MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dissolve => Topic started by: Aaron Booth on July 29, 2015, 13:04
-
Hey there, if you're a non-exclusive contributor to Dissolve, then you'll be receiving an email from us today about a price update. Posting it here as well, let me know if you have any questions.
Aaron
________
Hi to all our non-exclusive contributors,
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.
This week, we’ll be adjusting pricing on HD clips in affected collections to match pricing found elsewhere (to a minimum of $49). For example, if the minimum price of your HD collection is $79 on another site, it will be priced at $79 on Dissolve.
If you have any questions about this change, please contact products (at) dissolve.com. 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.
Regards,
Dissolve products team
-
I'm already comfortably seated and popcorn is ready :D
-
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?
-
Yet another agency tightening the screws on contributors rather than offering fair marketing strategies!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 we’ll price it at $299. If the minimum HD price is $79, then we’ll match $79. Only a fraction of our HD collection is affected by this update and is moving to $49.
-
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.
-
If the minimum price that an HD collection is available elsewhere is $299, then we’ll price it at $299. If the minimum HD price is $79, then we’ll match $79.
So you follow where others lead. And with commissions?
-
But many artists don´t 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 didn´t 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?
-
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 we’ll price it at $299. If the minimum HD price is $79, then we’ll 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Good points, Jo Ann. In the RF video market, the base license terms are similar between various agencies. Agreed, the value-add of premium products and services justify premium prices, which is our intention, selling HD for as high as $299, and 4K up to $499. This is about quality customer experience, which is the core of what drives our business and creates revenue for our contributors. If customers believe that we are deliberately over-charging them by 40% or more for the same content available elsewhere, then it's possible that they won't continue to be a Dissolve customer and everyone loses. Non-exclusive contributors choose where they place their content, and as the marketplace evolves so does our pricing strategy. We believe the HD market is efficient at $79 (we also do well at $299) and would maintain $79 HD if shared content/licensing was par elsewhere. And yes, if the price of affected collections increases elsewhere, then we would move those collections back to $79.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...and you're going to match the fairer royalty split of your competitors, right?
Aaron answer this please
-
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.
-
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!
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'd agree with cupacoffee.
But ok.
-
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?
-
A five year lock in, 30% commission and custom punishment pricing. Not contributor friendly.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Are anybody's clips changed to $49 already?
-
deleted all of my content at dissolve
-
Are anybody's clips changed to $49 already?
I just did a cursory check and none have been changed yet.
-
deleted all of my content at dissolve
HOW?
-
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.
-
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 $49 clips without the burden of paying additional membership fees.
-
Yoohoo...Aaron... Come back and answer the questions
Only the commisions seem to be Dissoling here
-
I was contacted by your agency some year and half ago. Communication was not really at the level i do expect, so, i did not upload any of my content. Frankly speaking, i forgot about your agency.
Some month ago, i contacted you - i still had no answer from you.
Anyhow, i considered that i might upload some content at your site as well.
in simple words - with this policy, (and 30% commission for me), i would NOT upload content at your site, having in mind that i have for example 33$ commision from videoblocks, or 24.5 on pond5.
and as i can see your intention is NOT to match for example ss's 79$ price, but - vb. 49, or pond5's price.
from the other hand - pond5 is doing all the business strategy / payments etc... as any other agency - and they are somehow sustainable with 50%, and you are trying to ripoff contributors (with 70% for you). from my point of view - you are doing something wrong. -if agency a) can work with fair 50/50 strategy - than any other agency can do it as well. but, that, as we know depends of greedy-index of agency.
so i see it as a greed-driven business move, without healthy (own) business strategy.
-
Aaron, where are you?
-
Recently applied and was enthusiastically approved as a video contributor to Dissolve. Haven't signed the non-exclusive contract quite yet, and now I won't be unless this is sorted out. Selling at $50 is a fine choice for certain clips when the contributor portion is 50% or greater. Unless they can guarantee our clips will sell for no less that $80 or Dissolve increases contributor portions to 50%, they won't be getting clip one from us.
So while you guys continue scheming new ways to rip off your contributors, we'll be busy uploading to your competitors.
-
I kinda lost respect for them for even suggesting that kind of stuff. It's annoying and disappointing.
-
Recently applied and was enthusiastically approved as a video contributor to Dissolve. Haven't signed the non-exclusive contract quite yet, and now I won't be unless this is sorted out. Selling at $50 is a fine choice for certain clips when the contributor portion is 50% or greater. Unless they can guarantee our clips will sell for no less that $80 or Dissolve increases contributor portions to 50%, they won't be getting clip one from us.
So while you guys continue scheming new ways to rip off your contributors, we'll be busy uploading to your competitors.
Exclusive clips are priced at $300 which i feel is too high for ALL the clips. Dissolve's marketing stragegy is a constant work in progress with a nice dose of desperation and confusion.
-
Thanks for the info... I was wondering what they offered contributors but find no detail so for exclusive s file is $300 and they get 30%?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Thanks all for your feedback.
Such is the competitive marketplace, non-exclusive contributors seek opportunities to expand their distribution network and as new pricing models emerge, the marketplace evolves. As a result, Dissolve currently has content in its collection that is priced substantially less elsewhere, and naturally we’re making some modifications to our pricing model to ensure that content remains competitive.
Differentiation through branding and customer experience is critical to the success of our company and in turn, the success of our contributors - including those who place their content on lower priced sites. We work hard to create sales for contributors by providing great customer experience through our service, technology, content merchandising, and competitive market pricing.
Dissolve contributors: if you have an affected collection, before making changes we’ll be contacting you individually in the coming weeks to answer any questions about your collection.
Meantime, feel free to contact us directly at products (at) dissolve (dot) com.
Aaron
-
And price fixing?
-
Aaron,
Please answer the main question:
Will you be increasing your royalty rate accordingly?
-
And price fixing?
It's not price fixing unless there is some type of agreement between companies, this seems more like Walmart agreeing to match Target's prices, a very common practice. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to change the pricing especially when the exact same thing is offered cheaper elsewhere, it would be anticompetitive if they were forced to keep prices higher than other sites wouldn't it?
-
Aaron,
Please answer the main question:
Will you be increasing your royalty rate accordingly?
Aaron,
Please answer this question which - until now - you have studiously ignored.
-
Thanks all for your feedback.
Such is the competitive marketplace, non-exclusive contributors seek opportunities to expand their distribution network and as new pricing models emerge, the marketplace evolves. As a result, Dissolve currently has content in its collection that is priced substantially less elsewhere, and naturally we’re making some modifications to our pricing model to ensure that content remains competitive.
Differentiation through branding and customer experience is critical to the success of our company and in turn, the success of our contributors - including those who place their content on lower priced sites. We work hard to create sales for contributors by providing great customer experience through our service, technology, content merchandising, and competitive market pricing.
Dissolve contributors: if you have an affected collection, before making changes we’ll be contacting you individually in the coming weeks to answer any questions about your collection.
Meantime, feel free to contact us directly at products (at) dissolve (dot) com.
Aaron
LET US CLOSE OUR ACCOUNTS. Why are you avoiding answering this? You already will not receive another clip from me, so why not just let contributors request an account closure? You keep dodging this question. Man up and don't hide behind the cloak of a 5-year prison sentence.
-
Aaron, are saying that if our content is NOT placed on lower priced sites you will keep the pricing at the current $79? Is this done based on the contributor?
-
And price fixing?
It's not price fixing unless there is some type of agreement between companies, this seems more like Walmart agreeing to match Target's prices, a very common practice. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to change the pricing especially when the exact same thing is offered cheaper elsewhere, it would be anticompetitive if they were forced to keep prices higher than other sites wouldn't it?
Again : ie. Price Fixing - "antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor"
So, this sounds like price fixing. Yep.
-
And price fixing?
It's not price fixing unless there is some type of agreement between companies, this seems more like Walmart agreeing to match Target's prices, a very common practice. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to change the pricing especially when the exact same thing is offered cheaper elsewhere, it would be anticompetitive if they were forced to keep prices higher than other sites wouldn't it?
Again : ie. Price Fixing - "antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor"
So, this sounds like price fixing. Yep.
It looks like you quoted the FTC for that but skipped the first sentence: "Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms."
The second part of your quote "without agreeing with a competitor" is relevant, if there is no agreement with a competitor then there isn't price fixing. For this to be price fixing you would need to show Dissolve and another company agreed to set the prices, I don't see how that is the case. Of course it could be but what evidence is there?
You can read the whole thing if you want but here is something relevant I think https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing) :
"Not all price similarities, or price changes that occur at the same time, are the result of price fixing. On the contrary, they often result from normal market conditions. For example, prices of commodities such as wheat are often identical because the products are virtually identical, and the prices that farmers charge all rise and fall together without any agreement among them. If a drought causes the supply of wheat to decline, the price to all affected farmers will increase. An increase in consumer demand can also cause uniformly high prices for a product in limited supply."
-
"The second part of your quote "without agreeing with a competitor" is relevant, if there is no agreement with a competitor then there isn't price fixing. For this to be price fixing you would need to show Dissolve and another company agreed to set the prices, I don't see how that is the case. Of course it could be but what evidence is there?"
The "agreement" is inferred. As stated in the description.
-
"The second part of your quote "without agreeing with a competitor" is relevant, if there is no agreement with a competitor then there isn't price fixing. For this to be price fixing you would need to show Dissolve and another company agreed to set the prices, I don't see how that is the case. Of course it could be but what evidence is there?"
The "agreement" is inferred. As stated in the description.
I'm not following what "agreement" is inferred?
-
They are essentially agreeing to fix the price based on the behavior of other sellers. It's pretty obvious.
-
They are essentially agreeing to fix the price based on the behavior of other sellers. It's pretty obvious.
The agreement needs to be between two competitors, not one.
-
This is probably more like a price war, race to the bottom, pick your phrase 😉
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"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 :) ).
-
"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 :) ).
I think you're confusing the word "agreement", this is the meaning they are using "a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action."
There is more clarification: Other market forces, such as publicly posting current prices (as is common with most gasoline stations), encourages suppliers to adjust their own prices quickly in order not to lose sales. If there is evidence that the gasoline station operators talked to each other about increasing prices and agreed on a common pricing plan, however, that may be an antitrust violation
This is the definition that comes from Google:price-fix·ing
noun
the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers.
-
Thanks all for your feedback.
Such is the competitive marketplace, non-exclusive contributors seek opportunities to expand their distribution network and as new pricing models emerge, the marketplace evolves. As a result, Dissolve currently has content in its collection that is priced substantially less elsewhere, and naturally we’re making some modifications to our pricing model to ensure that content remains competitive.
Differentiation through branding and customer experience is critical to the success of our company and in turn, the success of our contributors - including those who place their content on lower priced sites. We work hard to create sales for contributors by providing great customer experience through our service, technology, content merchandising, and competitive market pricing.
Dissolve contributors: if you have an affected collection, before making changes we’ll be contacting you individually in the coming weeks to answer any questions about your collection.
Meantime, feel free to contact us directly at products (at) dissolve (dot) com.
Aaron
Wow this is unheard of.
You are imposing a new form of exclusivity penalty -pricing punishment- on NON-exclusive contributors...
Congratulations.
P.S Dont even think about contacting me personally to ask me whether i sell on other sites in any price ,lower ,or higher, as long as i am a non exclusive contributor at dissolve.You have no right.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 didn´t 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 isn´t 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. Doesn´t 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 aren´t 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders)’-Stock-Video-Site-Challenges#.VbtZI2D7t8s
-
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.
[url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders[/url] ([url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders[/url])’-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.
-
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.
[url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders[/url] ([url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130916005443/en/iStock-Veer-Co-founders[/url])’-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!!!!
-
"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.
-
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.
-
Mantis well said! I wish I knew how to give a "vote" on this Tapatalk ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (http://www.orlowskidesigns.com/2015/07/dissolves-knee-jerk-reaction-to-videoblocks-pricing/)
-
Great writeup James. I'll share that on my Facebook and Twitter feed if you don't mind.
Jake
-
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...
-
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
-
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?
-
Well thank god they dont seem to feel threatened by videohive/envato (yet).They sell hd for 7.5usd there.
-
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?
-
As more and more contributors join the ranks of the thousands of others already producing stock footage, prices will inevitably drop. I personally feel we’re beginning to witness prices slowly starting to creep in the downward direction. Please, Dissolve, don’t help escalate this process.
-
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?
Haha yeah sometimes my amazing powers capable to instantly destroy business of millions in revenue by simply posting a suggestion at a forum astounds even me.
But joking aside i noticed this -1 price drop.What a pretentious way to legitimize their so called rational market pricing announcement.
They could of course have averaged this amount to 59-69 by taking into account that there are also a few more agencies with varying prices.They literally gave themselves away with this 49usd drop.
At this point im scared not because of the loss of income but because they might literally have no idea whatsoever what they are doing.
At least i hope they realize that to compete in this business you not only need to have competitive prices,but contributors who are willing to compete FOR them.
Looks like they are making a bet here.Who knows.Maybe we are all more desperate that we thought,or maybe not.
-
What really makes me angry is I actually make an effort NOT to sell on ripoff agencies. I quite iStock when they lowered their prices. I deleted everything off of FT because of ridiculously low prices. I maintain my prices at $75 or higher for everything I have on P5 and now my only low ball site, WHO IS RUINING IT FOR ME, is Dissolve.
Sorry guys, but in my world, Dissolve is now the problem, not someone else. YOU folks are messing things up. The YOU being dissolve.
-
I think the first thing Dissolve should address is making a decent contributor interface, with sales details, balance, etc. Dissolve is the only agency that doesn't have this type of resource for contributors yet they still feel the need to take 70% and begin a price war.
-
I'm not sure why individual pricing set by the contributor isn't allowed.
-
It seems a lot of people missed the message between the lines...
Shutterstock and other sites continue to successfully sell at higher prices because they provide a superior product. Dissolve cannot provide a similarly superior product experience for buyers, therefore they are going down the discount pricing street.
I should also point out that Dissolve made certain promises to producers in order to build their library and they are now going back on those promises. Not a court in the land that would let any contract between them and a submitter stand when they broke the contract themselves.
Pond5 and Shutterstock are the biggest sellers for most producers because they don't (or very rarely) screw over the people who feed them content. You can see sites like iStock going downhill because of crap like this that they've pulled. Is THAT REALLY the model Dissolve wants to follow?
You're taking 70% of someone else's hard work. The reason why most producers put up with that is because they believe that money will go towards marketing, customer service and the things that attract buyers. What it sounds like is that you don't know how to compete, so you're starting the process of cashing out.
-
It seems a lot of people missed the message between the lines...
Shutterstock and other sites continue to successfully sell at higher prices because they provide a superior product. Dissolve cannot provide a similarly superior product experience for buyers, therefore they are going down the discount pricing street.
How do you define inferior product?You mean contributors uploading their "b-rated" stuff because they are feeding their good stuff to other agencies?Or perhaps that dissolve offers lower quality service to buyers?No i dont think so,it seems they have been treating their buyers better than anyone by making further discounts,offering unwatermarked clips from them to "test" and who knows what else.
Perhaps what you say is true but even those who have uploaded "test" clips do report constant growth of sales including me,at a level that i didnt think possible.My view is that dissolve has been growing continuously (have hinted off record,at least thats what i made out of it) and their collection and quality of clips is growing.
So if what you say doesnt apply?
What then?
-
How do you define inferior product?
I define it as NOT providing buyers with the same features and services that other agencies do.
Shutterstock offers a paid service for their agents locating media. So, if I don't have time to do the research on clips for a project, I can pay them to do it. And they do a GREAT job of it. Pond5, for certain clients, will do the same thing for free.
The shopping experience on other sites is also quicker and easier. It's obvious from the lack of activity on the back end that Dissolve does not have a solid developer working for them... I'd guess they bid the site out to the lowest bidder from a third-world country.
Although, they did pay a top-rate "designer" because the site sure does look pretty.
-
Here's what I see from my vantage point...
I had the opportunity to speak with them at NAB this year and they talked a big game and made all kinds of "promises". They "sounded" like they had their act together. But clearly, from this move, they do not.
A lot of agencies have sprouted offering all kinds of promises and then going back on those promises when they felt the need. And most of those agencies are gone now. This type of move by Dissolve signals that path for their business. They are starting to discount clips to build a lot of cash for when they shut down.
I expect them to completely deny it, and they may even be just making a bad business decision that they'll realize at some point and fix. But this move clearly is a major erosion of TRUST between contributors and Dissolve. It leads me to believe that they do not have a solid business plan and are reacting when they should be WORKING to improve their site, which they clearly HAVE NOT done.
-
Here's what I see from my vantage point...
I had the opportunity to speak with them at NAB this year and they talked a big game and made all kinds of "promises". They "sounded" like they had their act together. But clearly, from this move, they do not.
A lot of agencies have sprouted offering all kinds of promises and then going back on those promises when they felt the need. And most of those agencies are gone now. This type of move by Dissolve signals that path for their business. They are starting to discount clips to build a lot of cash for when they shut down.
I expect them to completely deny it, and they may even be just making a bad business decision that they'll realize at some point and fix. But this move clearly is a major erosion of TRUST between contributors and Dissolve. It leads me to believe that they do not have a solid business plan and are reacting when they should be WORKING to improve their site, which they clearly HAVE NOT done.
I believe that this is the case, or something along these lines. They have effectively choked off new content from these decisions, at least from some. Perhaps they expect to keep milking as long as oblivious contributors keep providing content. Really, how many contributors actually took the time to understand what those two price cut emails meant to them? Like DPC, many keep pumping in content. I suspect they knew people would stop providing content, like me, for example. I have 100 new 4K videos right now that I am prepping to upload, but not to them. So in my opinion:
1. They are trying to pump up cash through temporary frequency of downloads, lower price per clip (as opposed to less DL's but higher revenue per clip) before shutting down
or
2. They are planning to survive from un-informed contributors and adjust from there.
I also don't believe that this is the end of "more announcements".
It's unfortunate that they have gone the route they did.
-
Pond5 and Shutterstock are the biggest sellers for most producers because they don't (or very rarely) screw over the people who feed them content. You can see sites like iStock going downhill because of crap like this that they've pulled. Is THAT REALLY the model Dissolve wants to follow?
I think the folks at Dissolve need to read this, print it out, paste it on the foreheads of every owner and employee at their office, have someone scribble it on the urinal walls, print it on the office coffee mugs.
Really, no one, except maybe someone's sister-in-law is going to go exclusive with a startup that flinches.
-
Pond5 and Shutterstock are the biggest sellers for most producers because they don't (or very rarely) screw over the people who feed them content. You can see sites like iStock going downhill because of crap like this that they've pulled. Is THAT REALLY the model Dissolve wants to follow?
I think the folks at Dissolve need to read this, print it out, paste it on the foreheads of every owner and employee at their office, have someone scribble it on the urinal walls, print it on the office coffee mugs.
Really, no one, except maybe someone's sister-in-law is going to go exclusive with a startup that flinches.
+100
-
In an earlier thread George Georgeadis from Dissolve stated:
Hello from Dissolve!
My name is George Georgeadis and I am a filmmaker/storyteller and the product manager here at Dissolve. I work directly with our contributors and I am beyond excited to introduce myself and Dissolve to you.
Dissolve is a new stock footage website by some of the founders and original creative minds behind Veer and iStock. We are 100% focused on selling footage and specializing in supporting the unique needs of footage buyers around the world.
We are looking to work with contributors that are as passionate about stock footage as we are. We believe that footage is at the heart of great storytelling and we are inspired by the work of this creative community.
I am not only a part the Dissolve team, but also a filmmaker and an exclusive stock producer for Dissolve, so I would like to encourage you to ask me any questions you have about Dissolve, about shooting footage, how to become a part of the Dissolve family or anything else you want to know.
We are happy to be on MicrostockGroup to start a dialogue about all things stock footage, and to invite you to become a contributor. Looking forward to meeting you all!
Somewhere along the line that contributor respect has been either forgotten or didn't exist in the first place.
This new policy has not been thought through. Each time we change a price on P5 we must email Dissolve and tell them - Are they serious?
-
In an earlier thread George Georgeadis from Dissolve stated:
Hello from Dissolve!
My name is George Georgeadis and I am a filmmaker/storyteller and the product manager here at Dissolve. I work directly with our contributors and I am beyond excited to introduce myself and Dissolve to you.
Dissolve is a new stock footage website by some of the founders and original creative minds behind Veer and iStock. We are 100% focused on selling footage and specializing in supporting the unique needs of footage buyers around the world.
We are looking to work with contributors that are as passionate about stock footage as we are. We believe that footage is at the heart of great storytelling and we are inspired by the work of this creative community.
I am not only a part the Dissolve team, but also a filmmaker and an exclusive stock producer for Dissolve, so I would like to encourage you to ask me any questions you have about Dissolve, about shooting footage, how to become a part of the Dissolve family or anything else you want to know.
We are happy to be on MicrostockGroup to start a dialogue about all things stock footage, and to invite you to become a contributor. Looking forward to meeting you all!
Somewhere along the line that contributor respect has been either forgotten or didn't exist in the first place.
This new policy has not been thought through. Each time we change a price on P5 we must email Dissolve and tell them - Are they serious?
I am not obligated to tell them anything and I won't. If they then choose to price my content at whatever, I can't stop them. But I am done with anything DISSOLVE.
-
And who is signing up anywhere these days exclusively? WOW talk about putting all your eggs in one small basket.
It has to be people that are new to this business.
I have about 1300 uploaded out of my 5400 clip portfolio. Glad this happened now instead of when I had all of them uploaded.
-
My opinion is that somewhere along the lines dissolve started to believe that their bond between them and their contributors was so strong that they could get away with anything and always have a strong and loyal base of people/contributors/supporters (all these together) which will continuously grow.
It's as if they themselves fell for this whole hybrid notion of community/business that they are publicly advertising.
And finally it takes a little bit of greed,a great deal of self confidence,and the notion that the "market" is an abstract sense with its own laws completely different or devoid of social values.
Clearly,these fantacies usually break down hard and fast,as demonstrated.
2 days ago i considered them a legitimate replacement for ss (which is a BIG thing to say).Today i consider them another istock,a place that i wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
Dont know what they will do from this point on but trust is a thing that once broken...well you know the rest.
EDIT:Just reading this again i realized that it almost reads as if dissolve is already dead and buried.What a huge mistake they have made to force people to react like this.it would be a true accomplishment what they have done here (but in reverse) ...
-
They're obviously obsessed with their own self importance. Telling us to contact them whenever we make a price change elsewhere. The sheer arrogance is astounding.
-
They're obviously obsessed with their own self importance. Telling us to contact them whenever we make a price change elsewhere. The sheer arrogance is astounding.
I guess the question then is, if I decide to increase the asking price at P5 to something like $150 or $ 350 for a series of clips, will Dissolve follow? It has to work both ways.
-
They're obviously obsessed with their own self importance. Telling us to contact them whenever we make a price change elsewhere. The sheer arrogance is astounding.
I guess the question then is, if I decide to increase the asking price at P5 to something like $150 or $ 350 for a series of clips, will Dissolve follow? It has to work both ways.
If you dont contibute to ss, or anywhere else, then they should.Which makes this "matching prices argument" so hypocritical,because who contributes only to dissolve and not at least to ss and p5,not to mention all the rest?
But the thing is this.Even if there are people out there who fulfill the requirements,how absurd is it to force non-exclusives to promise that they will -as long as they contribute at dissolve- keep their prices exactly the same everywhere?
Impossible not to mention out of context.
Does dissolve even realize that they weren't the ones who invented microstock?
-
They're obviously obsessed with their own self importance. Telling us to contact them whenever we make a price change elsewhere. The sheer arrogance is astounding.
I guess the question then is, if I decide to increase the asking price at P5 to something like $150 or $ 350 for a series of clips, will Dissolve follow? It has to work both ways.
No, they will only price match to the lower amount.
-
So lets imagine this for example.
Let's suppose that Aaron or any dissolve representative came out 2 days ago speaking like a person and not like a robot from the 90's and announced the following (which belongs in the sphere of imagination,but just for the sake of argument)
Dear dissolve contributors,lovers,brothers,lurkers,and casual bystanders.We have realized that we have to compete in price because..yada yada,corporate greed 101...yada yada...marketing 101 etc,that we need to price hd at 59usd for all non-exclusive portfolios because of all the aforementioned yada's.But at the same time we will raise hd commission at 40% so that our beloved contributors will earn the same royalties as before.
We will also run bulk discounts shutterstock style whenever necessary (big clients,corporations etc) but we will maintain the 40% commission for you like pond5 does in discounts (and ss doesnt).
We will also implement a true contributor console where you can not only do whatever everyone else is also capable of doing in most of the other agencies but send us feedback on uploads and help us communicate so that we can fix curation and other mistakes fast and efficiently etc etc.
Would it be so difficult for them to go that route?
Would it be cost prohibitive?
Would they lose contributors?
Would they grow as an agency?
Would they set a paradigm that would make people forget about all the others and focus on them?
Would it.......(fill in the blanks)
Then why?
Because the "markets" i guess.
Well, there you go.
-
They're obviously obsessed with their own self importance. Telling us to contact them whenever we make a price change elsewhere. The sheer arrogance is astounding.
I guess the question then is, if I decide to increase the asking price at P5 to something like $150 or $ 350 for a series of clips, will Dissolve follow? It has to work both ways.
No, they will only price match to the lower amount.
Which would of course give them an edge for the price sensitive shopper.
FWIW, there are several clips I have on both P5 and SS and the ones on P5 are priced somewhat higher, $100 to $150 range and they sell on P5.
-
So lets imagine this for example.
Let's suppose that Aaron or any dissolve representative came out 2 days ago speaking like a person and not like a robot from the 90's and announced the following (which belongs in the sphere of imagination,but just for the sake of argument)
Dear dissolve contributors,lovers,brothers,lurkers,and casual bystanders.We have realized that we have to compete in price because..yada yada,corporate greed 101...yada yada...marketing 101 etc,that we need to price hd at 59usd for all non-exclusive portfolios because of all the aforementioned yada's.But at the same time we will raise hd commission at 40% so that our beloved contributors will earn the same royalties as before.
We will also run bulk discounts shutterstock style whenever necessary (big clients,corporations etc) but we will maintain the 40% commission for you like pond5 does in discounts (and ss doesn't).
We will also implement a true contributor console where you can not only do whatever everyone else is also capable of doing in most of the other agencies but send us feedback on uploads and help us communicate so that we can fix curation and other mistakes fast and efficiently etc etc.
Would it be so difficult for them to go that route?
Would it be cost prohibitive?
Would they lose contributors?
Would they grow as an agency?
Would they set a paradigm that would make people forget about all the others and focus on them?
Would it.......(fill in the blanks)
Then why?
Because the "markets" i guess.
Well, there you go.
Nicely said
-
So lets imagine this for example.
Let's suppose that Aaron or any dissolve representative came out 2 days ago speaking like a person and not like a robot from the 90's and announced the following (which belongs in the sphere of imagination,but just for the sake of argument)
Dear dissolve contributors,lovers,brothers,lurkers,and casual bystanders.We have realized that we have to compete in price because..yada yada,corporate greed 101...yada yada...marketing 101 etc,that we need to price hd at 59usd for all non-exclusive portfolios because of all the aforementioned yada's.But at the same time we will raise hd commission at 40% so that our beloved contributors will earn the same royalties as before.
We will also run bulk discounts shutterstock style whenever necessary (big clients,corporations etc) but we will maintain the 40% commission for you like pond5 does in discounts (and ss doesnt).
We will also implement a true contributor console where you can not only do whatever everyone else is also capable of doing in most of the other agencies but send us feedback on uploads and help us communicate so that we can fix curation and other mistakes fast and efficiently etc etc.
Would it be so difficult for them to go that route?
Would it be cost prohibitive?
Would they lose contributors?
Would they grow as an agency?
Would they set a paradigm that would make people forget about all the others and focus on them?
Would it.......(fill in the blanks)
Then why?
Because the "markets" i guess.
Well, there you go.
Even in this scenario I wouldn't license my footage through them. In the market at the moment we have 3 main agencies - SS, P5 and iStock/Getty. VideoBlocks seems to be the up-and-coming agency with a unique model.
Many non-exclusives tolerate selling at 30% through SS because the return to them for most sales is somewhere in the order of $20-25 with some sales for significantly more. They don't particularly like the 30%, but the sheer volume of buyers makes it a hard place not to sell for non-exclusives. On top of that SS have a track record of consistency.
While there's some negative posters lately here making noise about Pond5, they're generally accepted as a very good agency for video sales. The ability to set your own prices and a 50% royalty is pretty unique in the industry, as is the practice of offering periodically discounts to customers without cutting into the contributors share of the price. They're also probably the only agency that has bought another microstock and increased that agency's royalties to 50%.
Videoblocks seems to be getting a lot of attention lately, and is almost certainly the reason for this change - the $49 price point is no co-incidence. From a contributor perspective though its a model that has potential to be very lucrative. Its early days though and they may end up also being one of the many agencies that don't succeed in this business. What will obviously concern Dissolve is that VideoBlocks is attracting new contributors at a much faster rate than they are. From my searches, it looks like they already have more 4K footage than Dissolve in a much shorter space of time.
Its worth re-reading what Dissolve posted just over 12 months ago about commissions (and the response): http://www.microstockgroup.com/dissolve/introducing-dissolve/msg386463/#msg386463 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/dissolve/introducing-dissolve/msg386463/#msg386463)
"When a contributor signs with Dissolve, their royalties are set for the duration of the contract. So, no need to fear of rates reducing after you’ve signed on."
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Didn't take long did it?
-
So lets imagine this for example.
Let's suppose that Aaron or any dissolve representative came out 2 days ago speaking like a person and not like a robot from the 90's and announced the following (which belongs in the sphere of imagination,but just for the sake of argument)
Dear dissolve contributors,lovers,brothers,lurkers,and casual bystanders.We have realized that we have to compete in price because..yada yada,corporate greed 101...yada yada...marketing 101 etc,that we need to price hd at 59usd for all non-exclusive portfolios because of all the aforementioned yada's.But at the same time we will raise hd commission at 40% so that our beloved contributors will earn the same royalties as before.
We will also run bulk discounts shutterstock style whenever necessary (big clients,corporations etc) but we will maintain the 40% commission for you like pond5 does in discounts (and ss doesnt).
We will also implement a true contributor console where you can not only do whatever everyone else is also capable of doing in most of the other agencies but send us feedback on uploads and help us communicate so that we can fix curation and other mistakes fast and efficiently etc etc.
Would it be so difficult for them to go that route?
Would it be cost prohibitive?
Would they lose contributors?
Would they grow as an agency?
Would they set a paradigm that would make people forget about all the others and focus on them?
Would it.......(fill in the blanks)
Then why?
Because the "markets" i guess.
Well, there you go.
Even in this scenario I wouldn't license my footage through them. In the market at the moment we have 3 main agencies - SS, P5 and iStock/Getty. VideoBlocks seems to be the up-and-coming agency with a unique model.
Many non-exclusives tolerate selling at 30% through SS because the return to them for most sales is somewhere in the order of $20-25 with some sales for significantly more. They don't particularly like the 30%, but the sheer volume of buyers makes it a hard place not to sell for non-exclusives. On top of that SS have a track record of consistency.
While there's some negative posters lately here making noise about Pond5, they're generally accepted as a very good agency for video sales. The ability to set your own prices and a 50% royalty is pretty unique in the industry, as is the practice of offering periodically discounts to customers without cutting into the contributors share of the price. They're also probably the only agency that has bought another microstock and increased that agency's royalties to 50%.
Videoblocks seems to be getting a lot of attention lately, and is almost certainly the reason for this change - the $49 price point is no co-incidence. From a contributor perspective though its a model that has potential to be very lucrative. Its early days though and they may end up also being one of the many agencies that don't succeed in this business. What will obviously concern Dissolve is that VideoBlocks is attracting new contributors at a much faster rate than they are. From my searches, it looks like they already have more 4K footage than Dissolve in a much shorter space of time.
Its worth re-reading what Dissolve posted just over 12 months ago about commissions (and the response): [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/dissolve/introducing-dissolve/msg386463/#msg386463[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/dissolve/introducing-dissolve/msg386463/#msg386463[/url])
"When a contributor signs with Dissolve, their royalties are set for the duration of the contract. So, no need to fear of rates reducing after you’ve signed on."
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Didn't take long did it?
Yes you are correct.
I never had the illusion that this scenario would make them top agency in this business,or "change the world" if you may.
It would still consider this borderline theft,but for most it would be more than acceptable and rightly so.
But what this scenario would do,and thats where i think that you underestimate the context of such an announcement, is it would make every other agency who always tights the screws on their contributors but not on themselves (quite the opposite in fact) look like complete and utter clowns.
You would have a representative speaking in public like a person for once and not like a robot,and you would show in practice that you understand the prevailing notion that is apparent today
which is described along the lines of "what a load of bullcrap another agency screwing us over spouting pretentious stuff about markets and economies etc"
I find great power in examples like these even if it's a lesser evil in a sense.
I dont dream of a utopic world,but dissipating the illusion of hard pragmatism in public is a hobby of mine that i like to practice.
EDIT:You mentioned videoblocks.If thy succeed it will be for one and only reason.Because as long as they keep this model they will have people backing them up no matter what.Everyone i know uploaded FULL PORTS there not even test clips,and we are talking about an agency that noone knows exactly what it is and where it came from.Dissolve has been around for 2 years and we know that they make sales, and people still test clips there (well after all this noone will propably upload anything anymore).Do you see what i mean?There is power in that having the people by your side.Look at this thread.Dissolve became the "Darth vader" of stock overnight to the point that people started cheering in this thread for videoblocks.Needless to say im uploading everything there despite my concerns.Dissolve should pay attention to this paradigm although it might be too late for them now.
-
How do you define inferior product?
I define it as NOT providing buyers with the same features and services that other agencies do.
Shutterstock offers a paid service for their agents locating media. So, if I don't have time to do the research on clips for a project, I can pay them to do it. And they do a GREAT job of it. Pond5, for certain clients, will do the same thing for free.
Correction! P5 does NOT offer this kind of service at all. P5 does NOT have sales department, sales agents, nor presence in the richest markets - UK, Canada and Australia.
:o
-
Darn it.I always wanted to sell my stuff in Canada,UK and Australia.
-
No one is really cheering for Videoblocks they are cheering for the 100% royalty.
In the long run Videoblocks will not be good for the industry as they will eventually have a vast library of 'free' content. The faster they buyout clips for their 'free' library the faster the industry will meet its demise or have to rethink itself. However, you can always say 'no' if they request to buyout your clip and make some money in the meantime.
Dissolve's decision to match Videoblocks price structure without matching their royalty is not good for any of us. Our incomes will plummet and it will also spark a price war and accelerate the dive to the bottom.
Either way we end up screwed but with Videoblocks you can make some money on the way :)
-
No one is really cheering for Videoblocks they are cheering for the 100% royalty.
In the long run Videoblocks will not be good for the industry as they will eventually have a vast library of 'free' content. The faster they buyout clips for their 'free' library the faster the industry will meet its demise or have to rethink itself. However, you can always say 'no' if they request to buyout your clip and make some money in the meantime.
Dissolve's decision to match Videoblocks price structure without matching their royalty is not good for any of us. Our incomes will plummet and it will also spark a price war and accelerate the dive to the bottom.
Either way we end up screwed but with Videoblocks you can make some money on the way :)
You are missing the point.I am not accusing anyone of cheering for videoblocks,and i dont care about the reasons that makes vb so lucrative right now, be it commissions,sales,personal preference,ideology, and whatnot.
Im just stating the obvious.
That since it was more or less revealed right from the start that this move from dissolve was to hit videoblocks,
vb suddenly became the good guy out from nowhere in a conversation that wasnt even meant from them.And not only vb.Suddenly everyone is the good guy here apart from ds.
I agree with you that it is at least imperative that we should make money from whatever agency we can but we are running out of agencies to even do this for a limited amount of time,forget about business planning,sense of stability,etc etc.
Which shows exactly how frail this business has become,and in my mind for no good,logical or pragmatic reason whatsoever,other that stupidity and greed.
-
No one is really cheering for Videoblocks they are cheering for the 100% royalty.
In the long run Videoblocks will not be good for the industry as they will eventually have a vast library of 'free' content. The faster they buyout clips for their 'free' library the faster the industry will meet its demise or have to rethink itself. However, you can always say 'no' if they request to buyout your clip and make some money in the meantime.
Dissolve's decision to match Videoblocks price structure without matching their royalty is not good for any of us. Our incomes will plummet and it will also spark a price war and accelerate the dive to the bottom.
Either way we end up screwed but with Videoblocks you can make some money on the way :)
You are missing the point.I am not accusing anyone of cheering for videoblocks,and i dont care about the reasons that makes vb so lucrative right now, be it commissions,sales,personal preference,ideology, and whatnot.
Im just stating the obvious.
That since it was more or less revealed right from the start that this move from dissolve was to hit videoblocks,
vb suddenly became the good guy out from nowhere in a conversation that wasnt even meant from them.And not only vb.Suddenly everyone is the good guy here apart from ds.
I agree with you that it is at least imperative that we should make money from whatever agency we can but we are running out of agencies to even do this for a limited amount of time,forget about business planning,sense of stability,etc etc.
Which shows exactly how frail this business has become,and in my mind for no good,logical or pragmatic reason whatsoever,other that stupidity and greed.
This is a good point. The perception (and reality) is the Dissolve doesn't give a rats a** what we make, only what they can muster up in revenue. Compare that with VB and you can reasonably infer that VB=good guy and Dissolve=bad guy. It is actions that drive these conclusive perceptions and the ones Dissolve made is NOT GOOD for the contributor, as usual.
-
We must stop uploading to Dissolve and do our best to close our accounts. They already have several thousand 1080p clips marked at $49.
(can we get all this back into one thread?)
-
Buyers don't care what royalty rate you're getting if they see the exact same clips for a much lower price they are going to go towards the cheaper site. It seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too, either you support low pricing or not because if it's not Dissolve that lowers prices some or all of the other sites will if cheap sites are taking market share.
-
Buyers don't care what royalty rate you're getting if they see the exact same clips for a much lower price they are going to go towards the cheaper site. It seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too, either you support low pricing or not because if it's not Dissolve that lowers prices some or all of the other sites will if cheap sites are taking market share.
So what's your point?That this conversation is futile?That we should all go with it because buyers behave instinctively just like you say?Maybe its in our benefit then?
-
Buyers don't care what royalty rate you're getting if they see the exact same clips for a much lower price they are going to go towards the cheaper site. It seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too, either you support low pricing or not because if it's not Dissolve that lowers prices some or all of the other sites will if cheap sites are taking market share.
So what's your point?That this conversation is futile?That we should all go with it because buyers behave instinctively just like you say?Maybe its in our benefit then?
I think you should stay away from cheaply priced sites if you don't want others to follow. I've stayed away from VB for exactly that reason.
-
Buyers don't care what royalty rate you're getting if they see the exact same clips for a much lower price they are going to go towards the cheaper site. It seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too, either you support low pricing or not because if it's not Dissolve that lowers prices some or all of the other sites will if cheap sites are taking market share.
So what's your point?That this conversation is futile?That we should all go with it because buyers behave instinctively just like you say?Maybe its in our benefit then?
I think you should stay away from cheaply priced sites if you don't want others to follow. I've stayed away from VB for exactly that reason.
You are right.Last month ss lowered price of 4k.Seems like a cheap site to me.Although my commissions there have always been low in average.So cheap for me again.But stable and lots of sales.So now im confused.Is it cheap or expensive?
P5 is cheap.But it can be expensive too.I have decided to be mostly expensive for me and sometimes cheap.It delivers on both.So what should i do?Ditch p5 too?
What i mean is it all comes down to what you are expecting to get from an agency and if you can live with that.
So let me ask you is there any agency in your universe that isn't "cheap"?Because in mine there isnt any.
-
Buyers don't care what royalty rate you're getting if they see the exact same clips for a much lower price they are going to go towards the cheaper site. It seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too, either you support low pricing or not because if it's not Dissolve that lowers prices some or all of the other sites will if cheap sites are taking market share.
So what's your point?That this conversation is futile?That we should all go with it because buyers behave instinctively just like you say?Maybe its in our benefit then?
I think you should stay away from cheaply priced sites if you don't want others to follow. I've stayed away from VB for exactly that reason.
You are right.Last month ss lowered price of 4k.Seems like a cheap site to me.Although my commissions there have always been low in average.So cheap for me again.But stable and lots of sales.So now im confused.Is it cheap or expensive?
P5 is cheap.But it can be expensive too.I have decided to be mostly expensive for me and sometimes cheap.It delivers on both.So what should i do?Ditch p5 too?
What i mean is it all comes down to what you are expecting to get from an agency and if you can live with that.
So let me ask you is there any agency in your universe that isn't "cheap"?Because in mine there isnt any.
If you are ok licensing your work on one site for $49 expect other sites to follow.
-
"Who we are
Dissolve was founded by image-industry veterans including founders of iStockphoto and Veer, and executives from Getty Images, Corbis, and Fotolia. Dissolve's headquarters are in Calgary, Canada, with staff in Los Angeles, New York City, and Vancouver."
Has no one in that wealth of experience noticed the need for good relationships??????
-
Has no one in that wealth of experience noticed the need for good relationships??????
There is a good chance that they maintain good relations with a number of their own contributors to the point that they may be taking some of their "advises" a bit too far.
But that is a bit far fetched, i admit.
-
So- prices in my portfolio will be reduced as well.
Got a notification yesterday.
My answer was:
Thank You for heads up.
A question: does my royalty rate will still be 20%? I know that for other contributors it's around 30 or even 35%.
I think it's less time consuming to keep the prices of my port on 49 and not to start providing lists from files I have on sale elsewhere and track the prices on other sites which is not really my idea of contributor duties in microstock business. However the price cut does feel like a punishment. Therefore I am afraid to upload my remaining part of portfolio of 3d animations as dissolve seems to make price cuts too freely (why not to reduce price down then to 10 dollars?)
Best;
Taavet
-
Wow. Are you sure? Since when do they offer 20%?
-
20%?
I thought it was at least 30 for indie content.
Does their contract also allow them to change the royalty rate anytime and not just the price?
-
Close your accounts ASAP.
They are heading to 1080p for $29.
#BoycottDissolve
-
20%?
I thought it was at least 30 for indie content.
Does their contract also allow them to change the royalty rate anytime and not just the price?
According to them, they have the right to change prices, but I am not sure about commissions. If they went to less than 30 then I think they would have to close their doors. Uploads are already going to be strained with the price drop, but at, say, 20% it becomes comedic. And it shows a severe weakness in their business model and lean workflows.
-
According to the contract and also the public faq on their website commissions are always 30% for indie,only prices can change.
Having said that i know of some people who have negotiated (or tried to negotiate) their contracts for more than 30% but i haven't heard of anyone who started with less than that from the get go.
Some info on this would be nice.
But still,30% of cheap is cheap.
-
Seems they will offer from 20 - 45% (that I know of) depending on who you are or how large your portfolio is.
-
Close your accounts ASAP.
They are heading to 1080p for $29.
#BoycottDissolve
You're overreacting. What's your stake in this?
-
He/she's right. actually.Urging others to boycott dissolve like this is not the way to deal with these issues.More so when you are accusing them of things that they haven't even done (saying things such as they will lower all prices to 29usd).
They could perhaps even sue you if they wanted and rightly so,they would then appear vindicated in the public eye and we would all look silly.
If you have something personal and truthful to share about them or something interesting to discuss about this matter like everyone has done here and in the other thread then go ahead,thats your public responsibility in my opinion, not hashtagging.
There are not many things one can do in these circumstances other that discussing in public and act according to what his own dignity dictates.
If i delete my clips there eventually, it's not a boycott, but a personal freedom that may or may not set an example.But it's far from a cause that we all share and it shouldn't be perceived as such.
-
Boycott sounds a little extreme to me. I mean, if you sign up with a completly new, untested agency for 5 years, you need to accept your share of responsibility for the risk you took with that commitment.
Public discussion of the issue always helps. And it looks like it is working and those that want out, can now get out.
Video is a small world, not that many producers who create useful content. They´d better keep them happy.
-
Of course I don't know what Dissolve will be doing five months from now. It is only an opinion.
An opinion based on these facts:
1. They launched Dissolve by selling tens of thousands of clips for $5. These clips were 'given' to them without the contibutors permission by T3Media.
2. They started selling 4K clips for $79 and it was only after considerable outcry that they raised the price to roughly the industry 'norm'.
3. They have lowered the price of 1080p to $49 which is way less than the industry average.
I have just checked and my clips are still for sale on their website despite sending several emails asking for them to be removed and my account closed.
I think other contributors should know who they are dealing with and #BoycottDissolve
-
I have just checked and my clips are still for sale on their website despite sending several emails asking for them to be removed and my account closed.
When you share information and experiences like these...
I think other contributors should know who they are dealing with and #BoycottDissolve
You dont need to add things like these.Everyone gets the message.
-
I mean, if you sign up with a completly new, untested agency for 5 years, you need to accept your share of responsibility for the risk you took with that commitment.
You have a point about personal responsibility (to an extend) but this sounds a bit like protestantism.You dont need to "accept" any share of responsibility because quite simply the playing field in general isn't level.
The realization of it is what matters and the decision in participating in it cannot be judged by a moral standpoint.
-
I have just checked and my clips are still for sale on their website despite sending several emails asking for them to be removed and my account closed.
When you share information and experiences like these...
I think other contributors should know who they are dealing with and #BoycottDissolve
You dont need to add things like these.Everyone gets the message.
er. . . are you actually telling me what I should and should not say?
. . . and you're also speaking for 'everyone' - now that's impressive.
-
I have just checked and my clips are still for sale on their website despite sending several emails asking for them to be removed and my account closed.
When you share information and experiences like these...
I think other contributors should know who they are dealing with and #BoycottDissolve
You dont need to add things like these.Everyone gets the message.
er. . . are you actually telling me what I should and should not say?
. . . and you're also speaking for 'everyone' - now that's impressive.
No not at all,but if you feel the need to twist what im saying, and furthermore accuse me of telling you what to say,then i have to respond.
First of all you have the right to express yourself in whatever way you want, im not suggesting to you what to say.
Im stating my opinion on what i consider constructive dialogue and it's within the context of this discussion.
You on the other hand by posting #boycottdissolve are taking this discussion out of context and making this into a cause.
Second im not speaking for "everyone" .You are, and in a very awkward way.
Im only saying that im confident that people who read can judge whether they can take action against dissolve or not without having someone telling them what to do.
Pretty much the opposite of what you are doing here (even if indirectly).This is not a political rally but a discussion.Learn the difference.
-
I am obviously not agreeing with what dissolve did, just pointing out that dissolve made a bad entrance here, so I was really surprised how many people signed up, even gave them exclusive material at a time when there is no oversupply in video.
And if their contract allows them to set any price and they had files at 5 dollars before...anyway, everyone has to decide their own business path. they do seem to sell after all.
But i hope things work out in the end. Agencies are fluid entities, they can go either way.
-
I am obviously not agreeing with what dissolve did, just pointing out that dissolve made a bad entrance here, so I was really surprised how many people signed up, even gave them exclusive material at a time when there is no oversupply in video.
And if their contract allows them to set any price and they had files at 5 dollars before...anyway, everyone has to decide their own business path. they do seem to sell after all.
But i hope things work out in the end. Agencies are fluid entities, they can go either way.
Of course i know that you dont agree i didnt say you condone them.I just detected a hint of moralism and my radars are a bit sensitive to that, that's all. :)
-
Anyway, to get back on topic:
#BoycottDissolve
-
Sorry,is Daisy banned?Isn't this a tad too much?