MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: SuperPhoto on March 14, 2019, 09:33
-
Just got an e-mail saying there is a change coming to the contributor agreement coming... hope it really is "good news"...
-
So...how low will the royalties go? Down to 30%?
Or will they forever take away our right to decide our own prices?
Probably both...plus a vastly expanded membership program...
I would just once like to hear exciting news that actually benefit artists. But with the way they forced everyone into their 4k video experiment...
I really like pond5. It is the one place that truly gives you freedom.
:(
-
Keyword is "impact"
"How changes will impact to you"
...and i thought that i misschose words! :P
Anyway, as a newbie i am (still) an optimist, plus that I loved the "dear Artist" greeting at the beginning of the mail! :D
-
I'm sure that whatever the news is it will be "exciting news" ::)
-
Haven't received the email, could someone copy-paste it?
-
Dear Artist,
We are making important changes to your Contributor Agreement this month. On Thursday, March 21 at 12:00 pm EST, we’ll be hosting a YouTube Live Town Hall event to walk you through what’s changing, explain how it will impact you, and answer your questions live.
The meeting will be hosted by Pond5 CEO Jason Teichman; Scott Koehler, GM, Artists & Content; and Greg Andreacchi, Senior Manager, Artists & Content. Please RSVP below to join us for the discussion. We look forward to seeing everyone soon!
-
Doesn't look good.........hope I am wrong...............
Dear Artist,
We are making important changes to your Contributor Agreement this month. On Thursday, March 21 at 12:00 pm EST, we’ll be hosting a YouTube Live Town Hall event to walk you through what’s changing, explain how it will impact you, and answer your questions live.
The meeting will be hosted by Pond5 CEO Jason Teichman; Scott Koehler, GM, Artists & Content; and Greg Andreacchi, Senior Manager, Artists & Content. Please RSVP below to join us for the discussion. We look forward to seeing everyone soon!
-
They've never had to make an important webcast announcement over any of the significant changes they've made in the last few years. Like the membership program which was big. So what are they bracing us for. I doubt they are going to say Pond5 is doing so well we believe we can now offer artists 60% royalites. They may be doing a cut down to 40%, why else do they need this platform. The CEO will waffle about the pressure of the market trying to justify and appease.
-
Predictions:
- They'll "suggest" we price more in-line with other agencies if your material is duplicated there.
- They'll "suggest" we seriously consider uploading exclusive content with a premium price point.
- They'll "suggest" we start liking the idea of a subscription-based marketplace.
Whatever it may be, I think we can bet that 2019 will be the year the stock market takes a left turn.
-
I am fearful about this! I just scheduled a call with their leadership for after the youtube stream. I also made a video on this and sent it to them today as well! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzsexKt1jo&t=787s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzsexKt1jo&t=787s)
-
It is going to a fixed price model or something along those lines. It is a revenue grab. It ties right into the RESEARCH they just conducted on the optimal video pricing. Why on earth would they do research on video pricing when it is a contributor sets the price model? They wouldn’t. So expect this to be bad news spun as good news that ends up being bad news. Volume will go up...bla bla.
-
Exciting news!!
Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk
-
@jjneff
I like the video a lot.
I agree with everything you say, unfortunately it has been my experience that many company execs oder higher up managers simply don‘t understand how to build a community and how to work with one. istock had many clever tools that allowed the community to essentially be self organising. From a clear royalty plan that you could spend years working on and that gave you a reliable framework to invest in your shootings, to the excellent gallery system that allowed you to organize your port and make it easy for the customer. Plus any kind of entrepreneurial talent was actively encouraged by the management team. If you had good ideas, you‘d often found yourself literally drafted in and the positive energy was used to propel the business forward.
On many agencies there is fear of interacting directly with the community. Management sits in walled of glass houses, never goes online themselves. When they do, you can tell they have very little online communication experience and many of them don‘t have portfolios of their own, they have no practical experience in selling. On istock many admins had ports. If sales were slow, everyone felt it. Yes, there were a lot of discussions, but this free flowing communication, allowed ideas to rise. Many people where entrepreneurs anyway, it was not just the classical artist, many stock shooters have practical experience in running an online business. istock saw them all as little shop owners and offered them a professional plattform. In other places you get the „shut up and shoot“ vibe, or the „you are an artist - please don‘t worry your pretty little head about these difficult business things“...money is dirty...don‘t think about it...it is condescending and not empowering.
I do believe we are lucky that in 2019 we are living in a multi polar world of agencies and I think that Adobe entered directly was one of the best things ever for producers.
Now we have 3-4 large companies and many, many smaller places. I think this is much better for us, than being dependent on one superlarge global marketplace.
I am worried what will happen to pond5, they are one of the few places with a supportive community vibe. And being able to price your clips yourself is their true advantage.
If the coming changes mean, they take that away...well...I guess this will mean that it opens up a place for a different or new agency to offer that important advantage that so many producers believe in.
But let us see what they have to say...however, the producers are not helpless. If the new system is no advantage to us, people will start looking for a new place. There is balance after all, producers control the upload streams. If the money is unreliable, the quality will go down quickly, because nobody will invest in their shootings.
We don‘t work for „likes“.
-
Perhaps it is this new exciting I am not a robot login feature! :P
hahaha!
If I am not wrong, batch "web" price option setting
and kind of exclusive (if release attached) clips are new features?
(Edited post, problem solved, question partially answered
still being the optimist curious newbie around here :P :D )
-
Don't be so pessimistic.
I think the video part, which is doing well, will remain the same. They will launch huge photo part advertising campaign and to do this lower commission to 40% + standardise prices.
-
Would be great...except that the announcement itself doesn‘t sound positive. For something like that, they wouldn‘t need a town hall announcement.
I just sincerly hope they let us keep the price setting feature. I would worry even more about that then the royalties.
-
Dear Artist,
We are making important changes to your Contributor Agreement this month. On Thursday, March 21 at 12:00 pm EST, we’ll be hosting a YouTube Live Town Hall event to walk you through what’s changing, explain how it will impact you, and answer your questions live.
The meeting will be hosted by Pond5 CEO Jason Teichman; Scott Koehler, GM, Artists & Content; and Greg Andreacchi, Senior Manager, Artists & Content. Please RSVP below to join us for the discussion. We look forward to seeing everyone soon!
Thanks, seems like I did receive the email, except they didn't mention contrbutor agreement changes in the subject. Just a discreetly titled "Join us in the next Live Artist Town Hall"...
I have a bad feeling it's not going to be good news for us. This will not be some minor change. Why else would they plan a live Q&A session with the CEO and two managers from the Artist and Content department? They're probably expecting quite a lot of questions and concerns, so they're doing this session to prevent massive panic and social media backlash.
-
It is going to a fixed price model or something along those lines. It is a revenue grab. It ties right into the RESEARCH they just conducted on the optimal video pricing. Why on earth would they do research on video pricing when it is a contributor sets the price model? They wouldn’t. So expect this to be bad news spun as good news that ends up being bad news. Volume will go up...bla bla.
I think you have a good idea of what they will be announcing. "After the test, we found by lowering prices, there will be more sales volume. But your income won't suffer" Ha Ha, how many times have we heard that before.
-
I'm not sure telling people there is a big announcement in a week is the best way to avoid panic!
-
I'm not sure telling people there is a big announcement in a week is the best way to avoid panic!
Get people to anticipate the worst case scenario and let them down gentle with the next worst outcome, tell themselves the outcry could have been worse.
-
I'm not sure telling people there is a big announcement in a week is the best way to avoid panic!
On the other hand, how happy would everyone be with, "Oh by the way, new unannounced change." We've had our share of those as well.
I think P5 is up front and tries to communicate with us in the open. Come on folks, announcing a video conference is now starting a panic? LOL Are we that suspicious and that distrustful of agencies? Hmm, that might be a yes?
-
I'm not sure telling people there is a big announcement in a week is the best way to avoid panic!
On the other hand, how happy would everyone be with, "Oh by the way, new unannounced change." We've had our share of those as well.
I think P5 is up front and tries to communicate with us in the open. Come on folks, announcing a video conference is now starting a panic? LOL Are we that suspicious and that distrustful of agencies? Hmm, that might be a yes?
That's a definite yes. They probably can't win however they do it.
-
I expect that they will remove the option to price your clips if those are not exclusive to P5
-
.. and I expect they will give some advantages for those exclusive contributors to encourage more exclusive content (something like better ranking)
-
Wouldn't this exclusivity be a good thing though?
If other agencies see users deleting or stalling new uploads in favor of Pond5?
They should have to give good, or better alternatives to keep contributors?
-
Wouldn't this exclusivity be a good thing though?
If other agencies see users deleting or stalling new uploads in favor of Pond5?
They should have to give good, or better alternatives to keep contributors?
For me, if P5 encourage exclusivity it will be definitely a very good thing to me because I have many exclusive clips there
-
I think exclusive content is key to any business surviving now days! As long as it is implemented well and not artist exclusive that is fine with me.
-
Exclusive content would be a good thing, I agree.
But it could easily be used for 50% only for the exclusive content, 30% for the rest etc...
As long as the choice is ours and we can still set our own prices....
-
Remember Videoblocks announcement after their commission cuts. 'Look forward to more sales' they said. Instead sales have gone completely AWOL for most contributors. I wonder how their financial books are looking. Or can they just survive off their second rate membership library?
-
Remember Videoblocks announcement after their commission cuts. 'Look forward to more sales' they said. Instead sales have gone completely AWOL for most contributors. I wonder how their financial books are looking. Or can they just survive off their second rate membership library?
It's a win win for them. They wasn't getting anything from contributors and now they get 50% of the few sales they have now, they can use this money to buy more clips from contributors and add those to their library, this way they get more and more subscribers.
-
Oh dear. It sure seems like a BOHICA announcement coming up. I sure hope I am wrong.
-
I'm not sure what exactly what they'll do, but I'm almost certain it won't be "good news" for contributors.
Didn't an Alamy exec or someone have a video explaining all the new "changes" which were, of course, bad for contributors?
Feels like damage control in advance, having them personally stream the news to the community instead of sending generic e-mails.
Pond5 - if you're listening - we the contributors don't care how you deliver the news - as long as they're good. If they're bad, there's no good way of delivering them - not though a genetic newsletter, a "town hall", or a personalized youtube video. And just trying to deliver them as softly as possible is manipulative. So I hope for the best, but I do expect the worst. :)
-
I think it is called a "self fulfilled prophecy" if we think it is bad, then it will be bad news.
I have read enough here to understand that usually "good" news are not good, but, no news are worse.
Here is a question: Are we submitting? Or are we investing our files to the higher bidding agency?
As in every other aspect of life, some will have benefit and some losses.
Think of people like me, fresh, small ports, new, with no metrics of years past earnings.
As in every freelancing job in the world. Do new cameramen or editors starve?
Yes they do not get payed as previous years but if the amount of money is enough, guess, it is a job.
No fun or hobby factors applying, it is a job. period. (sorry...)
If I may, totally subjective comment, I like the idea to have a file "exclusively" in Pond5 and set a higher price if I think it as unique, or rare, or at least first in an query that less to no clips appear, or (honestly?) I just want to have my chances with it. AS & SS set to whatever I upload a fixed price. Either a clip that I just raised my hand and filmed it, either a "studio" prepared shot, either a clip with releases attached and persons appearing that I think the most difficult as a newbie to get.
Perhaps I don't see the bigger picture here?
If something in their policy change again later and see that it is not in my profit, there is always the delete button / function...
(ok... skip this "people like me, fresh, new.." 46+ years and counting.... :D :P )
-
If things (sales) are going well, no news is usualy good thing. Because, when they are, they're always bad.
-
So Pond5 thinks they're going to get people to sign up for exclusive ARTIST for a 10% bump.
ETA: Oh, excuse me. 20%. Since they're cutting non-exclusive artists to 40%.
ETA: You get two weeks to remove content from other sites. That's your "buffer period".
-
So Pond5 thinks they're going to get people to sign up for exclusive ARTIST for a 10% bump.
ETA: Oh, excuse me. 20%. Since they're cutting non-exclusive artists to 40%.
LOL so they are just cutting royalties then as no one's going artist exclusive
-
So Pond5 thinks they're going to get people to sign up for exclusive ARTIST for a 10% bump.
ETA: Oh, excuse me. 20%. Since they're cutting non-exclusive artists to 40%.
Really? Sounds like they've just copied Alamy :(
-
Do they allow content exclusive?
-
Do they allow content exclusive?
No. It's a video exclusive artist program.
-
Do they allow content exclusive?
No. It's a video exclusive artist program.
But for some who have thousands of video clips with other agencies, is it realistic?
Because we are getting an immediate decrease in income, while the exclusive income increases will not offset the losses, at least not for a while.
Let's ask them for contents exclusive. I have already sent an email.
-
Do they allow content exclusive?
No. It's a video exclusive artist program.
I didn't hear what they said about going exclusive while already having thousands of clips spread across multiple agencies. Will those non-exclusive clips drop to 40% or would we have to delete all content from other agencies? I'd think about going exclusive, but there's no way I can afford to delete anything from SS
-
Well, that was a long way of saying "sales are going down, business not so good, we need a bigger cut".
The lack of logic is amusing, since the very nature of stock footage is that it is never exclusive. The goal is of course to sell it multiple times. Will the client feel better if 99 other Pond5 customers used the same clip? But not if Shutterstock customers did...
And going from 50% to 40% is a 20% cut. From 60% to 40% is a 33% cut.
So effectively, a 20% cut for 99% of us.
-
I didn't hear what they said about going exclusive while already having thousands of clips spread across multiple agencies. Will those non-exclusive clips drop to 40% or would we have to delete all content from other agencies? I'd think about going exclusive, but there's no way I can afford to delete anything from SS
I didn't hear them clarify this beyond doubt, but it is my understanding that this program was ARTIST exclusive, meaning ALL of your clips need to be either exclusive or non-exclusive. Not just some clips in your portfolio. So you would have to delete everything. Good luck with that P5...
-
Please explain: They stated that exclusive files would be shared on Vimeo and Adobe platform..... How is that exclusive???
-
The lack of logic is amusing, since the very nature of stock footage is that it is never exclusive. The goal is of course to sell it multiple times. Will the client feel better if 99 other Pond5 customers used the same clip? But not if Shutterstock customers did...
Exactly. "We don't like to see the same clip out there, so try not to sell it too much."
"Will those non-exclusive clips drop to 40% or would we have to delete all content from other agencies? I'd think about going exclusive, but there's no way I can afford to delete anything from SS"
It's artist exclusive. You have two weeks to remove.
-
Please explain: They stated that exclusive files would be shared on Vimeo and Adobe platform..... How is that exclusive???
They'll be your exclusive _distributor_. They can "distribute" them wherever they like.
-
I didn't hear what they said about going exclusive while already having thousands of clips spread across multiple agencies. Will those non-exclusive clips drop to 40% or would we have to delete all content from other agencies? I'd think about going exclusive, but there's no way I can afford to delete anything from SS
I didn't hear them clarify this beyond doubt, but it is my understanding that this program was ARTIST exclusive, meaning ALL of your clips need to be either exclusive or non-exclusive. Not just some clips in your portfolio. So you would have to delete everything. Good luck with that P5...
They'll struggle to get 99% of us to delete our SS portfolios as it's simply not affordable. Also SS generate some decent size prices
-
They'll struggle to get 99% of us to delete our SS portfolios as it's simply not affordable. Also SS generate some decent size prices
Exactly. Double the sales and 60% of that doesn't even come close to what I get from all the other sites combined.
-
So for most existing contributors, we are getting an immediate reduction in our earnings no matter if we go exclusive or not.
If we go exclusive, we have to delete our clips from other agencies (waste of time) and suffer from loss of immediate sales.
If we don't, our share goes down from 50% to 40%.
Does not sound good!
Plus, given that agencies change their policies unilaterally and arbitrarily all the time, we will have risk too much if we go artist exclusive. This program may be only good for someone who has just started out.
-
Well, that was a long way of saying "sales are going down, business not so good, we need a bigger cut".
The lack of logic is amusing, since the very nature of stock footage is that it is never exclusive. The goal is of course to sell it multiple times. Will the client feel better if 99 other Pond5 customers used the same clip? But not if Shutterstock customers did...
And going from 50% to 40% is a 20% cut. From 60% to 40% is a 33% cut.
So effectively, a 20% cut for 99% of us.
FWIW this is the same logic as iS (or for that matter any stock vendor) charging more for exclusive content. In one sense I never understood it because the content can still be seen "all over the place" if purchased many times. I think their (P5) point was that if the content is only available on their platform, they control the price therefore the price would not be slowly eroded by different agencies competing with each other selling the same content. I think that makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is that it seems the individual contributors will be taking a hit by only selling on P5....unless they(the contributor) significantly raised their price points
-
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
#setyourownprice
-
Mixed feelings here but somehow I think the way they have done this is knowing that it will be just and effective 20% cut to contributors. I understand their logic to the downward pressure of prices if the same content is everywhere BUT to ask us for a leap of faith deleting all our content everywhere is just not reasonable and an insult to artists because
1- If you loose best match placement in all the other agencies because you take videos down and tomorrow another Hellman & Friedman buys Pond5 you are screwed
2- The hit of deleting all the content in other outlet is an enormous financial hit that I think none with large selling portfolios is going to bet. It might take months or years to make same or bigger numbers
3- The 6 months is also a disgrace in spite whatever they say. We are in the digital age....very weird to act like predigital ones. One of the reasons when I never joined Dreamstime was that 6 month period. Period
If they would have acted with the wellbeing and with a fair deal in mind they could have just started with exclusive clips not Artist exclusive so that contributors can dip their toes slowly in the hot water and see if it works of them. Now it is a big russian roulette.
So bad implemented folks. I am sorry to see that greed has also finally bitten in a very short time the two remaining agencies that treated better their contributors.
Good luck to all with whatever decision you take
The lack of logic is amusing, since the very nature of stock footage is that it is never exclusive. The goal is of course to sell it multiple times. Will the client feel better if 99 other Pond5 customers used the same clip? But not if Shutterstock customers did...
Exactly. "We don't like to see the same clip out there, so try not to sell it too much."
"Will those non-exclusive clips drop to 40% or would we have to delete all content from other agencies? I'd think about going exclusive, but there's no way I can afford to delete anything from SS"
It's artist exclusive. You have two weeks to remove.
-
Oh I get it but it is not exclusive to just Pond5....... File exclusive is the way to go! like Stocksy does it.
-
I think their (P5) point was that if the content is only available on their platform, they control the price therefore the price would not be slowly eroded by different agencies competing with each other selling the same content.
That's not what they said. :)
They specifically said that the buyers didn't want the clips being used by other buyers. Which of course makes 0 sense dealing with any stock asset. Do they know what a stock asset is? It is an asset that is in stock, ready for anyone to buy and use immediately. If you want exclusive content you film it yourself or hire someone to do it.
-
I have a phone call scheduled with them at 2pm. Will post a video on my channel on this after that call.
-
I think their (P5) point was that if the content is only available on their platform, they control the price therefore the price would not be slowly eroded by different agencies competing with each other selling the same content.
That's not what they said. :)
They specifically said that the buyers didn't want the clips being used by other buyers. Which of course makes 0 sense dealing with any stock asset. Do they know what a stock asset is? It is an asset that is in stock, ready for anyone to buy and use immediately. If you want exclusive content you film it yourself or hire someone to do it.
Good point!...they said that, but they also used the example of stock photo prices declining due to vendors competing with each other with the same content. So yes I agree with you that the "...buyers didn't want the clips being used by other buyers..." argument never made sense since it is stock content.
-
If they would have acted with the wellbeing and with a fair deal in mind they could have just started with exclusive clips not Artist exclusive so that contributors can dip their toes slowly in the hot water and see if it works of them. Now it is a big russian roulette.
Exactly.
As SkywardKick over at the P5 forum put it:
Their goal is to hurt the competitor portfolios / take more of our cut. Either way, it's a win-win for them, lose-lose for us. Sadly so.
1. Contributor stays non-exclusive = Pond5 get 20% more for each sale. We lose.
2. Contributor goes exclusive = Pond5 maybe get a few extra exclusive sales. But we lose all the other non-ex sales.
What we learn from this, and what many probably already knew, is that Pond5 are losing market share at an alarming rate. They are desperate, and they could have been more honest about it rather than this attempt to mask the truth.
I hope they learn from it and don't do it to the other assets on the marketplace.
-
Oh I get it but it is not exclusive to just Pond5....... File exclusive is the way to go! like Stocksy does it.
100%
-
If you delete thousands of clips from other agencies you'll lose over 50% of your income immediately going exclusive to P5. That's a giant leap of faith and trust. If it doesn't quite work out and in 6 months you opt out, where does that leave you. P5 is taking zero risk here, us artists are expected to gamble with our livelihoods.
-
So Pond5 thinks they're going to get people to sign up for exclusive ARTIST for a 10% bump.
ETA: Oh, excuse me. 20%. Since they're cutting non-exclusive artists to 40%.
Really? Sounds like they've just copied Alamy :(
So, just like I said:
I'm not sure what exactly what they'll do, but I'm almost certain it won't be "good news" for contributors.
Didn't an Alamy exec or someone have a video explaining all the new "changes" which were, of course, bad for contributors?
Feels like damage control in advance, having them personally stream the news to the community instead of sending generic e-mails.
Pond5 - if you're listening - we the contributors don't care how you deliver the news - as long as they're good. If they're bad, there's no good way of delivering them - not though a genetic newsletter, a "town hall", or a personalized youtube video. And just trying to deliver them as softly as possible is manipulative. So I hope for the best, but I do expect the worst. :)
I'll be increasing the prices of ALL of my assets on P5 to make up for the loss of commission. In fact, I'll further up the prices, so let's see how that affects my sales. Free market. :)
-
«What if I choose to be non-exclusive?
While we hope to incentivize our artists to contribute exclusively, we understand that many artists have built businesses that require them to distribute their work on other stock-media sites — at potentially lower prices and royalty shares. We understand that, for these artists, enrolling in the Exclusivity Program may not work for their financial situation. Non-exclusive video artists can expect to receive the same level of support they receive on Pond5 today. Additionally, choosing not to participate in the Exclusivity Program will have no impact on any artist’s rank in the search results.
What will change are the royalties paid to non-exclusive video artists, which will move from 50% to a still industry high of 40%. While we would prefer to keep the royalty unchanged for non-exclusive video artists, like any business, our resources are limited, and we cannot continue to pay a materially higher royalty share for the same content listed elsewhere. Ultimately, we believe this new structure appropriately balances higher royalties along with additional benefits for exclusive content with a lower revenue share for artists who prefer to sell their content across a number of outlets.»
This is the priority reason why they do this for me.
-
I really can't see many contributors going exclusive with Pond5 and Pond5 must know that, so really what this is just a way for Pond5 to cut commissions and try to spin it as something positive.
-
Pond5 are losing market share at an alarming rate.
Out of interest, who are they losing the market share to?
-
Pond5 are losing market share at an alarming rate.
Out of interest, who are they losing the market share to?
Adobe?
-
If they are sincere and truly want exclusive contents, they should allow contents exclusive.
Otherwise, it is just a pretense to cut artist's shares.
-
I will higher prices for my Pond5 assets
this will be my way to protest.
-
If they are sincere and truly want exclusive contents, they should allow contents exclusive.
Otherwise, it is just a pretense to cut artist's shares.
Yup. Super manipulative.
I'm already on page 8 of my 30% price hike. :)
-
What ..
I usually sell well on Pond 5 and on other sites.
Now logically I will not be exclusive, seeing as well in other agencies.
I think I'm going to have to raise the value of the videos in Pond5, to lose less.
Example. A video that sold for $ 69 and made $ 34.50, now I'm going to win $ 27.60.
Either I settle for this or I raise the value from $ 69 to $ 86 to continue earning the same $ 34 and running the risk of not selling because of the sale value.
Very sad this.
Storyblocks is already finished for me in videos after the increase of values and commission break.
Now I'm afraid POND5 will stop being my second best site ...
Anyway...
-
I will higher prices for my Pond5 assets
this will be my way to protest.
but wait, someone just mentioned this (I assume new agreement):
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
-
Does this effect photo royalty rates or does that remain 50%?
-
Does this effect photo royalty rates or does that remain 50%?
Only vid's (at least for now...)
-
I will higher prices for my Pond5 assets
this will be my way to protest.
but wait, someone just mentioned this (I assume new agreement):
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
A lot of my HD content has been priced below "market place" on Pond5 because of their higher royalties. Now I can hike up the price by 30% and still be below 79$. So in my case, all is good.
-
So basically they just lowered royalties.
If they were interested in building up an exclusive database, they would have gone for file exclusivity.
They know that nobody who is serious about video can afford to give up their existing ports elsewhere.
But people would have put a much bigger focus on pond5 and given them the higher quality files exclusively.
Full artist exclusivity is over if stock is your main source of income. Managers come and go, agencies get sold etc...it is simply too risky.
So, a severe royalty cut with no positive outlook or incentive going forward.
Not very inspiring.
-
And not very motivating either.
-
Just got off the phone with them, let's see what the future holds for us long term shooters! Now I am posting a video about it on my site but I will summarize it here. I think as a business this is a good move and needed at this time in the industry. I am seeing my RPD go down and buyers shopping around as well. The 60-40 split does not bother me and I would have done something similar. If you are a serious video producer then this is a good space for you! If they keep the buyers coming this will put pressure on Getty to get more content but do be fooled Getty is the one who has shafted the artist for $$$. Pond5 has set it so I make more then they do if I am exclusive! This is the move I expected and aside from a few glitches I hope it does well! Now I did make a suggestion to add photo in the exclusive pack so we could advertise that as well! Watch the video on my channel in about 1 hour if you want more info. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber)
-
Just got off the phone with them, let's see what the future holds for us long term shooters! Now I am posting a video about it on my site but I will summarize it here. I think as a business this is a good move and needed at this time in the industry. I am seeing my RPD go down and buyers shopping around as well. The 60-40 split does not bother me and I would have done something similar. If you are a serious video producer then this is a good space for you! If they keep the buyers coming this will put pressure on Getty to get more content but do be fooled Getty is the one who has shafted the artist for $$$. Pond5 has set it so I make more then they do if I am exclusive! This is the move I expected and aside from a few glitches I hope it does well! Now I did make a suggestion to add photo in the exclusive pack so we could advertise that as well! Watch the video on my channel in about 1 hour if you want more info. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber)
They definitely don't sell enough photos to make exclusivity worth it, bundling it with video (if I understand you correctly) would stop almost anyone who shoots both from joining. I like the move as is, even if I don't end up doing it I hope it puts pressure on the other agencies.
-
Just got off the phone with them, let's see what the future holds for us long term shooters! Now I am posting a video about it on my site but I will summarize it here. I think as a business this is a good move and needed at this time in the industry. I am seeing my RPD go down and buyers shopping around as well. The 60-40 split does not bother me and I would have done something similar. If you are a serious video producer then this is a good space for you! If they keep the buyers coming this will put pressure on Getty to get more content but do be fooled Getty is the one who has shafted the artist for $$$. Pond5 has set it so I make more then they do if I am exclusive! This is the move I expected and aside from a few glitches I hope it does well! Now I did make a suggestion to add photo in the exclusive pack so we could advertise that as well! Watch the video on my channel in about 1 hour if you want more info. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber)
Surprised you are so extremely supportive. What did they say that made you think this way?
-
This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.
They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".
This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.
-
This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.
They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".
This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.
i agree. it's a ended business for 99% of contributor soon in little time..hope many won't based their earning and life on micro and have a family too i won't literally was to be in their pants...sonn they will go 30 225 20 15 and 10...i'm still surprised ss is at 38% but s soon as they will lose royalties be sure they will cut royalty.
the only ututure in photography is talent and commission. stock are less profitable than staying outside a shop and asking for a dollar to the customer who enter.
-
This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.
They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".
This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.
i agree. it's a ended business for 99% of contributor soon in little time..hope many won't based their earning and life on micro and have a family too i won't literally was to be in their pants...sonn they will go 30 225 20 15 and 10...i'm still surprised ss is at 38% but s soon as they will lose royalties be sure they will cut royalty.
the only ututure in photography is talent and commission. stock are less profitable than staying outside a shop and asking for a dollar to the customer who enter.
Shutterstock is not at 38%, where did you get that idea?
-
This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.
They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".
This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.
i agree. it's a ended business for 99% of contributor soon in little time..hope many won't based their earning and life on micro and have a family too i won't literally was to be in their pants...sonn they will go 30 225 20 15 and 10...i'm still surprised ss is at 38% but s soon as they will lose royalties be sure they will cut royalty.
the only ututure in photography is talent and commission. stock are less profitable than staying outside a shop and asking for a dollar to the customer who enter.
Shutterstock is not at 38%, where did you get that idea?
yes sorry i was doing the % based on subsritpition...anyway fact is that...every agency red is falling down...thats a fact. in a year we will talk about much much lower earning per download i bet y pants. free photos will be the future for most uses, only top notch production and high level creative will make a life ou of commercial photography.
-
This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.
They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".
This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.
i agree. it's a ended business for 99% of contributor soon in little time..hope many won't based their earning and life on micro and have a family too i won't literally was to be in their pants...sonn they will go 30 225 20 15 and 10...i'm still surprised ss is at 38% but s soon as they will lose royalties be sure they will cut royalty.
the only ututure in photography is talent and commission. stock are less profitable than staying outside a shop and asking for a dollar to the customer who enter.
Shutterstock is not at 38%, where did you get that idea?
yes sorry i was doing the % based on subsritpition...anyway fact is that...every agency red is falling down...thats a fact. in a year we will talk about much much lower earning per download i bet y pants. free photos will be the future for most uses, only top notch production and high level creative will make a life ou of commercial photography.
That's not the % you get from subscriptions either.
-
They told me nothing you don't know on the business front. I just know that to succeed as a business you have to offer something others don't not hard to figure out, so I applaud the exclusive approach. I made a lot of money with Getty in the beginning and would still be exclusive if they treated the artist fair. 40% is still fair and hey the choice is always yours to make! I don't judge anyone's reason to do it or not! Always do what works best for yourself!!
-
This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.
They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".
This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.
i agree. it's a ended business for 99% of contributor soon in little time..hope many won't based their earning and life on micro and have a family too i won't literally was to be in their pants...sonn they will go 30 225 20 15 and 10...i'm still surprised ss is at 38% but s soon as they will lose royalties be sure they will cut royalty.
the only ututure in photography is talent and commission. stock are less profitable than staying outside a shop and asking for a dollar to the customer who enter.
Shutterstock is not at 38%, where did you get that idea?
yes sorry i was doing the % based on subsritpition...anyway fact is that...every agency red is falling down...thats a fact. in a year we will talk about much much lower earning per download i bet y pants. free photos will be the future for most uses, only top notch production and high level creative will make a life ou of commercial photography.
That's not the % you get from subscriptions either.
Maybe 0.38 for subs
https://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts?language=en
-
Forget Getty. We are talking about P5 here and their move to cut throat their contributors like many have done in the past hidden about bla bla bla.....retaining value....bla bla bla.....stopping the race to the bottom. Go exclusive if you want. I guarantee you that you will not make up for the loss you will make deleting your portfolio in other agencies. Whatever you do you will loose as a contributor.
Good luck with whatever choice you make........
Just got off the phone with them, let's see what the future holds for us long term shooters! Now I am posting a video about it on my site but I will summarize it here. I think as a business this is a good move and needed at this time in the industry. I am seeing my RPD go down and buyers shopping around as well. The 60-40 split does not bother me and I would have done something similar. If you are a serious video producer then this is a good space for you! If they keep the buyers coming this will put pressure on Getty to get more content but do be fooled Getty is the one who has shafted the artist for $$$. Pond5 has set it so I make more then they do if I am exclusive! This is the move I expected and aside from a few glitches I hope it does well! Now I did make a suggestion to add photo in the exclusive pack so we could advertise that as well! Watch the video on my channel in about 1 hour if you want more info. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw?view_as=subscriber)
-
They told me nothing you don't know on the business front. I just know that to succeed as a business you have to offer something others don't not hard to figure out, so I applaud the exclusive approach. I made a lot of money with Getty in the beginning and would still be exclusive if they treated the artist fair. 40% is still fair and hey the choice is always yours to make! I don't judge anyone's reason to do it or not! Always do what works best for yourself!!
I'm also surprised at your positivity. Of course from their business side it's a good move, the backlash anticipated they will still increase their revenue. But have you given them our side of the story? For us it's either take the 20% revenue cut, or join the program and see your revenue more than halved overnight because we have to delete our other portfolios. Honestly, what makes you think that Pond5 will make up for that revenue loss? They'd have to offer double or triple the sales, and that is not going to happen anytime soon.
-
I think they have heard that loud and clear so I am waiting to see how it shakes down. If they do nothing then bad news! I do feel they have been a good agency to work with so I am trying to think positive here.
-
I'm curious about their Global Partner Program deal to sell through Adobe (I'm currently opted out). Anyone know what the pricing is?
-
I think we should give Pond5 some time to hear and digest what appears to be an overwhelmingly negative response, and rethink the artist exclusivity vs other option of clip exclusivity. Storyblocks listened, Alamy just did as well. They made a decision, heard the negative feedback, walked it back, at least a little. Pond5 can still change their mind.
The logic from the Youtube presentation was flawed in many ways, but even now they are still the most "artist friendly" stock company out there, as disappointing a move this is. But here we are with the screwing of the contributor with a bs storyline. Monkey see, monkey do. We can again thank iStock and all the other low-ball companies, and all of you that submit to them. Good work ruining it for everyone, again.
Artist exclusivity is a non-starter. No one company can be trusted with that responsibility, not even Pond5. I do wonder now if another company will emerge and fill the void as being the actual most "artist friendly" stock company since Pond5 seems more willing these days than ever to let that slip away.
-
I think they have heard that loud and clear so I am waiting to see how it shakes down. If they do nothing then bad news! I do feel they have been a good agency to work with so I am trying to think positive here.
But what about the simple math here? Do you see it such that dropping out of all other agencies and going exclusive at P5 will earn you more money?
And as for stills, there are virtually 0 sales at P5. Stills content that sells almost every day and sometimes multiple times per day on other sites has not sold one copy at P5 in over a year.
-
While I do hope that they listen, it doesn‘t increase trust in the current management, if this is all they can come up with.
That producers would see through a 20% punishment, thinly veiled with 60% exclusivity for a minuscule number of people should have been obvious.
Adding exclusive clips, is the only logical solution if adding exclusive content was truly their intention to make a new offer to their customers.
To not offer that means they either really don‘t understand the industry and their own position in it or they thought producers are naive and wouldn‘t see the cash grab.
Quality producers can never go artist exclusive because after the istock disaster everyone knows the risk is too high. 60% can turn into 40% overnight or be replaced by „floating yearly targets“ the way istock does with new management.
I am very glad they left us control over prices...but that 4k experiment is still ongoing, right? And have they reassured us, they will never interfer into our portfolios again??
I really like pond5. Well, I like the pond5 that I know.
So we will see, but unfortunately I have to question the wisdom of those in charge by even rolling out the current plan. I miss the business logic apart from granting themselves 20% more.
-
Quality producers can never go artist exclusive because after the istock disaster everyone knows the risk is too high. 60% can turn into 40% overnight or be replaced by „floating yearly targets“ the way istock does with new management.
Here is another perspective.
I am a video editor.
I go to a production house.
They say "we hire you" so I work exclusively there.
I give 100% of my creative powers.
They bankrupt or dishonest out work agreement.
That's life, hard but still goes on.
The real catch is not exclusivity but to see it coming
and avoid it while still having profit I guess.
-
I think they have heard that loud and clear so I am waiting to see how it shakes down. If they do nothing then bad news! I do feel they have been a good agency to work with so I am trying to think positive here.
But what about the simple math here? Do you see it such that dropping out of all other agencies and going exclusive at P5 will earn you more money?
And as for stills, there are virtually 0 sales at P5. Stills content that sells almost every day and sometimes multiple times per day on other sites has not sold one copy at P5 in over a year.
Stills and audio and templates are still 50/50 split, and not part of the exclusivity program AFAIK.
-
I think they have heard that loud and clear so I am waiting to see how it shakes down. If they do nothing then bad news! I do feel they have been a good agency to work with so I am trying to think positive here.
Positive thinking is one thing, but I prefer facts and figures to make my business decisions :)
You've been on the phone with them, did they say anything about the huge risks for us in terms of revenue loss?
-
Quality producers can never go artist exclusive because after the istock disaster everyone knows the risk is too high. 60% can turn into 40% overnight or be replaced by „floating yearly targets“ the way istock does with new management.
Here is another perspective.
I am a video editor.
I go to a production house.
They say "we hire you" so I work exclusively there.
I give 100% of my creative powers.
They bankrupt or dishonest out work agreement.
That's life, hard but still goes on.
The real catch is not exclusivity but to see it coming
and avoid it while still having profit I guess.
That is the attitude for paid employee jobs.
You are a employed, you get your steady salary. If something happens and you lose your job, you just move on to another company and immediately have the same monthly income or maybe even higher.
Stock portfolios don‘t work that way. It takes years for files to establish themselves in individual rankings, get lightboxed by customers etc...
If you give up your exclusive status or that company goes bankrupt, you cannot just take your files, place them elsewhere and expect to immediately have the same income.
There are thousands of very good, high quality former istock producers who tried to do that. But even with over 12000 very, very good files, they could not quickly regain their income by placing them elsewhere.
Also uploading a large port to new places takes a crazy amount of time that blocks you for doing something else.
As for seeing it coming...if we could all do that, we would all be rich via the stock market....
The only people who can literally afford to be agency exclusive are the ones that don‘t really need the money. They have a steady, well paing day job and do a little stock on the side.
The other thing is the professional producers are also building up their ports to be a major factor in their retirement income.
Just like you never rely on just one investment form for retirement, you simply cannot rely on just one company for your old age. For stability you need the balance from several marketplaces.
So, you cannot be exclusive with pond5 for many years, then abruptly leave and get the same income elsewhere. The industry has the practical example of what happened to the istock artists, we know it simply doesn’t work that way.
-
I did it, yep for 8 years I was an Getty Exclusive. When I dropped it and spread my work out it was really tough! I barely made it through on income and my hands ached for typing and uploading all my clips. It was worth it in the long run. I do a lot of model released work so I may give the Pond5 exclusive a go for at least a year. Good luck to all of us on any path we choose!
-
I did it, yep for 8 years I was an Getty Exclusive. When I dropped it and spread my work out it was really tough! I barely made it through on income and my hands ached for typing and uploading all my clips. It was worth it in the long run. I do a lot of model released work so I may give the Pond5 exclusive a go for at least a year. Good luck to all of us on any path we choose!
So you feel that the 6/5 increase in royalty rate on P5 will make up for your income from the other agencies going to 0?
-
I gave my all producing exclusive stills for Corbis.
A friend used to say "What would you do if they go to the wall?"
I had no answer.
Then in 2016 they closed.
I'm still trying to recover to a steady situation.
When the going was good, I was happy just being with them.
When it wasn't`t I didn't know which way to turn.
I feel very uneasy about being exclusive to anyone, no matter how noble it sounds to be exclusive to keep prices high.
-
@cobalt,
I understand what you say, and in many things I believe you have valid points.
After all I am new to this, so I cannot claim that I know anything, not even the past history of stock!
-
No I will only do it if there is a way to start exclusive now without deleting my files everywhere. If Pond5 never offers that option then I will never be exclusive!
-
Why do they think that giving us a title like "good news" is going to make us less angry when they're actually shafting us? They just proved that they're exactly like every other stock agency that's done the same thing.
-
This is the new Pond5 terms.
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
What do you think that price is. SS has $1.50 clips now? What price is P5 looking to implement. They just did the trial (without any prior warning) of dropping prices. Do you think they have a price in mind? Do you think they will drop all nonexclusive clips drop in price overnight?
-
This is the new Pond5 terms.
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
What do you think that price is. SS has $1.50 clips now? What price is P5 looking to implement. They just did the trial (without any prior warning) of dropping prices. Do you think they have a price in mind? Do you think they will drop all nonexclusive clips drop in price overnight?
No, that would be dumb. I think it is just a way to protect themselves for say the odd contributor who has 1000's of clips say priced at $10 on envato, and then priced at $150 at Pond5.
OR - it could also be a way for them to appease customers that 'shop around'. (So you don't necessarily get "all" your clips or anything changed - just if a customer says "Hey! I just bought this clip for $150, but found it for $10 at envato!!" - then pond5 might refund the difference, and/or "price-match".
-
This is the new Pond5 terms.
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
What do you think that price is. SS has $1.50 clips now? What price is P5 looking to implement. They just did the trial (without any prior warning) of dropping prices. Do you think they have a price in mind? Do you think they will drop all nonexclusive clips drop in price overnight?
No, that would be dumb. I think it is just a way to protect themselves for say the odd contributor who has 1000's of clips say priced at $10 on envato, and then priced at $150 at Pond5.
OR - it could also be a way for them to appease customers that 'shop around'. (So you don't necessarily get "all" your clips or anything changed - just if a customer says "Hey! I just bought this clip for $150, but found it for $10 at envato!!" - then pond5 might refund the difference, and/or "price-match".
If they are going to price-match, think of the accounting nightmare that will unleash! Lots of contributor clawbacks will start a riot!
-
I think they probably "already" do it, or something similar. They just don't tell contributors about it (because this legal agreement/item gives them an out).
This is the new Pond5 terms.
If you do not enroll in the Exclusivity Program, notwithstanding section 3.b. above, you shall not set the price for an item of video Content that is higher than the lowest price for which the same (or substantially the same) Content item is offered by or on any Other Marketplace, and if we discover that the Content item is offered at a lower price by or on any Other Marketplace, we may change the price of your content in our marketplace.
What do you think that price is. SS has $1.50 clips now? What price is P5 looking to implement. They just did the trial (without any prior warning) of dropping prices. Do you think they have a price in mind? Do you think they will drop all nonexclusive clips drop in price overnight?
No, that would be dumb. I think it is just a way to protect themselves for say the odd contributor who has 1000's of clips say priced at $10 on envato, and then priced at $150 at Pond5.
OR - it could also be a way for them to appease customers that 'shop around'. (So you don't necessarily get "all" your clips or anything changed - just if a customer says "Hey! I just bought this clip for $150, but found it for $10 at envato!!" - then pond5 might refund the difference, and/or "price-match".
If they are going to price-match, think of the accounting nightmare that will unleash! Lots of contributor clawbacks will start a riot!
-
Why don't they just tell us the lowest price they found across other sites, it'll also help us understand what sites are under pricing and where we can remove content from
-
What they should do is kick out any stupid contributor that does this kind of practice.
No, that would be dumb. I think it is just a way to protect themselves for say the odd contributor who has 1000's of clips say priced at $10 on envato, and then priced at $150 at Pond5.
OR - it could also be a way for them to appease customers that 'shop around'. (So you don't necessarily get "all" your clips or anything changed - just if a customer says "Hey! I just bought this clip for $150, but found it for $10 at envato!!" - then pond5 might refund the difference, and/or "price-match".
-
Why don't they just tell us the lowest price they found across other sites, it'll also help us understand what sites are under pricing and where we can remove content from
Shutterstock: $179/4K & $79/HD
Adobe: $200/4K & $80/HD
Storyblocks: $199/4K & $79/HD
iStock" $50/4K & $50/HD
Bottom Line: Now is a smart time to delete your clips from iStock.
-
You can now create an Exclusive Account with Pond5 and not have to delete your files! I told you this would work out. Just created mine as CraftedShutterExclusive
-
You can now create an Exclusive Account with Pond5 and not have to delete your files! I told you this would work out. Just created mine as CraftedShutterExclusive
Anymore details on that?
-
Dear Community,
We’d like to thank everyone who took the time to contact us and share their thoughts. We truly value your feedback and will continue to look to our artist community for input on how we can best accomplish our mission to help you earn more.
We’ve had a lot of feedback over the last 24 hours. Our goal with the Video Exclusivity Program is to accomplish one thing: maximizing the value of your work by making it harder for buyers to shop around to negotiate the lowest price.
Two clear themes have emerged from your feedback:
- “I agree the industry is heading for a race to the bottom, but some portion of my income comes from other sites and I don’t want to lose it.”
- “I'd be willing to go exclusive for my future video content if I could still list my older footage on competitive marketplaces.”
We hear you loud and clear. While the best way for you to preserve the value of your work and receive the most benefit is to become a Pond5 Exclusive Video Artist, if you wish to have only selected content (especially new content) listed exclusively with Pond5, you can do so by creating a new, separate account.
The new Exclusive account will benefit from the higher royalty rate (starting April 8), as well as the additional promotion, sales, and marketing associated with our Exclusivity Program. Please note that once you create your new account, you will need to enroll it in the Video Exclusivity Program by going to the Exclusive Artist page.
In the meantime, please continue to reach out to us with any additional feedback or questions about this program at [email protected].
All the best,
The Pond5 Team
-
That's a little confusing are they saying you have to stop contributing to other sites and all new content has to go exclusively to P5 or can you keep uploading to your other accounts?
-
They can't police that so basically it is file exclusive
-
They can't police that so basically it is file exclusive
Great all my new content is going there.
-
You can now create an Exclusive Account with Pond5 and not have to delete your files! I told you this would work out. Just created mine as CraftedShutterExclusive
Not really a better deal, same thing.
They want fresh exclusive content.
Guess they do not care if I am "user" or "user exclusive"
Older files didn't seem to be the major problem or catch.
Deletion would only work for people with small ports anyway.
No trouble to kill 170 + 160 clips elsewhere in order to have the
chance to price to my will and get a better percentage.
:)
-
Yep mine as well :-)
-
So I can have two accounts, one for exclusive content, one for non exclusive content?
-
Basically yes that is correct!
-
That's better.
I will give it a try.
-
I am thrilled with this offer! I remember the days I was iStock Exclusive and loved it. I am so happy to have a place that pays fair for my hard work! I will be focusing my full energy on my new exclusive content now!
-
This is a good idea.
But they should then limit these new accounts to video only, otherwise you again get mixed media that is an exclusive non exclusive mix.
Or they decide you can have a second „ all exclusive“ account, and include photos, audio etc...again for 60%.
I think they should take some time to work on the details and get back to their IT department.
But having new exclusive accounts would be something new, most other places you have mixed accounts.
I think this is a much cleaner solution.
It also gives artists the option to have maybe a specliazed „theme“ to build around for their exclusive content.
-
If we create a new exclusive account, will we still be able to upload new, non similar files to Pond 5 or other agencies?
I guess we could as the new account will be different to the old one, or not?
-
just increased all my video prices by 33%, they can fack off
-
I haven't yet recieved that e-mail... will they be posting it on their site somewhere?
-
I'm still not convinced that two accounts is the way to go. I've also lost faith in P5.
Surely, the great clip you create for Pond5 Exclusive would earn more revenue over multiple distributors.
-
I think I made fair move, increased prices so they are pricier then before when we got 50% but still cheaper from sites that gives us 30%.
-
What would be a suggested 4K price tag for an exclusive video? We should look it from the buyer's prespective. If a customer gives 170 to 200 for non exclusive to the other big ones, should a Pond 5 4K exclusive video be priced for example no less than 220, or maybe more? That should mean at least 132 cut for us creators, in a regular, not enhanced sale. (if the video sells, at least once!)
-
Why don't they just tell us the lowest price they found across other sites, it'll also help us understand what sites are under pricing and where we can remove content from
Shutterstock: $179/4K & $79/HD
Adobe: $200/4K & $80/HD
Storyblocks: $199/4K & $79/HD
iStock" $50/4K & $50/HD
Bottom Line: Now is a smart time to delete your clips from iStock.
Way ahead, gave istock a go to hell the day they move away from stock submitter
The issue is that these rates do not capture the lowest the agency will go.
-
I am thrilled with this offer! I remember the days I was iStock Exclusive and loved it. I am so happy to have a place that pays fair for my hard work! I will be focusing my full energy on my new exclusive content now!
Think about it. You "were" iStock exclusive. You "loved" it. Why aren't you iStock exclusive today? I'm sure they pitched you well, even started you off with enticing royalties and marketing favorability. Did something change? Did iStock turn their backs on their contributors and start down the path of becoming the worst thing to happen to stock media? We all know the answers to those questions.
It's one thing to be naive and not repeat history because you didn't live through or study it. But quite another to be fully aware of how quickly things can change for the worse and still dive head-first into it. Pond5 is of course the most trustworthy of the companies to throw in with, but let's review the choices they've made recently:
They just lowered their standard royalty 20%.
They introduced and now have quietly taken away web sized options, a clunky and confusing-for-the-customers failed experiment.
They repriced a high percentage of clips (up to nearly 50%) without the consent of the artists (a direct example of a less-than-true promise from the Youtube presentation) for a "test" without any notice of a beginning or any sign of an end.
In response to backlash over that, they told contributors they can't bothered informing us of every little thing they do.
This is not the Pond5 of 2017 and the trend does not look good. They are only the best in a dying business. Exclusivity is a huge risk. Good luck.
-
Think about it. You "were" iStock exclusive.
Let the guys who want to be exclusive be exclusive.
It means it will be less crowded for the rest of us.
I would encourage everyone to go exclusive!
-
Is is always non-exclusives who benefit the most from the so-called "exclusivity" programs (since RF stock asset can never be exclusive).
Agencies use the word "exclusive" for marketing purposes, non-exclusive artists also benefit from new customers.
And it is only "exclusive artitsts" who are abused and used just as a marketing hook will lose again and again.
I left iStock exclusivity a couple of months ago after 9 years (don't even want to think of where would be my portfolio now in terms of search, positioning, etc.) and starting it from ground zero here again. Even 90% commision wouldn't lure me into that "exclusive" hoax ever again.
The story will repeat itself :) As it always did.
-
I am thrilled with this offer! I remember the days I was iStock Exclusive and loved it. I am so happy to have a place that pays fair for my hard work! I will be focusing my full energy on my new exclusive content now!
Jeff, respectfully, why don't you pause being thrilled long enough to realize you're actually being suckered? The key points are that exclusivity at 60% will never earn as much as using multiple sites, so it's an overall loss for you, but more importantly THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A 20% CUT IN ARTIST PROFIT SHARE. If exclusivity holds value for Pond5, they could have simply announced a 60/40 deal for exclusive contributors - period. Few would take such a deal, but fine. Instead they used it as a smokescreen to cut all non-exclusive content rates from 50% to 40% - including yours - and you're whistling about how thrilled you are. Do you not realize you're making things actively worse by encouraging them as they take more money from us?
Any time a stock footage company decides it wants more profit and the way to get it is to grab it from the artists, it's wrong and needs to be pushed back against. If they want more profit they can look to other areas of their business model, but to think they can just take from our pockets is bs.
We pushed back against Storyblocks with good success because people spoke up. I hope people will do it again by emailing Pond5 at [email protected] and cc CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]. I've also started a petition here, please sign and share it: https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists (https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists)
-
I understand what you are saying but from my own experience in the stock world I am comfortable with my decision. The market is now at a tipping point now I don't expect anyone to agree with me and that is fine but I need to this for myself.
-
I'm now exclusive with P5.. it wasn't a hard choice for me because already about 35% of my port was exclusive with high prices and most of my income is coming from those files, so instead of losing 20% of my income I'll get 20% more, I'll raise the prices of the files that were on other stocks from 78$ to whatever I believe is fair.. for those files that doing well on SS, I'll delete those from my exclusive account at P5 and create another account for non exclusive footage. I'll lose the ranking for those files at P5, but I believe I'll be the winner in the long run.
-
For those thinking of going "exclusive" to P5 and maintaining a non-exclusive account with the same clips that are found on other agencies, keep in mind that:
- According to their new agreement, P5 has the right to adjust your pricing DOWN if you raise the price of a non-exclusive clip on P5 if that same clip is found to be at a lower price elsewhere (i.e., if priced at $79 elsewhere), and
- Your exclusive clips cannot of be SIMILAR to your other non-exclusive clips. As an example, if you have two shots from two different angles of the SAME concept that you shot at the SAME shooting session, you cannot make one exclusive and the other non-exclusive.
I think a lot of people aren't getting these two concepts.
Point #1 also applies to those who AREN'T going exclusive to P5: If you're thinking of raising the price on your non-exclusive clips to make-up for the new 40% commissions AND those same clips are on SS and AS at $79, you have to price them on P5 at $79 (or lower, if you want).
Of course, it's up to P5 to police and enforce these new regulations, which I think is a whole other conversation.
-
I am thrilled with this offer! I remember the days I was iStock Exclusive and loved it. I am so happy to have a place that pays fair for my hard work! I will be focusing my full energy on my new exclusive content now!
Jeff, respectfully, why don't you pause being thrilled long enough to realize you're actually being suckered? The key points are that exclusivity at 60% will never earn as much as using multiple sites, so it's an overall loss for you, but more importantly THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A 20% CUT IN ARTIST PROFIT SHARE. If exclusivity holds value for Pond5, they could have simply announced a 60/40 deal for exclusive contributors - period. Few would take such a deal, but fine. Instead they used it as a smokescreen to cut all non-exclusive content rates from 50% to 40% - including yours - and you're whistling about how thrilled you are. Do you not realize you're making things actively worse by encouraging them as they take more money from us?
Any time a stock footage company decides it wants more profit and the way to get it is to grab it from the artists, it's wrong and needs to be pushed back against. If they want more profit they can look to other areas of their business model, but to think they can just take from our pockets is bs.
We pushed back against Storyblocks with good success because people spoke up. I hope people will do it again by emailing Pond5 at [email protected] and cc CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]. I've also started a petition here, please sign and share it: https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists (https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists)
"Storyblocks.com is a great stock footage and image site that has a 50/50 deal with artists."
Errrr...Storyblocks cut our commission as well (by 50%!), yet you actively promote them in your petition? Why? It makes me not want to sign your petition, even though I agree with the rest.
-
For those thinking of going "exclusive" to P5 and maintaining a non-exclusive account with the same clips that are found on other agencies, keep in mind that:
- According to their new agreement, P5 has the right to adjust your pricing DOWN if you raise the price of a non-exclusive clip on P5 if that same clip is found to be at a lower price elsewhere (i.e., if priced at $79 elsewhere), and
- Your exclusive clips cannot of be SIMILAR to your other non-exclusive clips. As an example, if you have two shots from two different angles of the SAME concept that you shot at the SAME shooting session, you cannot make one exclusive and the other non-exclusive.
I think a lot of people aren't getting these two concepts.
Point #1 also applies to those who AREN'T going exclusive to P5: If you're thinking of raising the price on your non-exclusive clips to make-up for the new 40% commissions AND those same clips are on SS and AS at $79, you have to price them on P5 at $79 (or lower, if you want).
Of course, it's up to P5 to police and enforce these new regulations, which I think is a whole other conversation.
I'm very aware of that.. I've priced all my non exclusive at 78$ long ago at P5 and now I'm going to raise prices of those that sell well there and remove those that sell better elswhere
-
Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]
Pond5 decision-makers,
As a long-time contributor to Pond5, I am writing in anger that you are cutting our profit share of non-exclusive sales by a massive 20%. Pond5 attracted artists in large part because it offered a fair 50/50 split, and now you’re lightly dropping that as “not competitive.” Let me ask, is management also taking a pay cut to stay competitive? Do you hire employees and tell them, “Work hard, do great, and maybe in a few years we’ll cut your pay by 20%”? You chose to take a huge amount of earnings away from the content creators in an effort to squeeze them into working for you exclusively. That is an incredible betrayal. On a basic human level you should be ashamed of your actions and greed.
Pond5 has repeatedly spoken against a race to the bottom in pricing. But by cutting artist pay, you’re pushing a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Did you really think it would be more acceptable because you simultaneously launched the 60/40 exclusivity offer? We see the earnings cut for what it is - a profit-grab out of the pockets of artists and an attempt to push contributors into exclusivity by making non-exclusivity less profitable. But for most contributors exclusivity would not cover the loss from leaving other sites, and so your greed is just part of a slow, inevitable disincentive for artists to create good work. Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors on the very day it launches the exclusivity program? You've just proven that contributors can't trust you to maintain commissions.
-
Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]
Pond5 decision-makers,
As a long-time contributor to Pond5, I am writing in anger that you are cutting our profit share of non-exclusive sales by a massive 20%. Pond5 attracted artists in large part because it offered a fair 50/50 split, and now you’re lightly dropping that as “not competitive.” Let me ask, is management also taking a pay cut to stay competitive? Do you hire employees and tell them, “Work hard, do great, and maybe in a few years we’ll cut your pay by 20%”? You chose to take a huge amount of earnings away from the content creators in an effort to squeeze them into working for you exclusively. That is an incredible betrayal. On a basic human level you should be ashamed of your actions and greed.
Pond5 has repeatedly spoken against a race to the bottom in pricing. But by cutting artist pay, you’re pushing a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Did you really think it would be more acceptable because you simultaneously launched the 60/40 exclusivity offer? We see the earnings cut for what it is - a profit-grab out of the pockets of artists and an attempt to push contributors into exclusivity by making non-exclusivity less profitable. But for most contributors exclusivity would not cover the loss from leaving other sites, and so your greed is just part of a slow, inevitable disincentive for artists to create good work. Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors on the very day it launches the exclusivity program? You've just proven that contributors can't trust you to maintain commissions.
And Pond5 says:
Dear Artist,
We’d like to thank everyone who took the time to contact us and share their thoughts. We truly value your feedback and will continue to look to our artist community for input on how we can best accomplish our mission to help you earn more.
We’ve had a lot of feedback over the last few days. Our goal with the Video Exclusivity Program is to accomplish one thing: maximizing the value of your work by making it harder for buyers to shop around to negotiate the lowest price.
Two clear themes have emerged from your feedback:
“I agree the industry is heading for a race to the bottom, but some portion of my income comes from other sites and I don’t want to lose it.”
“I'd be willing to go exclusive for my future video content if I could still list my older footage on competitive marketplaces.”
We hear you loud and clear. While the best way for you to preserve the value of your work and receive the most benefit is to become a Pond5 Exclusive Video Artist, if you wish to have only selected content (especially new content) listed exclusively with Pond5, you can do so by creating a new, separate account.
The new Exclusive account will benefit from the higher royalty rate (starting April 8th), as well as the additional promotion, sales, and marketing associated with our Exclusivity Program. Please note that once you create your new account, you will need to enroll it in the Video Exclusivity Program by going to the Exclusive Program page.
In the meantime, please continue to reach out to us with any additional feedback or questions about this program at [email protected].
All the best,
The Pond5 Team
Does this look like an answer? Second exclusive only account?
-
Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]
Pond5 decision-makers,
As a long-time contributor to Pond5, I am writing in anger that you are cutting our profit share of non-exclusive sales by a massive 20%. Pond5 attracted artists in large part because it offered a fair 50/50 split, and now you’re lightly dropping that as “not competitive.” Let me ask, is management also taking a pay cut to stay competitive? Do you hire employees and tell them, “Work hard, do great, and maybe in a few years we’ll cut your pay by 20%”? You chose to take a huge amount of earnings away from the content creators in an effort to squeeze them into working for you exclusively. That is an incredible betrayal. On a basic human level you should be ashamed of your actions and greed.
Pond5 has repeatedly spoken against a race to the bottom in pricing. But by cutting artist pay, you’re pushing a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Did you really think it would be more acceptable because you simultaneously launched the 60/40 exclusivity offer? We see the earnings cut for what it is - a profit-grab out of the pockets of artists and an attempt to push contributors into exclusivity by making non-exclusivity less profitable. But for most contributors exclusivity would not cover the loss from leaving other sites, and so your greed is just part of a slow, inevitable disincentive for artists to create good work. Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors on the very day it launches the exclusivity program? You've just proven that contributors can't trust you to maintain commissions.
I received a personal response from CEO Jason Teichman, and we will have a phone conversation soon to discuss the matter. If you would like me to ask certain questions to him or make a certain point beyond what I've expressed above, please let me know.
-
Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]
Pond5 decision-makers,
As a long-time contributor to Pond5, I am writing in anger that you are cutting our profit share of non-exclusive sales by a massive 20%. Pond5 attracted artists in large part because it offered a fair 50/50 split, and now you’re lightly dropping that as “not competitive.” Let me ask, is management also taking a pay cut to stay competitive? Do you hire employees and tell them, “Work hard, do great, and maybe in a few years we’ll cut your pay by 20%”? You chose to take a huge amount of earnings away from the content creators in an effort to squeeze them into working for you exclusively. That is an incredible betrayal. On a basic human level you should be ashamed of your actions and greed.
Pond5 has repeatedly spoken against a race to the bottom in pricing. But by cutting artist pay, you’re pushing a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Did you really think it would be more acceptable because you simultaneously launched the 60/40 exclusivity offer? We see the earnings cut for what it is - a profit-grab out of the pockets of artists and an attempt to push contributors into exclusivity by making non-exclusivity less profitable. But for most contributors exclusivity would not cover the loss from leaving other sites, and so your greed is just part of a slow, inevitable disincentive for artists to create good work. Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors on the very day it launches the exclusivity program? You've just proven that contributors can't trust you to maintain commissions.
I received a personal response from CEO Jason Teichman, and we will have a phone conversation soon to discuss the matter. If you would like me to ask certain questions to him or make a certain point beyond what I've expressed above, please let me know.
Question 01: Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors with a 20% revenue cut on the very day it launches the exclusivity program?
-
How are they going to promote Exclusive collection and making sure their exclusive artists make enough income (because of course, they care so much about artists)... So how will they promote them except their newsletter?
-
How are they going to promote Exclusive collection and making sure their exclusive artists make enough income (because of course, they care so much about artists)... So how will they promote them except their newsletter?
No idea, but they'd better do some serious promotion to make it worth it.
You could monitor the sales of some of the top names that are going exclusive if you have the time (and interest), like VIAFilms and hotelfoxtrot.
I might do it, if I feel I have some downtime, but better if more do it. :)
-
How are they going to promote Exclusive collection and making sure their exclusive artists make enough income (because of course, they care so much about artists)... So how will they promote them except their newsletter?
No idea, but they'd better do some serious promotion to make it worth it.
You could monitor the sales of some of the top names that are going exclusive if you have the time (and interest), like VIAFilms and hotelfoxtrot.
I might do it, if I feel I have some downtime, but better if more do it. :)
As I remember correctly that "story" (which sounded so fake, btw) told during the Live Town Hall, like buyers are calling them asking where is the button on Pond5 to sort for exclusive content... ::)
There is no buyers who are looking for that, because every person with some brain understands that it's NOT exclusive! :D
But I'm afraid that their imaginary line of buyers that are waiting for it will be their main "promotion".
-
How are they going to promote Exclusive collection and making sure their exclusive artists make enough income (because of course, they care so much about artists)... So how will they promote them except their newsletter?
No idea, but they'd better do some serious promotion to make it worth it.
You could monitor the sales of some of the top names that are going exclusive if you have the time (and interest), like VIAFilms and hotelfoxtrot.
I might do it, if I feel I have some downtime, but better if more do it. :)
As I remember correctly that "story" (which sounded so fake, btw) told during the Live Town Hall, like buyers are calling them asking where is the button on Pond5 to sort for exclusive content... ::)
There is no buyers who are looking for that, because every person with some brain understands that it's NOT exclusive! :D
But I'm afraid that their imaginary line of buyers that are waiting for it will be their main "promotion".
If my go to was SS and I couldn't find what I wanted so I went to P5 it would be useful to just search through content that was only on P5 instead of looking through content I've already seen on other sites and couldn't use. If I need a video of oranges but SS only has apples I'll go to P5 looking for them, it's not that exclusive is worth more in itself it's that I can't get it somewhere else.
-
If my go to was SS and I couldn't find what I wanted so I went to P5 it would be useful to just search through content that was only on P5 instead of looking through content I've already seen on other sites and couldn't use.
So it seems that SS is a main promotion to Pond5 then.
Because every your example is about it.
So he will find it and maybe buy for high price once and tomorrow will go back to SS if he needs some generic stuff again.
Is it a working marketing strategy?
-
If I need a video of oranges but SS only has apples I'll go to P5 looking for them, it's not that exclusive is worth more in itself it's that I can't get it somewhere else.
Do we hear some news from Stocksy exclusive video for example? Have you tried them already? Or they are somehow worse than Pond5 in sales?
-
When sites have more stringent (or random) acceptance policies there is a quite a bit of difference in what assets are at what sites and a lot of it is still not exclusive. This is probably less true for very good quality stuff, but best sellers at one place were rejected by others for me. If they push exclusive in the search it would make going exclusive more attractive, but make the site as a whole less attractive for buyers especially as a first choice place to search.
My feeling is that stock buyers really just want to find material that will work for their project asap. at a price that is low enough. The thing that will separate out the winning stock site is having enough material and a very good easy to use search.
-
If my go to was SS and I couldn't find what I wanted so I went to P5 it would be useful to just search through content that was only on P5 instead of looking through content I've already seen on other sites and couldn't use.
So it seems that SS is a main promotion to Pond5 then.
Because every your example is about it.
So he will find it and maybe buy for high price once and tomorrow will go back to SS if he needs some generic stuff again.
Is it a working marketing strategy?
Obviously you can trade in Adobe or whatever, nonexclusive content is all over the place. I would imagine yes, the strategy is to get people going over there from other sites. If they can find the nonexclusive stuff at the same price or lower and other things they can't find elsewhere that makes it easier.
-
Kevin, it's great that you can give them our feedback.
I suggest that we ask to set a term (duration) of the exclusive agreement during which all terms and conditions (in particular the % of our respective shares) cannot be changed.
Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]
Pond5 decision-makers,
As a long-time contributor to Pond5, I am writing in anger that you are cutting our profit share of non-exclusive sales by a massive 20%. Pond5 attracted artists in large part because it offered a fair 50/50 split, and now you’re lightly dropping that as “not competitive.” Let me ask, is management also taking a pay cut to stay competitive? Do you hire employees and tell them, “Work hard, do great, and maybe in a few years we’ll cut your pay by 20%”? You chose to take a huge amount of earnings away from the content creators in an effort to squeeze them into working for you exclusively. That is an incredible betrayal. On a basic human level you should be ashamed of your actions and greed.
Pond5 has repeatedly spoken against a race to the bottom in pricing. But by cutting artist pay, you’re pushing a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Did you really think it would be more acceptable because you simultaneously launched the 60/40 exclusivity offer? We see the earnings cut for what it is - a profit-grab out of the pockets of artists and an attempt to push contributors into exclusivity by making non-exclusivity less profitable. But for most contributors exclusivity would not cover the loss from leaving other sites, and so your greed is just part of a slow, inevitable disincentive for artists to create good work. Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors on the very day it launches the exclusivity program? You've just proven that contributors can't trust you to maintain commissions.
I received a personal response from CEO Jason Teichman, and we will have a phone conversation soon to discuss the matter. If you would like me to ask certain questions to him or make a certain point beyond what I've expressed above, please let me know.
-
Obviously you can trade in Adobe or whatever, nonexclusive content is all over the place. I would imagine yes, the strategy is to get people going over there from other sites. If they can find the nonexclusive stuff at the same price or lower and other things they can't find elsewhere that makes it easier.
There is no "unique stuff" that sells :) If it really sells it will appear in a week "all over the place".
-
Obviously you can trade in Adobe or whatever, nonexclusive content is all over the place. I would imagine yes, the strategy is to get people going over there from other sites. If they can find the nonexclusive stuff at the same price or lower and other things they can't find elsewhere that makes it easier.
There is no "unique stuff" that sells :) If it really sells it will appear in a week "all over the place".
What facts are you using to back that up?
-
What facts are you using to back that up?
None, except of living and breathing microstock industry for the past decade.
But as I said before, I've never considered myself a super unique talent and couldn't try this strategy.
So if you know examples and know how to make it happen, go for it :)
-
What facts are you using to back that up?
None, except of living and breathing microstock industry for the past decade.
But as I said before, I've never considered myself a super unique talent and couldn't try this strategy.
So if you know examples and know how to make it happen, go for it :)
There are thousands of ways to create unique content of almost any subject.
-
Go ahead and feel free to try and walk into the hospital I create content at and see how it goes :-)
-
Let me narrow this down a bit in relation to the upcoming conversation with Jason Teichman. My specific grievance is the 20% rate cut for non-exclusive contributors. I hope that exclusivity helps maintain value and pricing in the market overall (as Pond5 expects), and certainly it warrants a higher royalty percentage than non-exclusive clips. But that does not have to coincide with lowering the commission on non-exclusive clips, which is unjustified and grossly unfair to content creators. Since going the exclusive route would be a net loss for many contributors and therefore a non-starter, all Pond5 is really doing is taking money from our pockets and lowering the incentive for people to create quality content.
I contend that if Pond5 thinks exclusivity is going to be fantastic, they should do it without penalizing non-exclusive contributors with a rate cut.
I also contend that their concerns about stock footage pricing collapsing the way stock photo pricing collapsed is not a wholly accurate comparison. The markets are different, the uses and buyers in many cases are different, and I would simply point out that the HD single clip price at Shutterstock has been $79 since at least 2012. That has become the market norm adopted as well by Adobe, Storyblocks, and many users on Pond5. To maintain that, the big agencies need to go to war on bargain sellers like Bigstock, and also make it unprofitable for the irresponsible people who contribute to sites like that. It's already in Pond5's user agreement that we cannot sell the same content for a substantially lower amount on other sites. I'm all for enforcing that for the good of the industry. If someone is selling an HD single clip for a few dollars, Pond5 should match and lock the clip price on their site, hopefully encouraging that user to abandon those bargain basement sites that hurt the whole industry.
Any thoughts specifically about the 20% rate cut for non-exclusive contributors?
-
Go ahead and feel free to try and walk into the hospital I create content at and see how it goes :-)
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/hospital (https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/hospital)
142,023 hospital royalty-free stock videos
They've figured it out somehow...
And after going through 142K footages on SS, I won't find what I'm looking for and will definitely go to Pond5 to search for exclusive stuff :'( Really?
-
Well, adding "refuges" next to hospital leads to 23 results in the link above.
Among those, some chickens and goats. No kidding of course.
Everything is relevant I guess.
:)
Edit: answered not in defence of Pond5 but while thinking that anyone with a smartphone if have clearance to a refuges hospital can have some unique shots.
-
Well, adding "refuges" next to hospital leads to 23 results in the link above.
Among those, some chickens and goats. No kidding of course.
Everything is relevant I guess.
:)
I agree 100% everything is relevant and there is unique stuff that someone wants once in a while. But how many buyers will be looking for "hospital refugees" in your lifetime? And will you make a living from this "uniqueness"?
-
No. No. Of course not!
It was just a thought speaked loud.
-
No. No. Of course not!
It was just a thought speaked loud.
I don't mean you, it was a rhetorical question :)
-
Well, adding "refuges" next to hospital leads to 23 results in the link above.
Among those, some chickens and goats. No kidding of course.
Everything is relevant I guess.
:)
Edit: answered not in defence of Pond5 but while thinking that anyone with a smartphone if have clearance to a refuges hospital can have some unique shots.
That just means 23 people can't spell "refugees", just like you. ;)
-
Go ahead and feel free to try and walk into the hospital I create content at and see how it goes :-)
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/hospital (https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/hospital)
142,023 hospital royalty-free stock videos
They've figured it out somehow...
And after going through 142K footages on SS, I won't find what I'm looking for and will definitely go to Pond5 to search for exclusive stuff :'( Really?
Even with all those videos there are huge gaps in content that would sell very well.
-
That just means 23 people can't spell "refugees", just like you. ;)
Hahaha! Didn't notice that, thanks! :)
-
LOL yes of course but the subject matter is harder to get and it is a big seller for me as the collection is smaller for those in demand clips. You have to shoot a lot of subjects to survive. I have military footage from around the world as well and it sells well, jumped through a lot of hoops to get it!
-
Finally it was not so bad news.
They were very reactive and listened to us. The possibility to have two accounts is nice.
I will keep my old account untouched and create new one, exclusive. All my new videos will be exclusives to Pond5.
-
Let me narrow this down a bit in relation to the upcoming conversation with Jason Teichman. My specific grievance is the 20% rate cut for non-exclusive contributors. I hope that exclusivity helps maintain value and pricing in the market overall (as Pond5 expects), and certainly it warrants a higher royalty percentage than non-exclusive clips. But that does not have to coincide with lowering the commission on non-exclusive clips, which is unjustified and grossly unfair to content creators. Since going the exclusive route would be a net loss for many contributors and therefore a non-starter, all Pond5 is really doing is taking money from our pockets and lowering the incentive for people to create quality content.
I contend that if Pond5 thinks exclusivity is going to be fantastic, they should do it without penalizing non-exclusive contributors with a rate cut.
I also contend that their concerns about stock footage pricing collapsing the way stock photo pricing collapsed is not a wholly accurate comparison. The markets are different, the uses and buyers in many cases are different, and I would simply point out that the HD single clip price at Shutterstock has been $79 since at least 2012. That has become the market norm adopted as well by Adobe, Storyblocks, and many users on Pond5. To maintain that, the big agencies need to go to war on bargain sellers like Bigstock, and also make it unprofitable for the irresponsible people who contribute to sites like that. It's already in Pond5's user agreement that we cannot sell the same content for a substantially lower amount on other sites. I'm all for enforcing that for the good of the industry. If someone is selling an HD single clip for a few dollars, Pond5 should match and lock the clip price on their site, hopefully encouraging that user to abandon those bargain basement sites that hurt the whole industry.
Any thoughts specifically about the 20% rate cut for non-exclusive contributors?
It's a 10% rate cut right? Or are you referring to the usual argument that 10% commission cut from 50% means a 20% cut in earnings?
What then of a 15% level that some sites pay to start with? Is that a voluntary 25% discount over what we have on Pond5 or does that get ignored, when someone uploads to some cheap site, intentionally, that pays 35% less than Pond5 did until now?
Then people need to be warned that the 10% increase in commissions is only a 8.3% increase in earnings.
We have a choice, same as we do if supplying cheap race to the bottom sites. You can upload exclusive to P5 for 60% or not for 40%. You can upload to places that pay 15% and cut your own commission also.
-
This 10% cut in commissions means a 20% cut in the amount of money we take home. If you formerly made $50 on a $100 sale and now only make $40, that's a 20% drop in earnings.
I'm very much against uploading footage to bargain basement agencies. It's bad for the whole industry and should not be ignored. I mentioned I'm in favor of Pond5 enforcing their rule about not letting contributors sell the same clips for peanuts on Envato, Bigstock, etc. And right along with that, Pond5 needs to realize that by cutting commissions they're pushing people to upload to other sites to make up for lost income. So they're feeding the price war they say they're against. Just one more point I plan to share with Jason Teichman in trying to get him to see that lowering commissions is not only unfair but also detrimental in the long term for several reasons.
What other thoughts do people have about the commission cut? Please keep 'em coming.
-
Just so you guys know, just raise your prices to offset your revenue loss. I upped mine by 20% and almost immediately received a sale (prior to the commission cut, so hey, that's a bonus).
-
Time will tell, but I doubt that's a working long-term strategy. I think buyers are pretty conditioned to pay around $80 for an HD clip ($40 commission at 50%). Jacking that up to $100 for an HD clip ($40 commission at 40%) could very well bring a drop in sales.
-
I'm not understanding this "open another account" concept. Isn't the whole point of this exclusivity to be artist+video exclusive at P5? Except now they are suggesting we open another account, Gillian 2.0 and she is exclusive, and Gillian 1.0 isn't. So i can still upload other video elsewhere as before, and exclusive stuff to a new account at P5? I don't understand the point of this, just let us chose which videos are exclusive to P5 from within our existing ports.
Or, do they mean they'll let us keep our old stuff live with them, and live elsewhere but moving forward we can be exclusive only with the new account? What we all really want is to add another layer of work and complication, amiright.
Just let us choose which files are exclusive.
-
From what I understand there is a technical limitation to the platform to be able to do that! This is the only and best option they have now.
-
I'm not understanding this "open another account" concept. Isn't the whole point of this exclusivity to be artist+video exclusive at P5? Except now they are suggesting we open another account, Gillian 2.0 and she is exclusive, and Gillian 1.0 isn't. So i can still upload other video elsewhere as before, and exclusive stuff to a new account at P5? I don't understand the point of this, just let us chose which videos are exclusive to P5 from within our existing ports.
Or, do they mean they'll let us keep our old stuff live with them, and live elsewhere but moving forward we can be exclusive only with the new account? What we all really want is to add another layer of work and complication, amiright.
Just let us choose which files are exclusive.
that would make sense, but they probably already coded something for artist exclusivity so it is easier for them to just have you open another account that only has exclusive content in it. That doesn't work well if half the stuff you already uploaded can be exclusive and the other half can't but...
-
In some ways it is a pain but I am willing to work with it, just happy I have a decent path forward!
-
Finally it was not so bad news.
They were very reactive and listened to us. The possibility to have two accounts is nice.
I will keep my old account untouched and create new one, exclusive. All my new videos will be exclusives to Pond5.
All my new videos that are worth the higher price and higher commission will go to Pond5 the usual microstock will go anyplace. I'll take the 10% raise for my good works.
-
Curious how going exclusive on Pond5 makes financial sense for anyone. I ran the numbers on my 2018 earnings - Pond5 was slightly more than 25% of my earnings, so even at 60% commission and even if my sales at Pond5 doubled, it would still be an overall 36% loss of income to go exclusive. Not even close to making sense. Are others making so much on Pond5 compared to SS, Abobe, etc. that the math actually works?
Also don't understand when some people say they won't make their current content exclusive but they'll make their future content exclusive. If it's an overall loss to make you current content exclusive, it's going to be the same for the footage you shoot next month.
-
They were very reactive and listened to us. The possibility to have two accounts is nice.
Perhaps they didn't listen and they didn't adopt. They just copied our worries.
The Youtube stream and the emails are using contributor words and phrases.
They just used our "own" language. Not bad, not suspicious, but...
Although (especially now that) I entered the program, I am always trying to see clear.
"look dear investors / colleagues / competition, we already got {number} of new exclusive artists! yay!!!"
....will anyone check if they are double same person accounts?
:/
-
They were very reactive and listened to us. The possibility to have two accounts is nice.
Perhaps they didn't listen and they didn't adopt. They just copied our worries.
The Youtube stream and the emails are using contributor words and phrases.
They just used our "own" language. Not bad, not suspicious, but...
The speed with which they changed their decision from artist exclusive to files exclusive (in just a few hours! really?) means they didn't think through their exclusivity program at all. Nor they have technical abilities for it, nor they have an idea how they will police duplicates etc.
It all looks so desperate from both sides, from agency and from artists who are signing up.
Anyway, good luck to everyone who is willing to risk with their money.
-
Ah! Swisschocolate I don't think of myself as desperate :)
For a new account here I made many posts supporting P5.
But I don't want to be onesided in my thoughts and worries.
Actually I could make an e.g. new annap7 to my wifes profit and play in two fields
one with exclusive work as a test and one spreading rest of my files everywhere.
Not waiting or asking for a second account, to be "heard" etc.
Guess many people will have a second account even just to test the new service?
That is already a win situation for the agency presented as "roll back in our profit"
As an outsider and reading older threads here, I see a possible pattern.
means they didn't think through their exclusivity program at all
No one can predict a solid tactic. They run test, they experiment (we lose, I got that!)
So, the next good news maybe will focus on those weaknesses that you correctly pointed.
And I agree that then, maybe news will be "very" good!
Then it would be the real decision point. Accepting whatever or giving the 6 months notice!
-
It's not about those who will be testing here and there and see how it goes.
But those who thinks Pond5 cares about "fair" earnings (while cutting them for others) or cares about artists/theirhardwork/globalwarming/whatever and that's why they will upload "only to Pond5 from now on" - the company which is running blind experiments and changing the whole business strategy in a blink of an eye :)