stuff gets rejected and I bet their hope is that having gotten a large number of "high" quality images contributors will just give up submitting images and hence no longer qualify for their now miniscule bonus programme.

The amount they pay out will be exactly the same as it was before they made the changes. Bonuses for some authors will be miniscule. Bonuses for some authors will have increased quite a bit. The total is still the same. From a revenue standpoint, there's no benefit to Envato from causing authors to stop submitting or stop qualifying for the bonus.

Aww, those were the days! Licking boots for Envato/raising awareness and money for Movember... tomato/tomato. But no, Envato never promised generous bonuses to compensate for anything. They explained there will be a bonus shared equally among contributors that comes from subscribers who don't use their subscription during any given month. i.e. they explained how the bonus scheme works.

The only logical conclusion is that you saw how low your sales were, and then how high the bonus was in comparison, and came to the conclusion that the bonus was some kind of compensation. 

"Elements reduced prices of regular photodune images from $8-$10 to $0.005" - Unrelated to the bonus.
"Envato's "Sales pitch" on that was - Don't worry, we will compensate you in the "contributor bonus" - no they didn't.
"Two years go by, and all of a sudden you "forgot" these images used to be priced $10" - They still are on Photodune.
"You call a $200 bonus "Unfair" because a thousand people downloaded a image for $0.0003" - *See below
The only reason this image was down valued (from $8 to $0.0003) was due to Envato's "promises of generous bonuses to compensate" - Maybe in your mind, but not in reality. And I though it was $0.005? You're not just making up numbers are you?!

*My posts in this thread are regarding the bonus, not how Elements works as a whole. You're welcome to analyse all the pros and cons of Elements yourself to decide whether it's worth it or not, but the bonus is the bonus. It's not compensation... it's a way to allocate funds from inactive accounts (which is pretty fair in itself... they could just keep it) and the way they're doing it now is a lot fairer than before. 

I do find it slightly amusing that the things you're complaining about now were absolutely fine before the changes, and now they're not. Like you were happy to be involved with such a horrible scheme that's so harmful to the stock industry purely because they were giving you a reasonable amount of money. Now they're not giving you a reasonable amount of money... it's suddenly such an injustice.

But still, what do you say to the people who have had an increase in their bonus? Do they not deserve to have their bonus stay the same or increase as they generate more downloads?

Never quite important to post all that much about though... until you took a hit to the wallet? On a side note... if you have to repeatedly resort to commenting on peoples appearances (which you've done quite a few times in this thread), then it lessens your arguement somewhat, and makes you seem like the kind of individual that has a personality that even a mother would have difficulty loving. 

But still, I'm super handsome! Gaze upon my beauty... drink it in!

The only logical conclusion is that you saw how low your sales were, and then how high the bonus was in comparison, and came to the conclusion that the bonus was some kind of compensation. 



*My posts in this thread are regarding the bonus, not how Elements works as a whole. You're welcome to analyse all the pros and cons of Elements yourself to decide whether it's worth it or not, but the bonus is the bonus. It's not compensation... it's a way to allocate funds from inactive accounts (which is pretty fair in itself... they could just keep it) and the way they're doing it now is a lot fairer than before. 

I do find it slightly amusing that the things you're complaining about now were absolutely fine before the changes, and now they're not. Like you were happy to be involved with such a horrible scheme that's so harmful to the stock industry purely because they were giving you a reasonable amount of money. Now they're not giving you a reasonable amount of money... it's suddenly such an injustice.

But still, what do you say to the people who have had an increase in their bonus? Do they not deserve to have their bonus stay the same or increase as they generate more downloads?

A typical non sequitor rebuttal.

It was alright as the bonus programme compensated for the low sales values whether you find it amusing or not.

In fact I wrote to Envato back at the beginning as to why the $0.00 and sub $0.10 sales values and they told me it was compensated for by the bonus programme.

Not only is their company practice uglier, but they are also are in real life very unattractive.

You've got a short memory!

So just to clarify....

1. Makes personal attacks on multiple people regarding their physical appearance

2. Called out on making multiple personal attacks on people regarding their physical appearance

3. Says that it was just a personal attack on one person... somehow making that ok.

4. Reminded that there was actually personal attacks on multiple people... with a quote from their own words to remind them.

5. Gives up trying to proclaim their innocence, or debate the original topic, and just doubles down on the personal attacks.

Impressive work! I'm sure I could dig out some psychology articles on what that kind of behaviour means, but hey... ain't nobody got time for that.