pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What a "nice" surprise  (Read 29415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2017, 05:45 »
0
I am adapting. I am working on an exit strategy from stock.

If you have something that brings you more fun and better income that is the right choice.


« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2017, 05:55 »
+1
Well said SSF.

The most important attribute you can have working in almost any industry is the ability to accept and adapt to change, and open your eyes to the world around you.

I'm willing to bet most "old pros" know and care little about the biggest market in the world for stock music, footage, and AE templates: it's called YouTube. And the buyers are independent creators. That's 19-year-old Adam who wants to do things legally but under no circumstance can pay $790 for 10 stock clips to use in his YouTube video. There are thousands (tens of thousands) of Adams for each company happy to pay $199 for a 4k clip.

If you don't adapt you will be the last guy selling physical CDs for $19.99 wondering why everyone is listening to music through tiny white earbuds.

Shouldn't you be more mad that you're getting $24 for a clip from Shutterstock used in Doctor Strange with a budget of $165 million?
Good points.
And it is not only Adam the youtubber.
Once P5 started to offer excellent clips for single digits, even the professional buyers are little by little moving to the membership thingy. They were happy to pay $400 for an excellent clip, but why pay that much when now you can have one almost as good for $5?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2017, 06:20 »
0
The recession probably helped sites like VideoHive, and hindered high-priced sites like Shutterstock (relative to VH anyway) as well.... tightening belts, looking for cheaper options etc. For the massive advertising agencies, that may just mean one less shark in the fish tank at reception. For the middle of the road agencies and smaller end setups, that probably means actually cutting costs of production.

I mean, there's some quality stuff at VideoHive. Although surprisingly overlooked for Oscar nominations, 'London Has Fallen' used an AE template from VH in their titles.

« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2017, 07:30 »
+5
"They were happy to pay $400 for an excellent clip, but why pay that much when now you can have one almost as good for $5?"

Bingo.

Love the theory that since there are youtubers who want to make their millennial videos and don't have the budget or the understanding of the value of video clips, that it's called "adaptation" to cater to them and practically give them your content. Let them create their own content if they can't afford to buy quality. I don't care how big the budget of the customer is, MY CLIP has value, to me. So I charge a fair price. So go ahead and keep making it rain with pennies. I'll prefer to keep making dollars as long as I can.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 07:40 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2017, 07:49 »
+1
Love the theory that since there are youtubers who want to make their millennial videos and don't have the budget or the understanding of the value of video clips, that it's called "adaptation" to cater to them and practically give them your content. Let them create their own content if they can't afford to buy quality. I don't care how big the budget of the customer is, MY CLIP has value, to me. So I charge a fair price. So go ahead and keep making it rain with pennies. I'll prefer to keep making dollars as long as I can.

It's not a theory... It's what the market looks like. And it's a relatively new market. And it's absolutely enormous.

Let's take stock music for example. 10-20 years ago it cost you $500-20,000 to license a track.

Why? Because:

1. Not that many could afford to have a home studio -> supply was not that big.
2. Mostly big productions like movies and commercials needed to license music.

Today, millions of tracks are licensed for YouTube, for a cheaper price. The good producers who "give away" their music make $30,000 a month doing so.

You can count on very few hands and feet how many producers of stock music there are who command $5,000 per license. There are a select few, with a name and established relationships in the business. But they are very few, and you can be sure they're not selling 50 licenses per day...

Today anyone with musical talent can make professionally sounding music at home for the cost of a laptop and time. No need to rent a studio, mixing engineer and a mastering engineer.

60 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every hour. A lot of that needs licensed music (and footage + AE templates).

Like SSF said, there is room in the world for all business models. If you are established with good relationships in the business you can continue selling only for high prices, and skip the YouTube market altogether. That's your choice.

Just like it's anyone's choice to provide content for the (enormous) YouTube market.

If you are afraid of the business getting ruined by Videohive then you're not good enough.

People still buy jeans for $200 when you can buy jeans for $10.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 07:56 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2017, 08:11 »
+4
"If you are afraid of the business getting ruined by Videohive then you're not good enough."

Much like political discussion, there's always a point when it devolves into, "well you must suck." It's not a fear of the business being ruined by Videohive, it's choosing whether or not to contribute to going down a path to self-marginalization in general. Like I said, a few people littering won't make the world a dump, but if we all shared that lack of consideration things would start smelling rotten more and more. It's about choosing a philosophy. Do I do my part to keep this industry alive as long as possible, or do I see it as a sinking ship and poke more holes in the hull?

"People still buy jeans for $200 when you can buy jeans for $10."

Those $10 jeans were sewn together by 10 year olds in Bangladesh. So we have the choice to support child slave labor or pay workers a fair wage to make goods. Honestly, this strengthens my point.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 08:18 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2017, 08:14 »
+1
How come you support a company like Videoblocks? Now there's a company that has ACTUALLY stirred up the footage licensing business.

---

By the way, according to your logic the iPhone 7 (being the most expensive phone) is put together by Americans with a nice fair wage. We all know that is not the case, just like Ralph Lauren isn't sewing his own clothes...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 08:18 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2017, 08:21 »
+1
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.

« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2017, 08:25 »
0
y the way, according to your logic the iPhone 7 (being the most expensive phone) is put together by Americans with a nice fair wage. We all know that is not the case, just like Ralph Lauren isn't sewing his own clothes...

That's no where near my logic. Some companies choose to inflate their prices, while exploiting vulnerable workers overseas, that's a whole different economic issue.

« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2017, 08:28 »
+1
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.

But, I thought your main concern was companies hurting the business. Videoblocks hurts the business more than Videohive. Why do you support them?

---

One might be led to believe you just care about your own bottom line. By uploading to VB you're supporting their business model by getting customers to sign up, download 1,000 clips for the membership fee and maybe 1 or 2 from you.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 08:33 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2017, 08:37 »
+3
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.

But, I thought your main concern was companies hurting the business. Videoblocks hurts the business more than Videohive. Why do you support them?

---

One might be led to believe you just care about your own bottom line. By uploading to VB you're supporting their business model by getting customers to sign up, download 1,000 clips for the membership fee and maybe 1 or 2 from you.

This is called pivoting. A common political debate tactic wherein instead of sticking to the relevant discussion, one brings up more topics and distracts from the a faltering position. But again, my clips are not available through VB's sub program, so the relevant comparison is $8/36% vs $50/100%. The choice is pretty clear, to me.

« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2017, 08:41 »
+1
I repeat, again:

You were concerned about the business as a whole. You said Envato undercuts with their prices. Videoblocks is a cheaper site with the membership program, thereby hurting the business more (according to your logic).

So, if the BUSINESS was your concern, why support a company that hurts the business? It's a simple question. The $49 clips at VB is pure marketing material for them to get people to sign up for the membership. By uploading, you create membership customers.

---

If the business as a whole is not your concern, but rather your own personal income, why not let people who want sell for $8? Videoblocks is still cheaper.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 08:45 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2017, 08:57 »
+2
Ok, since you want to make this VH discussion about VB, I'll bite. The whole industry has flaws. No where is perfect. We choose degrees of acceptable or unacceptable situations. We can discuss SS's imperfections too, FT, P5, they all have them. But this was a VH topic, and you chose to pivot to VB. Alrighty.

If a customer goes to VB to buy one of my clips, it won't be through the sub program because I don't and wouldn't participate in that program. So they will pay $50. I know, you're saying that since VB offers a sub program that practically gives away other people's clips, that I'm being inconsistent by selling there. But since I don't participate in that program, I'm not. The value of my clip remains $50, regardless of whether a different clip sells for less. I'm personally being true to keeping video's value reasonable. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.

« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2017, 09:07 »
+1
Ok, since you want to make this VH discussion about VB, I'll bite. The whole industry has flaws. No where is perfect. We choose degrees of acceptable or unacceptable situations. We can discuss SS's imperfections too, FT, P5, they all have them. But this was a VH topic, and you chose to pivot to VB. Alrighty.

If a customer goes to VB to buy one of my clips, it won't be through the sub program because I don't and wouldn't participate in that program. So they will pay $50. I know, you're saying that since VB offers a sub program that practically gives away other people's clips, that I'm being inconsistent by selling there. But since I don't participate in that program, I'm not. The value of my clip remains $50, regardless of whether a different clip sells for less. I'm personally being true to keeping video's value reasonable. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.

No, I wanted to make this discussion about "saving the business" and VB seemed like a good example of a company that supposedly brings down the value of stock footage even more than VH. That's why it's a relevant comparison. You clearly stated that the "business" was your concern, making it seem strange that you use one company, but not another.

Why do you think VB sells your clips at all? It's their way of BUYING MARKETING MATERIAL for the membership program.

Basically, you just don't like Envato, and that's perfectly fine. And you like VB more or less, which is fine too. I like them both much more than SS or Fotolia, and sell more at both. I know which one brings me the most $ though.

« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2017, 09:26 »
0
increasingdifficulty, I've responded clearly to each of your points in detail. If my simple and consistent philosophy is still strange to you, I suggest re-reading my previous posts instead of me repeating them. I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I don't defend or participate in VB's subs. I can't control what other people do, only what I do. Not sure what more I can say about that.

Well, I'm about done taking up two threads for the same topic. I apologize to the forum for that.

« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2017, 09:34 »
+1
I can't control what other people do,

You certainly seem to have a need to tell them they don't value their work though, and that they should stop contributing, even though they might make more money than you.

I think we're finished here, yes. I'm sure this discussion will come up again soon enough.

---

Again, a last example from the music business:

The business isn't ruined at all (only for people stuck in the 90s), and there are plenty of ways to make a very nice living from your bedroom or expensive studio. I know because I do, and I'm not even a little bit famous. Those ways are just not the same as they were 10-20 years ago. People want more music than ever, and people sell more music than ever.

Just like footage.

« Reply #66 on: February 21, 2017, 09:41 »
+3
Video author pricing will be a vast improvement - if they implement it.  However I can't gamble the massive amount of time and workflow to upload 1500 videos to a site that culls hard working photographers rather than directing them to do heavy edits of their existing income producing portfolios. 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 12:18 by trek »

« Reply #67 on: February 21, 2017, 09:44 »
+1
I can't control what other people do,

You certainly seem to have a need to tell them they don't value their work though, and that they should stop contributing, even though they might make more money than you.


Never once told anyone what to do. If you're getting defensive, it's because of your own internal doubts. And yes, if you literally are valuing your own work lower, then you are literally valuing your work lower. That's not an opinion, that's math. And really, do you honestly think that personal jab at the end was necessary to make your point? That's yet another debate tactic called "I no longer can make my point through civil discussion so I have to resort to unfounded personal insults."

Sorry forum, last post on this from me, for real this time.

« Reply #68 on: February 21, 2017, 09:46 »
+1
I value my work based on how much money it brings in over a period of time, say one year, or five. Not how much any single license costs.

0 licenses sold at $3,000 vs 50 at $25 seems like the latter in fact means a higher value. That's kind of the beauty of digital, non-exclusive content. You can sell it more than once.

Some software companies now seem to get this too, while the old dinosaurs die out.

---

The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it over a time period (not the number the owner puts on it). The value is zero if no one buys it.

In the case of digital goods "people" means not just one person, but all combined sales over the course of that time period.

---

I have sold single licenses for $1,000, but over the course of 5 years, multiple cheap licenses have beaten that. It's more long-term than you think.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 10:09 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #69 on: February 21, 2017, 11:28 »
+1
I've got in.

And also received an invitation to join Envato elements.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #70 on: February 21, 2017, 19:49 »
+2
1. If it rains more than 100 pennies for every dollar, then it's more profitable. Although, slightly more painful.

2. What you value your work at is great, but it might have very little relation to what others value your work at.

3. You may not support VB's subs, but you are supporting their business as a whole, by uploading there. Defend them or not, you're still enabling them.

4. The $200 jeans were probably still made by some kid in Bangladesh.

5. It may be a philosophy, but philosophies don't pay the bills.

5. You choose to keep the price high. Price and value are not always related. 

« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2017, 02:23 »
+3
Been trying to figure out why some of you are make a discussion about Envato about VB, misrepresenting my thoughts as me trying to tell anyone what to do, attempting to compare incomes with zero information to back your theories, and getting all fired up and defensive about it. You're trying to convince yourselfs, not me. I've said it before, we're on the same side. I want contributors, you and me, to be getting a bigger piece of the pie, to take some pride in your own hard work. But some of you just can't seem to comprehend my intentions, and actually have instincts that lead you against your own best interests. That's not me telling you what to do, that's me describing my observation based on the information you have provided.

From my perspective, I see companies taking advantage of contributors, offering nothing more to our business than a gradual devaluation and decreasing shares of profits. I try to chime in to encourage my fellow contributors to have the confidence in their own work to not squander it, and all I get is grief and defensive pivoting. All the effort you guys make to try to convince me, or yourselves rather, should really be focused on the agencies with their hands in your pockets and contempt for their contributors. We are on the same side, well except the guy who works for Envato. I'm really starting to understand more and more why so many others have stopped posting in forums like these.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 02:30 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2017, 02:42 »
+3
From my perspective

You need to realize that telling someone they don't value their work can be a condescending insult when the bottom line answers are right there.

For a one-time gig, where you need to spend a week doing actual work, a high price means you value your time.

For digital goods that you can sell 1 million times over once they're created, without additional work or cost, the value is NOT the price, but the collected revenue over a time period. That is a BIG difference.

That's why John Lennon's personal tape master of Imagine may cost $1 million while the digital copy is $0.99. I'm sure you understand the difference but just want to be difficult.

The price YOU set on your digital goods does not equal value. If it's something absolutely unique that you expect might sell once or twice in 20 years - set a high price. If it's something that can be used a hundred thousand times by buyers with more limited budgets, set a lower price.

---

Again, let's take an example from outside the footage world. A top-selling website theme sells for $60. Wow! Only $60 for something that took 6 months to develop. They must not value their work at all...

It makes $370,000 per month and has made $12.5 million to date. I would say the value is pretty high, even though someone might come around and say you should charge at least $3,000 for a website that good.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 03:34 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2017, 05:00 »
0
Been trying to figure out why some of you are make a discussion about Envato about VB, misrepresenting my thoughts as me trying to tell anyone what to do, attempting to compare incomes with zero information to back your theories, and getting all fired up and defensive about it. You're trying to convince yourselfs, not me. I've said it before, we're on the same side. I want contributors, you and me, to be getting a bigger piece of the pie, to take some pride in your own hard work. But some of you just can't seem to comprehend my intentions, and actually have instincts that lead you against your own best interests. That's not me telling you what to do, that's me describing my observation based on the information you have provided.

From my perspective, I see companies taking advantage of contributors, offering nothing more to our business than a gradual devaluation and decreasing shares of profits. I try to chime in to encourage my fellow contributors to have the confidence in their own work to not squander it, and all I get is grief and defensive pivoting. All the effort you guys make to try to convince me, or yourselves rather, should really be focused on the agencies with their hands in your pockets and contempt for their contributors. We are on the same side, well except the guy who works for Envato. I'm really starting to understand more and more why so many others have stopped posting in forums like these.
I used to agree with you on avoiding low paying agencies and try to keep footage commissions for artists above $20 for download.
But now it is not possible anymore, P5 membership have made it impossible.
You believe that the danger is Videohive, but VH was such a small niche thing that until a couple of months ago I didn't even know it existed.
Even VB in my opinion is not such a big threat9 Although subs are always dangerous): they are a relatively new entrant and their membership collection is not that good at all.
What ha really changed the game and started the race to the bottom Is P5: the best established footage agency in term of quality that decided to cherry pick 2000.000 extremely useful, non repetitive , good quality files from within their collection and started giving them away for peanuts

Stockvideo99

« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2017, 11:01 »
+1
I have been reading this threat on mathematics with great interest and quite agree with increasinglydifficult but I have one question to add to the mix and that is why do low prices clips and pics have such poor sales when the technical specs of said clips are clearly visible on each site?.

The music industry analogy is great, people love paying 99 cents for a song or maybe a bit more for a higher bitrate version of that same song vs $15 for a whole CD but with video it seems unless price high you don't sell.

One could have the same file sze and format and priced for a couple of dollars and a few hundred dollars and the high priced one will always sell.

This also blows the theory of demand from YouTubers right out of the water, perhaps they do create their own content.

The jeans analogy is just perfect and actually happened to me a few years ago, found the same big brand jeans that normally retail for $80 for $25 a pair, I looked them over in the store, the looked and felt good so I bought five pairs and they lasted as good as if I'd paid $80 for each pair so as a consumer anytime I am looking for jeans of the same quality I go back to this store and pay $25 a pair vs $80 but this doesn't seem to work in photo and video.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
7672 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
7484 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
34639 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
8 Replies
4297 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 23:16
by stockphoto-images.com
22 Replies
6289 Views
Last post November 19, 2013, 21:34
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle