MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dissolve price update  (Read 30964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: July 31, 2015, 01:35 »
+4
And if you start licensing your footage elsewhere at a lower price, let us know so we can ensure your collection on Dissolve is priced for the marketplace.

I don't see the problem. Just ignore the above and your prices will stay the same. It's not in the contract so not our responsibility. Unless they are taking the time to go through each contributor's ports at other agencies.

I was trying to remember why I didn't start submitting there. Now I remember.


« Reply #76 on: July 31, 2015, 02:22 »
0
And if you start licensing your footage elsewhere at a lower price, let us know so we can ensure your collection on Dissolve is priced for the marketplace.

I don't see the problem. Just ignore the above and your prices will stay the same. It's not in the contract so not our responsibility. Unless they are taking the time to go through each contributor's ports at other agencies.


+100

« Reply #77 on: July 31, 2015, 02:48 »
+1
I got the mail from Dissolve, too. So probably i just stop uploading there until the price "matching" issue is solved. Will ton going to share my animations there if the price is slashed for some shady reasons.

« Reply #78 on: July 31, 2015, 05:39 »
+6
Quote

I don't see the problem. Just ignore the above and your prices will stay the same. It's not in the contract so not our responsibility. Unless they are taking the time to go through each contributor's ports at other agencies.


Thats one way to go about it but i dont find it reassurring, or realistic, -in the long run- ,to play a game of hide and seek with an agency that keeps "attacking" its contributors just to put pressure on other agencies.This "unless" is the key.
They have overstepped the boundaries of what i consider a professional and legitimate relationship by a lot.I still cant believe any agency would suggest something like this,i mean even suggest not enforce it.
At this point dissolve has lost all credibility for me.I expect nothing positive from them from now on,and whatever they do they wont win my trust back.

The only thing they can do is churn our a new contract,because i wont be accepting any price drop or raise for that matter for no reason whatsoever.
And if they decide to drop prices or commissions for every non-exclusive contributor regardless, the next step is parting ways with them.
It would be hard for me to consider this a month ago,really hard,but they just made it so much easier.
That's a winning strategy right there,no?

Finally,im certain that there are always these who see an opportunity in this kind of situation.
I wish them good luck.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 05:55 by gcrook »

« Reply #79 on: July 31, 2015, 06:03 »
+3
Loss of trust is the biggest problem in a situation like this.

They knew when they opened their agency that non exclusive content is being offered much cheaper on pond5 and that the artists still make more money there. So they cannot go and pretend they didnt know, or that somehow the contributors were trying to take advantage of them, when in fact the contributor will earn less by placing content on dissolve.

If their business plan isnt working out, i.e. customers are not ready to pay more money for the service dissolve offers, that is not the fault of the contributor. SS regularly sells content that is priced at 49 dollars on pond5 for much more money. Doesnt seem to bother them at all, if anything sales are moving towards their higher priced site.

Fotolia did the same thing, when depositphotos started they suddenly threatened their own contributors to lose years in ranking and demote them to the lowest level. Then they opened DPC...

Dissolve could just openly admit, things arent going as well as planned and offer two price points and then write to contributors and ask them to adjust their prices and of course appreciate if anyone does that because it means the artist would be ready to give up money to help dissolve.

But this would be an approach where they are pro active and putting the contributor in control.

With a five year contract, you need a lot of trust and good communication, especially if there is no delete button.

They have a very nice looking site, I hope they find a positive way to work things out with their contributors. People can learn from their mistakes. But I am glad I waited before applying and will now watch how this plays out. 5 years is a very long contract.

« Reply #80 on: July 31, 2015, 06:10 »
+2
It still takes about 15 days from the end of the month to come up with the sales list for Dissolve while another small agency VideoBlocks reports instantly. 

Daisy

« Reply #81 on: July 31, 2015, 06:14 »
+4
Dissolve has shown time after time that they are only interested in a fast $.

They have no interest in elevating or preserving the industry. Only taking it on a fast dive to the bottom and grabbing all the $s they can on the way.

As contributors it is our responsibility not to upload to them and to delete our collections from their site as soon as we can. If we do not, the stock video industry will go the same way as stock photos and you will be unable to make a living.

« Reply #82 on: July 31, 2015, 06:20 »
+2
They used to sell HD clips for $5?  The same clip sold at Getty for $450.  I wonder if they had the contributor's consent to sell for $5 because the clip is now unavailable and the contributor left Dissolve it seems.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders-Stock-Video-Site-Challenges#.VbtZI2D7t8s


Daisy

« Reply #83 on: July 31, 2015, 06:32 »
+2
They used to sell HD clips for $5?  The same clip sold at Getty for $450.  I wonder if they had the contributor's consent to sell for $5 because the clip is now unavailable and the contributor left Dissolve it seems.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders-Stock-Video-Site-Challenges#.VbtZI2D7t8s


They did not have the contributors consent to sell HD clips at $5
The clips were 'given' to them by T3Media.

« Reply #84 on: July 31, 2015, 06:38 »
+2
They used to sell HD clips for $5?  The same clip sold at Getty for $450.  I wonder if they had the contributor's consent to sell for $5 because the clip is now unavailable and the contributor left Dissolve it seems.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders-Stock-Video-Site-Challenges#.VbtZI2D7t8s


They did not have the contributors consent to sell HD clips at $5
The clips were 'given' to them by T3Media.



what!!!!

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #85 on: July 31, 2015, 07:51 »
+2
"Again : ie. Price Fixing - "antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor"

Nope.  Agreement can be one sided.  If they can't establish their own pricing without following another, that's fixing.  It's right there.

For example, I agree with you ( thought I don't :) ).

It's not price fixing. This is a price war, which is completely legal. Supermarkets do it all the time.
Agreement is this specific sense means an agreement/deal between two parties. Dissolve has decided to change prices unilaterally, therefore, it's not price fixing.

« Reply #86 on: July 31, 2015, 08:41 »
+8
For me as contributor it is not so much about for how much my clips are sold, but how much I earn from each sale. If I sell my clips for $49 on Pond 5 I receive $24.5 (50%). If I sell a clip on Dissolve for $79 I receive $23.7 (30%). Can you see what is the problem here? Who is now at fault? If Dissolve increase our commission to 50% I will not be too concerned if they sold my clips for $49.

Yes, they are not "following" what other agencies do unless it is to their advantage. The $49 argument is due to VB. They stick it to us with that because it's to their advantage, with no compunction for the drop in our commission.  But why aren't they "following what the industry is doing" with commissions? Using VB as an example, artists get 100%. That LITTLE piece is conveniently left out of their business realignment. I get it. 100% commission not realistic.  But increasing commissions to 50% share would show significant concern/support for the artist.  Yes, SS pays 30% but their clips sell for more.


« Reply #87 on: July 31, 2015, 08:46 »
0
Mantis well said! I wish I knew how to give a "vote" on this Tapatalk ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #88 on: July 31, 2015, 08:55 »
+1
For me as contributor it is not so much about for how much my clips are sold, but how much I earn from each sale. If I sell my clips for $49 on Pond 5 I receive $24.5 (50%). If I sell a clip on Dissolve for $79 I receive $23.7 (30%). Can you see what is the problem here? Who is now at fault? If Dissolve increase our commission to 50% I will not be too concerned if they sold my clips for $49.

Yes, they are not "following" what other agencies do unless it is to their advantage. The $49 argument is due to VB. They stick it to us with that because it's to their advantage, with no compunction for the drop in our commission.  But why aren't they "following what the industry is doing" with commissions? Using VB as an example, artists get 100%. That LITTLE piece is conveniently left out of their business realignment. I get it. 100% commission not realistic.  But increasing commissions to 50% share would show significant concern/support for the artist.  Yes, SS pays 30% but their clips sell for more.
This is the reason I've stayed away from VB, high royalty rates is one thing but if the pricing is too low it is going to impact other sites.  VB's profits come from nearly free videos, I can't support a site that does that.  Eventually paid content is either going to have a reduced royalty rate or your content will just be used to attract buyers to their free offerings. 

« Reply #89 on: July 31, 2015, 08:56 »
+2
Ok, I'll give up on the price fixing, although I still think this crosses the line about "determining your own prices".  It's still a shoddy policy.

« Reply #90 on: July 31, 2015, 10:20 »
+6
I'm pretty upset at this. For one thing it makes Dissolve confusing to customers.
Why would some files be $49 and others $79 or yet more prices if you are going to "price match" per contributor.

Also you are saying customers are searching for "my" clips on different sites? That clearly is what this is about since you are pricing my clips to $49 and not a site wide $49.
If that were the case my sales on VB would be through the roof and sales on my other sites would crater. That isn't the case, nor has that ever been the case with any other site that prices differently.
People in general may shop around but they aren't shopping around for "my" clips which is why I said in the beginning you are just making Dissolve confusing.


So yes, I sell on Video Blocks. That was a business decision since I also get 100% of that deal.
On your site I would get $14.70 for selling an HD video? Actually that would stop me from uploading the rest of my portfolio to you since $14 is a slap in the face.

When I signed up with you guys I told you there was a trust issue with that $5 debauchery. This isn't making that trust any stronger. Seems like a Istock thing to do with their tier pricing thing. That is crazy too and I stopped uploading to them over a year ago.


Jake
« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 14:13 by kk5hy »

Daisy

« Reply #91 on: July 31, 2015, 10:39 »
+3
Fight Back!

Protect Your Livelihood!

Do not upload to Dissolve. Close your account (if they'll let you).
If they do not have your clips they can not lower the price of them.

« Reply #92 on: July 31, 2015, 10:52 »
+1
and you would think by now, with all of their funding and planning,,, they would have some sort of dashboard for contributors by now. currently, you find out if you sold anything when they send you an email at the end of the month.

oh and let's not forget that they will let you use full size, un-watermarked clips for free and if you like them, THEN you can decide if you want to pay for them. i had a friend with a large design studio try to sign-up for that deal but Dissolve never replied the request.


« Reply #93 on: July 31, 2015, 13:19 »
+9
Here's the kicker in all this.

If Dissolve is matching VB's HD pricing of $49 because they're afraid of VB eating up their sales, they have to realize the VB is a PAID MEMBERSHIP site.  Dissolve ISN'T.

Even if someone shops around (which, I doubt), and they stumble upon my same exact clip on VB for $49 when it's $79 on Dissolve (or $79 on SS or $69 on P5...), once they see they have to pay $99 to get the privilege to buy that clip at $49, they're probably return to the original site to buy if they're not already a member of VB.

So, Dissolve must take that into consideration when this "price matching" fiasco actually happens.

I don't think they are.

It's like seeing a TV at Wal-Mart for $499, and seeing that SAME TV at Costco for $399.  You have to PAY a membership fee to buy that TV at the lower price.  If you're already a member, then you probably will by it at the lower price.  But if you're not, you'll probably return to Wal-Mart.

This isn't a 1:1 comparison.  Dissolve is treating it as if it is.

http://www.orlowskidesigns.com/2015/07/dissolves-knee-jerk-reaction-to-videoblocks-pricing/
« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 13:43 by odesigns »

« Reply #94 on: July 31, 2015, 14:14 »
+2
Great writeup James. I'll share that on my Facebook and Twitter feed if you don't mind.

Jake

« Reply #95 on: July 31, 2015, 14:15 »
0
Great writeup James. I'll share that on my Facebook and Twitter feed if you don't mind.

Thanks.  That's why I wrote it...

« Reply #96 on: July 31, 2015, 14:27 »
+2
What I've noticed about this is that when the questions get too tough and when the contributors are unhappy, the agency rep goes AWOL or comes back and answers with generic responses instead on answering specific questions. Dissolve you have some answering to do otherwise you will be receiving a lot less content upload and the upshot is competitors will go to other agencies with more substantial coverage

« Reply #97 on: July 31, 2015, 14:38 »
+3
If they are matching VB's Marketplace prices of $49, why stop there?

What if some users clips are in the VB "subscription" library where downloads are essentially FREE?  Are they going to place those users' clips on Dissolve at $0?

If just seems bizarre to arbitrarily choose VB's Marketplace pricing to be the library to match.

They're already matching SS' library.  Isn't that good enough?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 14:41 by odesigns »

« Reply #98 on: July 31, 2015, 14:59 »
+2
Well thank god they dont seem to feel threatened by videohive/envato (yet).They sell hd for 7.5usd there.


« Reply #99 on: July 31, 2015, 15:08 »
+3
Well thank god they dont seem to feel threatened by videohive/envato (yet).They sell hd for 7.5usd there.

Oh man, thanks for bringing that up. Now we'll get an email saying the price will be matched to $7.50 :)

I just don't see what this is telling their customers. Are they so insecure with their own business that they have to immediately change prices to a competitor?
I mean Shutterstock selling at $79, Dissolve $80 so they reduce $1.00?
That $1.00 made all the difference in your bottom line profits?




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
20198 Views
Last post August 27, 2015, 11:53
by helloitsme
42 Replies
48614 Views
Last post November 19, 2019, 12:39
by thirdbornentertainment
2 Replies
9446 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:16
by KnowYourOnions
27 Replies
20851 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:09
by gcrook
31 Replies
15593 Views
Last post August 27, 2018, 19:33
by Mantis

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle