Do Adobe Stock contributors use their own website as a second licensing channel?

Hi everyone, I am curious how Adobe Stock contributors think about using their own website as a second licensing channel next to Adobe Stock. For context, we have been uploading stock photos and videos since 2022 and now have a few thousand files across several agencies. Adobe Stock and Shutterstock are still the main revenue sources for us, so I am not thinking about replacing marketplaces. The question is more about whether it makes sense to also build a direct channel for selected collections, where the archive lives under the creator/studio brand and the buyer relationship, licensing terms, SEO pages, checkout and download delivery are handled directly. For contributors who have tried this: - Did your own website bring any real licensing inquiries from SEO? - Was traffic the biggest problem? - Was upload and metadata work the biggest problem? - Did buyers care that the content came directly from a known creator or studio? - Did it work better for photos, video, niche collections, or custom/licensing requests? I am also wondering whether the rise of generative content on large marketplaces makes direct licensing from a known creator more valuable for agencies and brands that need real, properly licensed content. Would be interested in any practical experience from contributors who have tried selling direct alongside Adobe Stock.