Author Topic: Pocketstock no longer accepting non-exclusive content (Read 17019 times)

lisafx · « **on:** October 11, 2013, 12:23 »

Just received a notice from Pocketstock that they are no longer accepting non-exclusive content. It's a pretty long, wordy notice, but here are the most relevant paragraphs:

There are so many competitors who are prepared to sell an image for whatever price they can get, to enable them to compete, we feel the market has become too saturated with price competition.

We have, because of this, decided as of today that we will no longer be accepting any new Non-Exclusive content from any supplier. Currently we are making a staggering 91% of our sales through Exclusive content, so it makes logical sense for us to look at ways of expanding this area.

We will continue to represent any Non-Exclusive content we have, but will not be adding to it, because of the cost implications and lack of large-scale sales in this area. We hope you all understand.[/i]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I had completely forgotten I was even on Pocketstock. I checked my account and discovered that with more than 7k images, I have made exactly $3.92 over the course of nearly a year I have been on the site. So no great loss. I wrote and gave them the required 90 day notice to delete my port and close my account.

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2013, 12:25 »

Double post http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pocketstock-no-longer-accepting-content-from-non-exclusives/?topicseen

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2013, 12:27 »

Yeah, evidently we were posting at the same time. Chris' post wasn't there when I was typing mine.

stocked · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2013, 13:39 »

Who gives Pocketstock exclusive content? I'm scratching my head over this.

marthamarks · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2013, 13:55 »

Quote from: stocked on October 11, 2013, 13:39

Who gives Pocketstock exclusive content? I'm scratching my head over this.

Good question.

Likewise, I've been scratching my head over this line: "Currently we are making a staggering 91% of our sales through Exclusive content."

A STAGGERING percentage of sales? Really???

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2013, 16:47 »

Going by my zero sales before I left and other people reporting zero sales here, they don't have to get many exclusive sales for them to be 91% of their sales. 91% of very little isn't much.

Carl · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2013, 17:29 »

I had completely forgotten that I had uploaded 20 images to Pocketstock just to see what would happen. They were all accepted. I don't know when I did it because I don't even remember doing it, so it must have been a while back. No sales, of course. However, competing with exclusivity instead of price, it seems to me that they're the only ones with a brain. They're competing by offering the best deal for contributors! Helllooooo! Even if they're just getting started and have no serious track record to crow about, it seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when so many of us are bitchin' about the race to the bottom, commissions going lower instead of higher, etc. Am I missing something?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2013, 18:38 »

I gave them my 90 day notice this spring and my content was duly removed by the summer. I'm sorry things didn't work out with them, but they just couldn't seem to make up their mind what sort of site/agency they wanted to be.

I don't think blaming all the other sites and photographers for the crappy state of the market isn't much of a strategy IMO, and pretty much every communication from them (I didn't get this most recent as I was already gone) had that theme.

BD · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2013, 22:04 »

I posted this in the other thread because I didn’t see this one:

I believe their exclusive content is in their “room” collection. It is mobile photography with a lot of instagram filters added. I was personally not a big fan of the stuff I saw and there seemed to be a lot of copyrighted materials in the shots (but I didn’t see anywhere where it said it was editorial?). They are apparently going to soon let people “like” the photos to make them and the contributors popular and are going to introduce “briefs.” Sounds familiar…

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2013, 22:16 »

Quote from: Carl on October 11, 2013, 17:29

I had completely forgotten that I had uploaded 20 images to Pocketstock just to see what would happen. They were all accepted. I don't know when I did it because I don't even remember doing it, so it must have been a while back. No sales, of course. However, competing with exclusivity instead of price, it seems to me that they're the only ones with a brain. They're competing by offering the best deal for contributors! Helllooooo! Even if they're just getting started and have no serious track record to crow about, it seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when so many of us are bitchin' about the race to the bottom, commissions going lower instead of higher, etc. Am I missing something?

I completely agree with you that the race to the bottom doesn't serve anyone very well, but I think the part you are missing is that a site which produces ZERO sales is asking for people to upload only exclusive content. IMO that's like tossing it into a black hole never to be seen again.

The only way to make exclusive content pay is to upload it to a site where you can actually bring in enough sales to make it worth producing.

Carl · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 11, 2013, 22:16

Quote from: Carl on October 11, 2013, 17:29
I had completely forgotten that I had uploaded 20 images to Pocketstock just to see what would happen. They were all accepted. I don't know when I did it because I don't even remember doing it, so it must have been a while back. No sales, of course. However, competing with exclusivity instead of price, it seems to me that they're the only ones with a brain. They're competing by offering the best deal for contributors! Helllooooo! Even if they're just getting started and have no serious track record to crow about, it seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when so many of us are bitchin' about the race to the bottom, commissions going lower instead of higher, etc. Am I missing something?

I completely agree with you that the race to the bottom doesn't serve anyone very well, but I think the part you are missing is that a site which produces ZERO sales is asking for people to upload only exclusive content. IMO that's like tossing it into a black hole never to be seen again.

The only way to make exclusive content pay is to upload it to a site where you can actually bring in enough sales to make it worth producing.

You won't get any argument from me. So the situation is that in order to produce sales, the site must have content. Without content, there are no sales. But if there are no sales, we don't upload content. So we're at a stalemate. Does that mean it's a waste of time and resources to launch a new site? Or does it mean instead that someone else will have to take the initial risk? I have material on the micro sites that's selling for peanuts, so I'm giving serious consideration to being that "someone else."

sharpshot · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:36 »

This site has been a waste of time for many of us. If a site starts off with a clear strategy, like Stocksy, it might be worth supporting. What I don't like is when a new site keeps getting it wrong and tries changing things every few months. For a new site to have a 90 day lock in doesn't help. They decided to sell images for very little and I had to wait 90 days to get out of there. What happens when exclusive images fails and they decide to try very low prices on those?

And I agree that the emails they sent were all wrong. Instead of blaming everyone else for the state of microstock, they should of come up with a better way to sell images and stuck with it. All I've seen is old ideas that have either failed for other sites or wont attract many new buyers.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2013, 10:20 »

Totally agree, Sharpshot. FWIW, I haven't heard back from them regarding my request to activate my 90 day wait and delete my portfolio. No answer at all.

Crickets chirping...

icefront · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2013, 15:00 »

I must be a black sheep @PS because I didn't received the above e-mail.
Anyway, I thought I will support an agency that offers 40% revenue. So far no sales.
I really can't offer exclusive images. With the energy and work involved in exclusive material, I would build my own site and offer these exclusives there...

THP Creative · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2013, 17:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 14, 2013, 10:20

Totally agree, Sharpshot. FWIW, I haven't heard back from them regarding my request to activate my 90 day wait and delete my portfolio. No answer at all.

Crickets chirping...

Hey Lisa, when I decided to leave PS quite a while back (great decision by the way), the 90 day period elapsed, plus some, and my images were still online. It took a couple of emails from memory to 'remind' them to remove my account as their contract states. I'm pretty sure it's a manual process for them and it's not high on their priority list so perhaps set a calendar reminder for yourself to double check they are gone after the 90 days.

I really dont get this agency. They keep making very strange moves.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2013, 18:37 »

'Pock-et-stock' huh? Nope. Never heard of them. Sounds like another 'boy in a bedroom' outfit to me.

lisafx · « **Reply #16 on:** October 14, 2013, 18:43 »

Quote from: Microstock Man on October 14, 2013, 17:46

Quote from: lisafx on October 14, 2013, 10:20
Totally agree, Sharpshot. FWIW, I haven't heard back from them regarding my request to activate my 90 day wait and delete my portfolio. No answer at all.

Crickets chirping...

Hey Lisa, when I decided to leave PS quite a while back (great decision by the way), the 90 day period elapsed, plus some, and my images were still online. It took a couple of emails from memory to 'remind' them to remove my account as their contract states. I'm pretty sure it's a manual process for them and it's not high on their priority list so perhaps set a calendar reminder for yourself to double check they are gone after the 90 days.

I really dont get this agency. They keep making very strange moves.

Really good suggestion. Thanks!

chrisbradshaw · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:45 »

Well, they've now decided to close their entire non-exclusive collection. I received the following email today:

Dear Contributor

reef by Pocketstock contributor notice to terminate your member account.

Following on from our decision to stop accepting new uploads to reef we have made the final
decision to close reef, our non-exclusive content collection and concentrate our efforts on
RooM, our exclusive content offering.

As you are a supplier to reef we will be closing your account and paying off any outstanding
balance on your account, if you have any, in due course.

We will require transfer details from you for us to pay any outstanding balance so please
supply these to [email protected] at your earliest convenience. Failure to do so in
accordance with the terms of your supplier agreement will mean you waive the right to any
outstanding sum owed.

If your content makes any sales from now until close, you will still get notified and paid as usual.

We expect closure of your account to take place first thing 29th November 2013, which is the
date we have scheduled for full closure of reef.

You need do nothing as all of your content will be destroyed when your account is closed, in
the meantime please do not try to upload any more content to reef as it will not be accepted, as
per our most recent email.

We are sorry to see reef close, but we feel we must put our resources into content where we
have a better opportunity to control pricing.

We wish you well with your photography and hope you will all have a successful future.[/i] Best wishes

reef creative

Ron · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:50 »

Tell the guys here, they are anxious enough to join a 100% exclusive agency

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2013, 17:29 »

I didn't get one of those letters because I already asked them to close my account a couple of weeks ago. They were very nice about it and fast in paying me my (measly) earnings.

lisafx · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2013, 17:29 »

Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 12:50

Tell the guys here, they are anxious enough to join a 100% exclusive agency

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1

Hilarious Ron! Had to give you a heart for that one

Mantis · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2013, 17:37 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 30, 2013, 17:29

Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2013, 12:50
Tell the guys here, they are anxious enough to join a 100% exclusive agency

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1

Hilarious Ron! Had to give you a heart for that one

Ditto

hotwalkn · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2014, 19:08 »

In regards to Pocketstock - I got the same original email - they removed my RF's - I kept peeking in and this is what I found!
http://www.roomtheagency.com/c/about_room.html

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2014, 19:14 »

Quote from: hotwalkn on January 28, 2014, 19:08

In regards to Pocketstock - I got the same original email - they removed my RF's - I kept peeking in and this is what I found!
http://www.roomtheagency.com/c/about_room.html

Good grief!
"We sell both Rights Managed and Royalty Free content exclusively through the Getty and iStock global channels at prices pitched at the highest possible level – we set the price bands, Getty and iStock sell to their 1 million clients.
Only the best get invited to join RooM.
It’s the way all great businesses are built, on a foundation of quality.

Contributors receive a royalty of 35% for each sale, rising to 40% once we have accepted 100 images from that photographer"

So:
Are they opted out of the lowball sales grossing $5-$6?
And the contributors get 35%-40%? I didn't think even most Getty House photographers got that. And RooM's cut is presumably on top of that. Wow!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2014, 19:54 »

But keep reading - it gets better with a Curator Network. To me, that sounds just like the setup of multi-level marketing schemes. You bring in people and make a percentage of what they earn.

Then there is some truly bizarre partnership with Instagram.

Sounds to me as if they want to sound big and exclusive but that they don't have enough content yet and are thus trying to actively recruit without appearing to be doing so.

The Moody's downgrade of Getty's debt wouldn't have put Getty at "$1 billion of turnover" - $897 million isn't a billion. They say they want top notch people: "We only invite contributors to join who we believe have highly salable content and we only take the content we believe has a very high chance of selling time and again." - but why wouldn't people that good just go to Getty directly? Why share the wealth with RooM?

Given how well Pocketstock worked out (ahem!) I don't think I'd give them my exclusive content even if I were the sort of contributor they're looking for (which I'm not).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pocketstock no longer accepting non-exclusive content (Read 17019 times)

lisafx

Ron

lisafx

stocked

marthamarks

sharpshot

Carl

Jo Ann Snover

BD

lisafx

Carl

sharpshot

lisafx

icefront

THP Creative

gostwyck

lisafx

chrisbradshaw

Ron

lisafx

lisafx

Mantis

hotwalkn

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors