MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dissolve price update  (Read 22785 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2015, 17:06 »
+9
You are welcomed to lower the price to $49 if you give us 100% royalty or to $69 if you give 50% royalty. 

We have to compete too.

Thank you!


« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2015, 17:10 »
+2
...and you're going to match the fairer royalty split of your competitors, right?
Aaron answer this please
Dont push them too much for an answer, they might snoop around and decide to go with a more "e-markets competitive" commission like istock's for example.

« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2015, 17:26 »
+3
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.

Sure, it's anecdotal.  But I've never seen a buyer with an account at X location go to Y site for one piece of content because it is $20 less.

« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2015, 17:51 »
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.

Sure, it's anecdotal.  But I've never seen a buyer with an account at X location go to Y site for one piece of content because it is $20 less.
I would, I do it all the time for airfares, cameras, lenses, etc...  Hasn't Alamy said they've given refunds when someone found an image on a micropriced site before?  If you don't want dissolve to license your work cheaper then don't license your work cheaper.  I think Fotolia threatened this before and in the end they just created DPC and now Adobe does the same by pricing lower too.

« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2015, 18:02 »
+15
Thanks for your comments, we're listening. This is competitive pricing based on marketplace observations. As much investment and effort we put into creating a premium product and experience through our marketing, branding, and customer service, as we all know price comparison shopping is part of e-commerce.

Then allow contributors to close their accounts and don't hold them hostage with your 5-year lock in. That's simply unfair to keep lowering prices and paying lower commissions. Give us that much...an opportunity to close our accounts.

« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2015, 18:14 »
+5
Thanks for your comments, we're listening. This is competitive pricing based on marketplace observations. As much investment and effort we put into creating a premium product and experience through our marketing, branding, and customer service, as we all know price comparison shopping is part of e-commerce.

Then allow contributors to close their accounts and don't hold them hostage with your 5-year lock in. That's simply unfair to keep lowering prices and paying lower commissions. Give us that much...an opportunity to close our accounts.
I agree, I feel taken. Why $49, why not get ahead of the pack and make it $4.90 or $0.49

cuppacoffee

« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2015, 18:31 »
+7
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.

Sure, it's anecdotal.  But I've never seen a buyer with an account at X location go to Y site for one piece of content because it is $20 less.
I would, I do it all the time for airfares, cameras, lenses, etc...  Hasn't Alamy said they've given refunds when someone found an image on a micropriced site before?  If you don't want dissolve to license your work cheaper then don't license your work cheaper.  I think Fotolia threatened this before and in the end they just created DPC and now Adobe does the same by pricing lower too.

Corporate accounts are set up by a business office and the users are told - Buy all of your stock images at [insert stock company here] because we have it set up that way. I'm talking the big guys, the buyers of many images a month. The users in the company have the site bookmarked, they go to that site for what they need and if they can't find it within the millions of images there they are told to find something "good enough." It's a hassle to buy an image elsewhere without having to go through management approval of a new site, setting up an account and a method of payment, etc. Big buyers work within a system and don't have the time or the desire to look elsewhere. I know, I work at one of those companies (5000 employees). They don't all buy stock images, but many do. A site is chosen, an account is set up and that's pretty much the end of it unless you want to wait a week for approval to buy elsewhere.

« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2015, 18:39 »
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.

Sure, it's anecdotal.  But I've never seen a buyer with an account at X location go to Y site for one piece of content because it is $20 less.
I would, I do it all the time for airfares, cameras, lenses, etc...  Hasn't Alamy said they've given refunds when someone found an image on a micropriced site before?  If you don't want dissolve to license your work cheaper then don't license your work cheaper.  I think Fotolia threatened this before and in the end they just created DPC and now Adobe does the same by pricing lower too.

Corporate accounts are set up by a business office and the users are told - Buy all of your stock images at [insert stock company here] because we have it set up that way. I'm talking the big guys, the buyers of many images a month. The users in the company have the site bookmarked, they go to that site for what they need and if they can't find it within the millions of images there they are told to find something "good enough." It's a hassle to buy an image elsewhere without having to go through management approval of a new site, setting up an account and a method of payment, etc. Big buyers work within a system and don't have the time or the desire to look elsewhere. I know, I work at one of those companies (5000 employees). They don't all buy stock images, but many do. A site is chosen, an account is set up and that's pretty much the end of it unless you want to wait a week for approval to buy elsewhere.
Lots of places have multiple accounts not just one.  But let's assume you're right, the buyer still has to decide which one site to go to and if they are looking at content from different sites and see the exact same content for a cheaper price at one site, they'll probably choose that one.

« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2015, 18:43 »
+4
I'd agree with cupacoffee.

But ok.

« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2015, 18:48 »
+2
I'd agree with cupacoffee.

But ok.
Do you really believe someone would only sign up for Stocksy for all their stock needs?  That doesn't seem likely to me.  Where would they get apples isolated on white?

« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2015, 19:22 »
+17
A five year lock in, 30% commission and custom punishment pricing.  Not contributor friendly.   

« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2015, 01:33 »
+9
Dissolve, feel free to price my clips at $49...when you're giving me 100% commissions. Isn't your company offering any type of unique selling proposition to the market that justifies higher pricing than some other agencies?

I got burned by your $5 clip pricing once before. I started contributing again once I thought you'd finally figured out who you were as an agency. It's sounding like burn round two is coming. Shame on me.

« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2015, 01:40 »
+4
A five year lock in, 30% commission and custom punishment pricing.  Not contributor friendly.   
5 years is not acceptable. Continue to do videos for my clients only... Didn't upload videos to any agency after first tries. Not worth it.

« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2015, 02:09 »
+8
Dissolve had promised to do many things over time like create a contributor console to give us stats and a basic amount of control over our footage.We cant even change the thumbnail or  keywords and description.Everything has to be done via support.The model of this agency where contributors upload and then sit back and wait and hope for a report is very alienating and speaks volumes.
They want to be traffic wardens of footage,there is nothing remotely close there to a "community" as they like to put it quite the opposite.Even shutterstock allows deletion and changing of clip's properties,and dont get me started about pond5 where you can do almost anything.You can also delete clips at videoblocks as far as i know.
Sometimes i dont even feel im contrubuting at dissolve at all i just stare my footage in a page.
So it doesnt make any sense to continue.I mean what is in it for me?

Truth is you got greedy and way over your heads.You want to deter people from uploading elsewhere (ESPECIALLY videoblocks) and at the same time make them consider going exclusive with you.You are driving people into a corner.All this tracking clips thingy is a joke and you know it.Same with this "we will match higher price" argument.Who has  footage at dissolve that he hasnt already uploaded at pond5 and shutterstock?Exactly.Lower price is already your price and it conveniently matches shutterstock's.
Now lower price matches videoblocks's price and commissions are still the same.Win-win for dissolve right there.

I can deal with everything im thrown at in this business but pure hypocricy.
Last thing you can do is allow us to delete clips,because i wont be sending a report to support.Or perhaps i might.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 06:58 by gcrook »

« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2015, 03:03 »
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.

Sure, it's anecdotal.  But I've never seen a buyer with an account at X location go to Y site for one piece of content because it is $20 less.
I would, I do it all the time for airfares, cameras, lenses, etc...  Hasn't Alamy said they've given refunds when someone found an image on a micropriced site before?  If you don't want dissolve to license your work cheaper then don't license your work cheaper.  I think Fotolia threatened this before and in the end they just created DPC and now Adobe does the same by pricing lower too.

Corporate accounts are set up by a business office and the users are told - Buy all of your stock images at [insert stock company here] because we have it set up that way. I'm talking the big guys, the buyers of many images a month. The users in the company have the site bookmarked, they go to that site for what they need and if they can't find it within the millions of images there they are told to find something "good enough." It's a hassle to buy an image elsewhere without having to go through management approval of a new site, setting up an account and a method of payment, etc. Big buyers work within a system and don't have the time or the desire to look elsewhere. I know, I work at one of those companies (5000 employees). They don't all buy stock images, but many do. A site is chosen, an account is set up and that's pretty much the end of it unless you want to wait a week for approval to buy elsewhere.

You nailed it! +100

« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2015, 03:24 »
+5
If Dissolve undermines my average net royalty per download of around $25 via SS and P5, I would stop uploading new footage. I would then upload only a few select clips periodically as exclusive.

« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2015, 04:26 »
+3
If Dissolve undermines my average net royalty per download of around $25 via SS and P5, I would stop uploading new footage. I would then upload only a few select clips periodically as exclusive.

Sounds reasonable. I think I will continue uploading only the lower quality or common subject footage that are priced under $40 at P5. Not all of it will be accepted for sure.

« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2015, 06:37 »
+13
If Dissolve undermines my average net royalty per download of around $25 via SS and P5, I would stop uploading new footage. I would then upload only a few select clips periodically as exclusive.

Sounds reasonable. I think I will continue uploading only the lower quality or common subject footage that are priced under $40 at P5. Not all of it will be accepted for sure.

I'm done. Enough is enough for me.  I am not uploading another clip and if they give us the option to leave I am.  They have had two price reductions in a month, which translates to lower commissions. We do not know what is in store for us next. I doubt we will see better commissions that at this point would make me want to stay.  If they do not provide the option to close accounts, fine, but they will not see another clip from me.

« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2015, 06:38 »
+1
If Dissolve undermines my average net royalty per download of around $25 via SS and P5, I would stop uploading new footage. I would then upload only a few select clips periodically as exclusive.

I've thought about this too but what makes you think that:

1) You will sell clips there at these high exclusive prices given that most of the people will offer their hd clips for 49-79.
2) You will still receive higher commissions as exclusive and the prices for exclusivity will remain high?




« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2015, 06:42 »
+1
Are anybody's clips changed to $49 already?

« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2015, 06:51 »
+6
deleted all of my content at dissolve

« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2015, 06:52 »
0
Are anybody's clips changed to $49 already?

I just did a cursory check and none have been changed yet.

« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2015, 06:52 »
+1
deleted all of my content at dissolve

HOW?

Daisy

« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2015, 07:26 »
+2
They say that: "when content at Dissolve is available at a lower price elsewhere, we match that price."

Are all HD clips now going to be individually priced?
At the moment it looks like their website technology can not do this. If it can, it's going to be a lot of work for them re-pricing each individual clip.

What is more likely is that the entire HD collection will be $49 a clip to match Videoblocks.

« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2015, 08:00 »
+5
They say that: "when content at Dissolve is available at a lower price elsewhere, we match that price."

Are all HD clips now going to be individually priced?
At the moment it looks like their website technology can not do this. If it can, it's going to be a lot of work for them re-pricing each individual clip.

What is more likely is that the entire HD collection will be $49 a clip to match Videoblocks.

Dissolve is actually undercutting video blocks. Vb is a costco type membership that buyers pay a fee to be a part of. Once they pay that fee they can buy $49 clips. At dissolve you dont have a fee, you just get $49 clips without the burden of paying additional membership fees.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 08:05 by Mantis »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
17747 Views
Last post August 27, 2015, 11:53
by helloitsme
36 Replies
34368 Views
Last post May 20, 2015, 07:47
by Mantis
2 Replies
4887 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:16
by KnowYourOnions
27 Replies
16077 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:09
by gcrook
31 Replies
9391 Views
Last post August 27, 2018, 19:33
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results