Author Topic: Prices for 4K and UHD (Read 6993 times)

SpaceStockFootage · « **on:** December 20, 2016, 19:47 »

So I see that you can now upload 4K and UHD using Quicktime Photo JPEG and I upload about 16 clips. They get approved today and I check out the prices... and they're 6 credits each, the same as my HD stuff. Is that right? They are UHD, rather than 4K so I'm not sure if that makes a difference?

So that's about $47 for 4K. 15% commision makes it about $7 per sale. And people say VideoHive is bad... there you'd get $9 if you're non-exclusive, and $12.5 to $17.50 for a 4K sale!

I guess the only upside is that if a buyer is torn between my file and somebody else's file.... they're more likely to go for mine if it's 4K and theirs is only HD... especially if it's the same price.

ForrestBrown · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2016, 20:25 »

4K is priced the same as HD. That's why I'm not uploading any 4K there.

images · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2016, 20:53 »

Quote from: ForrestBrown on December 20, 2016, 20:25

4K is priced the same as HD. That's why I'm not uploading any 4K there.

Same here. When I render I make separate HD files for IS and Pixta.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2016, 23:19 »

Oops, I should have looked into that

stockmn · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2016, 01:56 »

Why would any non-exclusive upload video to istock in the first place?

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #5 on:** December 21, 2016, 03:29 »

Once you pop, you can't stop.

dpimborough · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2016, 07:04 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 21, 2016, 03:29

Once you pop, you can't stop.

Don't be daft you don't have to sell video for such cheap rates.

By uploading to this outfit you just encourage them

alno · « **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2016, 11:18 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 20, 2016, 19:47

So that's about $47 for 4K. 15% commision makes it about $7 per sale. And people say VideoHive is bad... there you'd get $9 if you're non-exclusive, and $12.5 to $17.50 for a 4K sale!

Videohive is much more fair I think. They sell 4K for $25 and there is whole new type of customers for it: small studios, bloggers, amateur filmmakers. Greedy istock is selling content for about the same prices as many other stock sites but offer lousy comission.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2016, 00:19 »

Quote from: Zarniwoop on December 21, 2016, 07:04

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 21, 2016, 03:29
Once you pop, you can't stop.

Don't be daft you don't have to sell video for such cheap rates.

By uploading to this outfit you just encourage them

Agreed. But as it's pretty rare that a site as large as iStock doesn't have sufficient choice so that the buyer has to go elsewhere... so it's probably more likely that if a buyer didn't stumble across my items on iStock, then they would have just bought something else from iStock instead.

Yes, it's possible they would have visited a different site instead (one where the prices are higher and the commissions are better), but who's to say they would have found my items there (different search engines), and who's to say they wouldn't go to a site that I don't have any stuff on. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.

I've not been on there for that long, but I've made just over $1000. If what I'm saying above is accurate, then that's $1000 that I probably wouldn't have made if I didn't sell stuff there. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.

Buyers like certain sites, and I'm sure that there's a bunch of buyers out there who think that iStock is perfect for their needs. And if iStock wants to keep p***ing off contributors to the point that they leave, then I'm happy to meet the needs of those buyers.

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2016, 02:53 »

We've been there long enough that we don't upload there anymore; http://video-stock.org/contributors-leaving-istockphoto-getty-images-is-for-the-best-of-whole-stock-industry/

long story short; their attitude, extremely low contributor share and naive rejections are main reasons why we stopped uploading. We do get just above $100 income every month from what we uploaded, but it's not even close to be worth dealing with them. When these sales dry up, we will close account.

Unless they fix the prices of 4K (we didn't upload 4K, but downscalled HD) and contributors share. Then we might overlook their attitude.

spike · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2016, 04:46 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 00:19

Agreed. But as it's pretty rare that a site as large as iStock doesn't have sufficient choice so that the buyer has to go elsewhere... so it's probably more likely that if a buyer didn't stumble across my items on iStock, then they would have just bought something else from iStock instead.

Yes, it's possible they would have visited a different site instead (one where the prices are higher and the commissions are better), but who's to say they would have found my items there (different search engines), and who's to say they wouldn't go to a site that I don't have any stuff on. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.

I've not been on there for that long, but I've made just over $1000. If what I'm saying above is accurate, then that's $1000 that I probably wouldn't have made if I didn't sell stuff there. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.

Buyers like certain sites, and I'm sure that there's a bunch of buyers out there who think that iStock is perfect for their needs. And if iStock wants to keep p***ing off contributors to the point that they leave, then I'm happy to meet the needs of those buyers.

You're the epitome of https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tragedy_of_the_commons

And I'll say it more directly: you, and the likes of you, are the reason the profitability (and value) of videos will decrease faster than it needs to. You won't like what I said and you'll continue doing what you already are, so actually no point in me writing this, but hey, whatever.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2016, 05:32 »

I see what you're saying, but my landlord doesn't accept attitudes or percentages or approved files as payment. He accepts cold, hard cash... and if iStock want to give me cold, hard cash for my files on a monthly basis, then they are more than welcome to do so.

Dreamstime or 123RF might have better attitudes and commissions, for example, but they give me ten times less a year.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2016, 05:44 »

Quote from: spike on December 22, 2016, 04:46

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 00:19
Agreed. But as it's pretty rare that a site as large as iStock doesn't have sufficient choice so that the buyer has to go elsewhere... so it's probably more likely that if a buyer didn't stumble across my items on iStock, then they would have just bought something else from iStock instead.

Yes, it's possible they would have visited a different site instead (one where the prices are higher and the commissions are better), but who's to say they would have found my items there (different search engines), and who's to say they wouldn't go to a site that I don't have any stuff on. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.

I've not been on there for that long, but I've made just over $1000. If what I'm saying above is accurate, then that's $1000 that I probably wouldn't have made if I didn't sell stuff there. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.

Buyers like certain sites, and I'm sure that there's a bunch of buyers out there who think that iStock is perfect for their needs. And if iStock wants to keep p***ing off contributors to the point that they leave, then I'm happy to meet the needs of those buyers.

You're the epitome of https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tragedy_of_the_commons

And I'll say it more directly: you, and the likes of you, are the reason the profitability (and value) of videos will decrease faster than it needs to. You won't like what I said and you'll continue doing what you already are, so actually no point in me writing this, but hey, whatever.

My reply was to the guy before you by the way. I don't agree with what you're saying at all. You're just parroting what a bunch of other people say, but it's all pretty much nonsense.

Nobody yet has been able to give any kind of structured example of how uploading to iStock, or Envato for that matter (that's when this tired old allrguement is usually dragged out), is unsustainable, or will cheapen the market, or will result in the end of the world as we know it.

spike · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2016, 05:45 »

If you (and people like you) continue to erode the prices, then you won't be able to pay the rent no matter how many sites you contribute to. That's the long term outlook.

You said you've earned 1000$ with them. That's less than 100$ a month. Something you (and people like you) can survive without and pay rent, so it's not about that.

Edit: if you want examples, you don't need to look further than stock photos. Or, if you want to go to the extreme, Fiverr.

alno · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2016, 05:48 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 05:32

I see what you're saying, but my landlord doesn't accept attitudes or percentages or approved files as payment. He accepts cold, hard cash... and if iStock want to give me cold, hard cash for my files on a monthly basis, then they are more than welcome to do so.

Dreamstime or 123RF might have better attitudes and commissions, for example, but they give me ten times less a year.

Why don't you sell your clips directly for 30 cents on your own site? This will surely attract some cold, hard cash for your landlord. I doubt this will be enough for monthly payment though since there are not 10 millions potential buyers in the world and pure economical-mathematical of supply and demand model will not work.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #15 on:** December 22, 2016, 06:52 »

How have iStock eroded the prices at other sites? Which sites, when, how much?

And why would I sell my clips directly for 30 cents? Environment sell for $8, so if I wanted to undercut everyone else then it would make more sense to sell them at $7 or even $6, not 30 cents.

And yes, $100 a month isn't much, but that adds up over a lot of other sites. Thankfully I earn about $2100 to $3700 a month from all the stock sites combined, excluding iStock, but I'd rather have an extra $100 a month than not.

spike · « **Reply #16 on:** December 22, 2016, 07:07 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 06:52

How have iStock eroded the prices at other sites? Which sites, when, how much?

And why would I sell my clips directly for 30 cents? Environment sell for $8, so if I wanted to undercut everyone else then it would make more sense to sell them at $7 or even $6, not 30 cents.

And yes, $100 a month isn't much, but that adds up over a lot of other sites. Thankfully I earn about $2100 to $3700 a month from all the stock sites combined, excluding iStock, but I'd rather have an extra $100 a month than not.

That's why I said you're the epitome of the tragedy of the commons. It's not that you have the "need", it's only greed. Short-term greed, leading to long-term poverty.

"Robert Axelrod contends that even self-interested individuals will often find ways to cooperate, because collective restraint serves both the collective and individual interests."

You don't have "restraint", you refuse to let go of the 100$ now (which mean nothing to you), and you'll suffer the consequences in a couple of years.

spike · « **Reply #17 on:** December 22, 2016, 07:16 »

"Elinor Ostrom, and her colleagues looked at how real-world communities manage communal resources, such as fisheries, land irrigation systems, and farmlands, and they identified a number of factors conducive to successful resource management. One factor is the resource itself; resources with definable boundaries (e.g., land) can be preserved much more easily. A second factor is resource dependence; there must be a perceptible threat of resource depletion, and it must be difficult to find substitutes. The third is the presence of a community; small and stable populations with a thick social network and social norms promoting conservation do better.[4] A final condition is that there be appropriate community-based rules and procedures in place with built-in incentives for responsible use and punishments for overuse. When the commons is taken over by non-locals, those solutions can no longer be used."

Such factors don't exist in microstock. Hence what I said: you'll just continue uploading and, with that, eroding the prices (not personally, but as a part of the market).

As of now, there are no incentives for contributors to responsibly upload their assets. Nor there are punishments for those who contribute to overuse (in this context, selling assets under their price). Nothing will change. Video prices will be a lot lower in the coming years. Yes, new customers will come, but not enough in order to compensate for the lower price.

Just like with shutterstock's collection: RPI has risen in 2016 compared to 2015, but the library grew much more. Which means a lot less money per asset. There's your example, very fresh and relevant. You'll need to produce more and more just to keep the same absolute level of income (which will actually be lower because of inflation), and think "maybe if we didn't offer our assets at peanut prices, I'd still be making good money".

spike · « **Reply #18 on:** December 22, 2016, 07:19 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 06:52

How have iStock eroded the prices at other sites? Which sites, when, how much?

A term called signaling exists.

If you agree to sell your assets at one outlet for 7$ per download, why would any other stock agency feel bad if they have to reduce your commission from 25$ to 10$?

Of course, they will have an explanation - it's the market*, we have to be competitive. And you'll still get more than that other agency which will give you 7$!

Can't you put two and two together?

*spoiler: it wouldn't have been "the market" if you refused to put your assets there and perpetuate price erosion

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #19 on:** December 22, 2016, 07:33 »

These are all just theories though... do you have any examples of this actually happening?

alno · « **Reply #20 on:** December 22, 2016, 07:44 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 06:52

And why would I sell my clips directly for 30 cents? Environment sell for $8, so if I wanted to undercut everyone else then it would make more sense to sell them at $7 or even $6, not 30 cents.

Truth is, you are undercutting already with "my 4K versus their HD for the same price"

It's your right and your choice anyway.
You have quite unique high quality content and I'm sure many buyers look for YOUR clips specificly, maybe even with google search with your stocksite name. There are quite a few contributors on Shutterstock for example who offer 3D space renders like yours. What is all this about? People like you simply don't need any sort of undercutting, the opposite is more likely (like Pond5 4K for $300). You are not producing photos of isolated green apples.

Mantis · « **Reply #21 on:** December 22, 2016, 07:48 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 07:33

These are all just theories though... do you have any examples of this actually happening?

I'm shaking my head, but there are a lot of examples of agencies using each others' cut throat pricing & royalty tactics. Look them up on MSG. You must not have been in this business long.

spike · « **Reply #22 on:** December 22, 2016, 08:30 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 07:33

These are all just theories though... do you have any examples of this actually happening?

I just gave you an example with shutterstock.

spike · « **Reply #23 on:** December 22, 2016, 08:41 »

Quote from: Mantis on December 22, 2016, 07:48

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 22, 2016, 07:33
These are all just theories though... do you have any examples of this actually happening?

I'm shaking my head, but there are a lot of examples of agencies using each others' cut throat pricing & royalty tactics. Look them up on MSG. You must not have been in this business long.

The whole history of microstock is like that, with the only recent exception being fotolia/adobe stock.

(on that note: just give them 6-12 months and watch the RPI drop)

Agencies are trying to find the optimal balance in their finances. They strive for maximum efficiency. They want to keep paying the contributors as low as possible (without uproar/boycotts/anything that might damage them - this depends on the agency and their library needs) while trying to charge the customers as much as possible (without alienating them and making doing business with them unsustainable, which leads to the client choosing a cheaper agency).

We're just one node in the workflow, which needs to be minimized. And if we get adjusted to 7$ for 4k content, why would they pay us 70$?

I produce hyperlapses - they're a bitch to make, it takes a long time, and they don't sell because they're not generic enough. I price them at 150$ and upwards for 4k. Why? Because they'll sell once, maybe twice, maaaaybe more if I'm super lucky, and that's it. It doesn't make sense for me to offer content cheaper than that. It won't be bought more, the supply/demand theory holds here. There's limited demand. And it's not so shaken up by prices. If someone really wants a hyperlapse of a scene I did, and I'm the only contributor that has it, or I have the best looking one, they'll pay for it. There are no "random 7$ hyperlapse downloads", buyers specifically search for it and buy it.

That's why I kind of see everything going downhill with producers selling their assets for 7$. I mean, ok, your choice. Hyperlapses will always be difficult to make and not a lot of people will be willing to put in the time and effort to make them, so I'll keep my prices high.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2016, 03:52 »

"Just like with shutterstock's collection: RPI has risen in 2016 compared to 2015, but the library grew much more. Which means a lot less money per asset. There's your example, very fresh and relevant. You'll need to produce more and more just to keep the same absolute level of income (which will actually be lower because of inflation), and think "maybe if we didn't offer our assets at peanut prices, I'd still be making good money".

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The number of items in a site's library is always going to grow faster than the number of new customers, or the total spend per customer. More files + more buyers (but not as much of an increase as there is files) = more money for the stock site, but less money per file, or per author.

That's the same whether you're on VideoHive selling HD at $8, or whether you're on Artbeats selling HD at $199. It has nothing to do with uploading to iStock, or their attitude, their commission rate and/or their rejection policies. Mainly because you're on about Shutterstock, but even so... "the a lot less money per asset" isn't because the prices have decreased (I'm pretty sure it's been $79 for HD for quite some time on SS), it's because everyone is getting a slightly smaller slice of the pie. There's only so much pie to go around, and although that pie is gradually increasing year on year, there's considerably more mouths to feed.

That's inevitable for any stock site that's been around for a while, but it's unrelated to the price of files at iStock and the commission they pay. So yeah, still waiting on that example.

Cider Apple · « **Reply #25 on:** December 23, 2016, 04:16 »

Why is everyone so cut up about istock??? you have videohive selling clips for $6 and Getty selling clips for $1000's

The market is complex and no one can control it. We'd like to think we can but we can't.

We have low budget bloggers buying on videohive and film and TV companies buying on Getty. You need the cheep and the expensive.

istock are just middle of the road.

A'd say get over it and move on. The industry never stops.

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #26 on:** December 23, 2016, 12:18 »

When someone goes big and starts manipulating whole market with new prices, you'll understand how disturbing is any new price dropping and cutting comisions of contributors.

LDV81 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 23, 2016, 13:38 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 20, 2016, 19:47

And people say VideoHive is bad... there you'd get $9 if you're non-exclusive, and $12.5 to $17.50 for a 4K sale!

Yes, Spacey, it is very bad because on P5, I get $37.5 for non-exclusive HD clips. Let me add: sometimes it is "low-hanging-fruit" type of clips.

Cider Apple · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2016, 14:00 »

Quote from: Video-StockOrg on December 23, 2016, 12:18

When someone goes big and starts manipulating whole market with new prices, you'll understand how disturbing is any new price dropping and cutting comisions of contributors.

Somehow I don't think istock are in that league.
I've been in this industry long enough to realize that I can't control things that can't be controlled. If a stock agency does something awful and people think the world will end some other agency will pick up the pieces and things move on. It's a forever evolving cycle.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #29 on:** December 23, 2016, 22:06 »

Quote from: LDV81 on December 23, 2016, 13:38

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 20, 2016, 19:47
And people say VideoHive is bad... there you'd get $9 if you're non-exclusive, and $12.5 to $17.50 for a 4K sale!

Yes, Spacey, it is very bad because on P5, I get $37.5 for non-exclusive HD clips. Let me add: sometimes it is "low-hanging-fruit" type of clips.

Fruit is fruit, no matter where it hangs. I'd rather have some low hanging fruit rather than none... in conjunction with my mid and high hanging fruit.

Mantis · « **Reply #30 on:** December 23, 2016, 22:23 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 23, 2016, 22:06

Quote from: LDV81 on December 23, 2016, 13:38
Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 20, 2016, 19:47
And people say VideoHive is bad... there you'd get $9 if you're non-exclusive, and $12.5 to $17.50 for a 4K sale!

Yes, Spacey, it is very bad because on P5, I get $37.5 for non-exclusive HD clips. Let me add: sometimes it is "low-hanging-fruit" type of clips.

Fruit is fruit, no matter where it hangs. I'd rather have some low hanging fruit rather than none... in conjunction with my mid and high hanging fruit.

If gutter royalties are okay with you then why did you start this thread?

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #31 on:** December 24, 2016, 01:08 »

I wanted to confirm that 4K was meant to be the same price as HD. I thought that was pretty clear, obviously not.

Brightontl · « **Reply #32 on:** December 24, 2016, 05:30 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on December 24, 2016, 01:08

I wanted to confirm that 4K was meant to be the same price as HD. I thought that was pretty clear, obviously not.

You better hurry up.
Soon 4k will be half price than HD

unnonimus · « **Reply #33 on:** December 24, 2016, 07:27 »

when companies make certain behaviors:

- restricting the number of files you can upload
- removing copyright notices
- having the same pricing for multiple formats or sizes
- etc

it is a sign the stock footage company is going through financial hardship. istock has always been slow to adjust to changes in the marketplace.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #34 on:** December 24, 2016, 23:06 »

Quote from: unnonimus on December 24, 2016, 07:27

when companies make certain behaviors:

- restricting the number of files you can upload
- removing copyright notices
- having the same pricing for multiple formats or sizes
- etc

it is a sign the stock footage company is going through financial hardship. istock has always been slow to adjust to changes in the marketplace.

Are you sure about that? Maybe not the same pricing bit... but how do they get more money by removing copyright notices and restricting the number of files you can upload? Maybe they just got fed up of all the s**t that keeps getting submitted, and though... "Right, I think 10m is enough for anyone... how about we now focus on quality rather than quantity?". I'd say that was evidence of a good business strategy rather than of financial hardship.