pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dissolve price update  (Read 23860 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2015, 13:21 »
+7
I'm already comfortably seated and popcorn is ready :D

« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2015, 13:30 »
+5
Oh boy this is going to get ugly.
Would dissolve mind explaining to us exactly how they will know if some of the clips at dissolve are being offered at a lower price in other agencies?
And this 49usd price....
You guys are doing this to prevent people from uploading to videoblocks perhaps or am i just being paranoid?
Will you also match the commissions of these other sites too?
What about if we offer hd clips at 149-199 on other sites?Will you match price there as well?

« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2015, 13:35 »
+8
Yet another agency tightening the screws on contributors rather than offering fair marketing strategies!

« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2015, 13:45 »
+10
It may backfire on Dissolve since videoblocks pay 100% commission and Pond5 50%. If Dissolve drop to $49 but still try to pay only 30% commission this should lead to less uploads since contributors will rightly feel they are getting ripped off.

« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2015, 13:48 »
+14
We take pride in the amazing experience our customers have with Dissolve from collection quality to customer service to competitive and consistent pricing. So when content at Dissolve is available at a lower price elsewhere, we match that price.

How about you have "consistent pricing" on your own site, and don't worry about what other sites are doing?  Try to bring the market up, not down.


« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2015, 14:01 »
+11
Only a fraction of our HD collection is affected by this update and is moving to $49.

So, why do it?  Why anger contributors who would like to get higher prices for their work?  BTW, wouldn't that be price fixing?

"Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor."

That's from the FTC, and it sounds like what you're doing.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 14:04 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2015, 14:04 »
+8
If the minimum price that an HD collection is available elsewhere is $299, then well price it at $299. If the minimum HD price is $79, then well match $79.

So you follow where others lead. And with commissions?

« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2015, 14:18 »
+2
But many artists dont have one price for their whole collection. They will have content from 10 dollars to 1500 dependent based on quality and rarity of the footage.

Why not offer three different price levels for the artists, so they can match the prices on dissolve to what they offer elsewhere?

I mean it is your agency, but it sounds like a lot of work to check all the individual clips on all the other agencies.

If artists are given the option to match price and quality probably many would do it. You simply didnt give them the option before.

Otherwise I suppose people can only delete the clips from dissolve that are offered cheaper elsewhere and send only 299 dollar footage to dissolve.

Reminds me of when fotolia announced they will lower peoples rank if they find their portfolios on offer elsewhere for lower prices (I think they were trying to fight of deposit).

Anyway, will be interesting to see how this works out and how the artists will react.

I also always thought the different prices would reflect different types of license options, that on some agencies there would be multi-seat uses,higher print runs etc...included and that this was reflected in the pricing.

ETA: like others have mentioned, pond5 pays out 50%, so the artists can allow the customer to benefit from better prices and still make more money. Why not match pond5 in royalties to be more competitive?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 14:23 by cobalt »

« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2015, 14:20 »
+6
Good comments, thanks. Dissolve aligns the price of non-exclusive content to the competitive marketplace. If the minimum price that an HD collection is available elsewhere is $299, then well price it at $299. If the minimum HD price is $79, then well match $79. Only a fraction of our HD collection is affected by this update and is moving to $49.

Expect a contributor backlash on this one Dissolve. If a clip at Pond5 for example is priced at $49 the contributor will get $24.5. A clip at $49 at Dissolve would only earn the contributor $14.7. I would certainly not support this.

« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2015, 14:21 »
+10
Do you take pride in the experience of your contributors? 

I would urge you to listen to our concerns.  Please don't lower prices unless you can raise commissions.


« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2015, 14:39 »
+3
So you are telling us pretty much that whoever lowers prices even further and you "decide" that they "threaten" you, you are going to match their lower price.
You are doing a very aggresive move here and it's all on our backs.Why not match the lower price then and raise the commissions so we get the same 24usd (which is already bad enough) for hd if you want to be all fair about it?

And again you need to clarify something that is a bit disturbing.How will you know if certain collections (why "collections" and not clips?what does "collections" mean?) are being offered elsewhere at lower prices?Will you search all portfolios?its impossible.Perhaps you will only need to scout clips at videoblocks or not scout at all i guess and just go with it.
And what about the previous announcement for sd downconversions?


« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2015, 14:53 »
+8
Thanks for your comments, we're listening. This is competitive pricing based on marketplace observations.

ie. Price Fixing - "antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor"

« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2015, 15:04 »
+2
This is how i see it.
Dissolve has its strategies but i have mine like a lot of contributors in this business.
The sites we choose,the way we price,and what we upload and where isn't just random.We know where to sell and for how much (at least we try to figure out the where and how).
We dont upload everything everywhere.

I uploaded at dissolve because i was told that there will be a certain amount of commissions for my clips.
I decided that dissolve will be a "second shutterstock" for me, as far as commissions go, and even if it fails to deliver in sales like shutterstock does, well no big deal.

Now that this "contract" is being broken i cant justify uploading to dissolve anymore.Its one thing getting 24usd (sometimes 20usd) for a clip and another thing getting 15usd or less.
You definitelty bring the sales,i can give you that, but in 2 months you have made a complete turnaround from where you stood and this will only get worse because you have lost all credibility for me.

I sell at pond5 at 79 almost  as much as i sell at  89-99.
Videoblocks is promising (for the moment) to sell clips for me at 49 and give the same commissions as pond5 does.
I think dissolve's announcement makes it easier for me to transition.
Sorry,its business.Please put a delete button on the contributor console since you will be implementing all these changes.
I feel like i need to protect my 49usd clips at videoblocks from you.

Daisy

« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2015, 15:07 »
+8
Aaron,

It's only fair "competitive and consistent pricing" if you are also consistent with the artist royalty rate.

Otherwise, you're just trying to hide greed with doublespeak.

« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2015, 15:10 »
+4
Over the years I have come to understand that when agencies say they are listening, it really means they are hit by the stupid stick.

« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2015, 15:18 »
+12
I don't sell video anywhere, so this is a general comment about comparing price alone being pretty meaningless as a strategy.

1. If you don't compare license terms as well as price, then it's not an apples and apples comparison and thus not really useful. As an example from the photo world, Canva sells an RM license to one of my images for $1 (a low price) but that's per use, so if someone uses it 10 times, it's $10 which might be more expensive than a $5 RF license offered elsewhere.

2. If you don't compare other business terms and conditions, then it's not a valid comparison. Again using a photo example, Alamy allows buyers to download the content, use it, take up to 3 months to report that they used it and then up to 45 days to pay for the usage. They get to pay more (generally) for an RF license than other agencies where you don't get to download until you pay. Shutterstock is another agency offering all sorts of special terms to corporate clients, charging them more for effectively the same usage license.

3. If you don't compare the amount of money you have to commit to get a particular price, it's not a fair comparison either. Agencies offering packs of credits give discounts for large purchases, but the buyer who wants to just get one image license typically pays much higher prices for the same license.

If Dissolve cuts the price of a clip and the contributor removes the "offending" site (or increases the price if it's at an agency where the contributor has that control), will Dissolve increase the price again? Automatically?

This just seems punitive, likely to be highly error prone and pretty labor intensive if you really keep up the monitoring on an ongoing basis of all your competitors' prices.


« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2015, 16:28 »
+14
...and you're going to match the fairer royalty split of your competitors, right? In each and every case?? Otherwise this policy is quite simply not good for contributors.

« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2015, 16:35 »
+6
I like Dissolve. I haven't been there long but I see-saw (hahaha get the pun) good potential. I wrote a note to Char saying that moving prices down on what's nothing but a knee jerk reaction should not be touted as something to be proud of. And as someone here pointed out, is anything but consistent.

Trust me, it is far better to lose a few sales than to become yet another despised agency. I'm only one little guy looking for an honest place to sell my stuff but I won't do it if there is nothing in it for me. 49 bucks sucks. I might get a t-shirt.



« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2015, 16:40 »
+9
The idea that buyers shop around on individual ble pieces of content to find cheaper prices is a fallacy.  So, that is a poor argument.

« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2015, 16:42 »
+9
...and you're going to match the fairer royalty split of your competitors, right?
Aaron answer this please

« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2015, 17:02 »
0
The idea that buyers shop around on individual ble pieces of content to find cheaper prices is a fallacy.

How do you know? There is only have anecdote. Based on my own experience I would say that people do shop around. Internet savvy people shop around when they are buying almost anything today. Partly it will also be about trust, payment convenience etc.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
18144 Views
Last post August 27, 2015, 11:53
by helloitsme
36 Replies
35462 Views
Last post May 20, 2015, 07:47
by Mantis
2 Replies
5469 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:16
by KnowYourOnions
27 Replies
16584 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:09
by gcrook
31 Replies
10061 Views
Last post August 27, 2018, 19:33
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results