MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Pond5 Contributor Poll - I'd like to see _____ at Pond5

No Changes at all
34 (35.8%)
Exclusive - Artist (just announced)
3 (3.2%)
Exclusive - Per Clip (contributor decides which clip)
48 (50.5%)
Stick a fork in 'em... I'm done
10 (10.5%)

Total Members Voted: 95

Voting closed: March 31, 2019, 12:14

Author Topic: Letter to pond5 and quick Poll for contributors  (Read 4517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 21, 2019, 12:14 »
+6
Just watched the Town Hall with Pond5. I created quick poll, please take time to complete.

Below is my e-mail to Pond5:

What just happened guys??

An ALL OUT exclusive option or 10% pay cut (thats 20% less profit on my end)? Thats it?? We know how great ALL EXCLUSIVE programs work, we can hear all the success stories about Stocksy Video? (and no offense to Stocksy and Bruce their content really is top quality) The things I agree with, yes people shop around, and they will always. Myself as both a content contributor, and content buyer, I will not pay premium for exclusive content (especially when its 5-15sec stock clip), so whomever goes to ALL EXCLUSIVE at pond5, sorry you might be disappointed, unless pond5 shoves(Favors) exclusive content into buyers faces (which will not be done according to your Town Hall) . Yes, there are clips and moments that we capture that are unique, and I think you should have instead added an option based per clip (not contributor) to make exclusive that way we could experiment, see the great results and be the judge for ourselves. Putting lipstick on a pig is not my cup ...Putting us contributors up against the wall like that is NOT FAIR, and Im considering going the total opposite of EXCLUSIVE.

Respectfully,
Bart Sadowski


« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2019, 12:28 »
+2
Artist exclusivity is just stupid nowadays.

eyeidea

  • visualize your brainstorm
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2019, 12:30 »
+8
Agree with you 100% Bart.

My words to Pond5 ...

My first reaction is that I wish there was an option to begin uploading exclusive content moving forward without having to kill my relationships at other agencies.  This would create a more stable transition over time.  If the exclusive program is an "on-off" switch and I pull all of my content from other agencies I will lose 75% of my income overnight.

What I would love to do is upload my next batch of videos and make them exclusive to Pond5.  And / or the option to delete videos from other agencies and make them exclusive to Pond5.  I started as an 'exclusive contributor with iStock back in 2006 and it did not go well ultimately, the purchase by Getty changed a lot of things.  I would very much like to be part of the Pond5 exclusive program, however I would like to have 100% exclusive content on Pond5 rather than be a wholly exclusive contributor to only one agency.

« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2019, 12:42 »
0
And I agree 100% with you. Clear and concise. It is what it is

Agree with you 100% Bart.

My words to Pond5 ...

My first reaction is that I wish there was an option to begin uploading exclusive content moving forward without having to kill my relationships at other agencies.  This would create a more stable transition over time.  If the exclusive program is an "on-off" switch and I pull all of my content from other agencies I will lose 75% of my income overnight.

What I would love to do is upload my next batch of videos and make them exclusive to Pond5.  And / or the option to delete videos from other agencies and make them exclusive to Pond5.  I started as an 'exclusive contributor with iStock back in 2006 and it did not go well ultimately, the purchase by Getty changed a lot of things.  I would very much like to be part of the Pond5 exclusive program, however I would like to have 100% exclusive content on Pond5 rather than be a wholly exclusive contributor to only one agency.

« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2019, 12:55 »
0
It says artist exclusivity some places and video artist exclusivity others.  Is this just for video content?  I assume it is but they license other types of media as well so just want to make sure I understand it.  Time to crunch some numbers but I think pulling my video stuff off SS and iS is probably the right choice. 

FWIW I think content exclusivity just won't work, too many people would abuse it by putting similar (almost identical) content on other sites, it would be impossible to police.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 12:57 by tickstock »

« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2019, 13:23 »
+1
It should be per clip exclusivity.
I like P5...but theres no way on earth that Ill go full exclusive with them or anyone else.
I dont buy the non exclusive wont hurt your rank it doesnt add up, they will have to make room (plenty) for the exclusive files to sell and that will have to push the non exclusive down.

I love P5, for real! But the smart thing will be to let the contributor pick his exclusive files.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 13:54 by Liorpt »

« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2019, 13:34 »
+3
PS. the 20% pay cut is just the tip of the iceberg... read the new agreement (sec4.i) and I quote...

"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."

https://www.pond5.com/legal/contributor


« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2019, 13:41 »
0
That is not a problem at all the same way it is not a problem at Gettyimages. When you send content to Getty you can not send similar content to other sites. If you get caught you are out.

It says artist exclusivity some places and video artist exclusivity others.  Is this just for video content?  I assume it is but they license other types of media as well so just want to make sure I understand it.  Time to crunch some numbers but I think pulling my video stuff off SS and iS is probably the right choice. 

FWIW I think content exclusivity just won't work, too many people would abuse it by putting similar (almost identical) content on other sites, it would be impossible to police.

« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2019, 13:51 »
0
That is not a problem at all the same way it is not a problem at Gettyimages. When you send content to Getty you can not send similar content to other sites. If you get caught you are out.

It says artist exclusivity some places and video artist exclusivity others.  Is this just for video content?  I assume it is but they license other types of media as well so just want to make sure I understand it.  Time to crunch some numbers but I think pulling my video stuff off SS and iS is probably the right choice. 

FWIW I think content exclusivity just won't work, too many people would abuse it by putting similar (almost identical) content on other sites, it would be impossible to police.
Getty and P5 are very different in many ways and I don't think P5 wants to deal with kicking people off or policing similars.  It's much simpler and clearer for the contributor if it's artist exclusive, no gray areas there.

« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2019, 13:57 »
+1
I'm no lawyer, but the way I read this is that, if, let's say Shutterstock sells by clip as subscription at $1.50 (to be extreme here), this allows Pond5 to offer the same clip at same price? "we may change the price of your content" (i assume to price match the lowest price).

B


That is not a problem at all the same way it is not a problem at Gettyimages. When you send content to Getty you can not send similar content to other sites. If you get caught you are out.

It says artist exclusivity some places and video artist exclusivity others.  Is this just for video content?  I assume it is but they license other types of media as well so just want to make sure I understand it.  Time to crunch some numbers but I think pulling my video stuff off SS and iS is probably the right choice. 

FWIW I think content exclusivity just won't work, too many people would abuse it by putting similar (almost identical) content on other sites, it would be impossible to police.
Getty and P5 are very different in many ways and I don't think P5 wants to deal with kicking people off or policing similars.  It's much simpler and clearer for the contributor if it's artist exclusive, no gray areas there.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2019, 14:19 »
+2
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join their Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what is.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 14:37 by Noedelhap »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2019, 14:25 »
+4
PS. the 20% pay cut is just the tip of the iceberg... read the new agreement (sec4.i) and I quote...

"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."

https://www.pond5.com/legal/contributor



And this is absolutely crazy. Dissolve tried the same thing, it didn't do them any good but create distrust.

How Pond5 can claim we still have all the freedom after these changes is beyond me. Pretending to "be there all for the artists" while stabbing you in the back with these terrible changes. They didn't want to facilitate a race to the bottom, but they have no trouble lowering my prices to match the lowest priced agency?

« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2019, 14:28 »
0
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2019, 14:39 »
+1
Volume though. SS/Adobe I get 20-30 image sales a day, pond5, 3-5 image sales a year.
 Hows the extra royalty % going to help me pay bills, get new gear without volume?

The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2019, 14:41 »
+6
0 people are going to become exclusive with pond5. pond5 will pay everyone 10% less. this is what will happen.

« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2019, 14:43 »
0
Volume though. SS/Adobe I get 20-30 image sales a day, pond5, 3-5 image sales a year.
 Hows the extra royalty % going to help me pay bills, get new gear without volume?

The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?
My comment was about video, other royalties aren't changing and exclusivity isn't part of the equation.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2019, 14:45 »
+3
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

Ah, so it's a punishment of sorts? Because I undercut myself at other sites, Pond5 follows that race to the bottom? According to your logic anyways. I thought they didn't want to do a race to the bottom.

But the content I sell on all three sites is priced pretty evenly, so for the buyers there's hardly a difference. Now Pond5 grabs a bigger cut, and for what? To compensate for the expensive Exclusivity or to force me into exclusivity?

Why would you defend their greed?

« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2019, 14:46 »
+1
pond5 is tricking us.

let's say you have $10,000,000 in payouts to everyone non-exclusive. and that goes down to 40% so it goes down to $8,000,000. that is $2,000,000 less.

but then you have all the people who are exclusive, and the payout is $100,000. and they are getting their full share. basically what pond5 is doing is saving huge amounts of cash from non-exclusive people but that money is not going to pay exclusive people, it is going into their profit margin. the only way it might equalize is if 50% of sellers are exclusive and 50% are not, which is very very unlikely. I doubt if even 1% go exclusive.

scam

« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2019, 14:50 »
0
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

Ah, so it's a punishment of sorts? Because I undercut myself at other sites, Pond5 follows that race to the bottom? According to your logic anyways. I thought they didn't want to do a race to the bottom.

But the content I sell on all three sites is priced pretty evenly, so for the buyers there's hardly a difference. Now Pond5 grabs a bigger cut, and for what? To compensate for the expensive Exclusivity or to force me into exclusivity?

Why would you defend their greed?
It's hard to call them greedy when they pay more for nonexclusive work than sites you like (SS, Adobe for example).  They still seem to be the least greedy of the bunch don't they? 
A race to the bottom involves undercutting the competition, matching pricing and paying a higher royalty rate doesn't seem to me to be part of the race to the bottom, if anything I'd say contributors accepting lower rates and prices are what's driving the race to the bottom.

« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2019, 14:53 »
0
pond5 is tricking us.

let's say you have $10,000,000 in payouts to everyone non-exclusive. and that goes down to 40% so it goes down to $8,000,000. that is $2,000,000 less.

but then you have all the people who are exclusive, and the payout is $100,000. and they are getting their full share. basically what pond5 is doing is saving huge amounts of cash from non-exclusive people but that money is not going to pay exclusive people, it is going into their profit margin. the only way it might equalize is if 50% of sellers are exclusive and 50% are not, which is very very unlikely. I doubt if even 1% go exclusive.

scam
Did they say they aren't going to promote exclusive work?  I would guess a small number of contributors are making the vast majority of sales.  I'm not saying this won't be better for them but I don't think they need anywhere close to 50% exclusives for it to break even.

« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2019, 14:55 »
+2
I think so.

this lovely quote sums it up...
"don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining"

0 people are going to become exclusive with pond5. pond5 will pay everyone 10% less. this is what will happen.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2019, 14:55 »
+3
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

Ah, so it's a punishment of sorts? Because I undercut myself at other sites, Pond5 follows that race to the bottom? According to your logic anyways. I thought they didn't want to do a race to the bottom.

But the content I sell on all three sites is priced pretty evenly, so for the buyers there's hardly a difference. Now Pond5 grabs a bigger cut, and for what? To compensate for the expensive Exclusivity or to force me into exclusivity?

Why would you defend their greed?
It's hard to call them greedy when they pay more for nonexclusive work than sites you like (SS, Adobe for example).  They still seem to be the least greedy of the bunch don't they? 
A race to the bottom involves undercutting the competition, matching pricing and paying a higher royalty rate doesn't seem to me to be part of the race to the bottom, if anything I'd say contributors accepting lower rates and prices are what's driving the race to the bottom.


They paid more than other sites, yes, but will stop doing so. They weren't greedy, but now they are.

This isn't anything else than a cash grab, and their livestream didn't give us an explanation, only a unfair comparison to the 60% for exclusive members (which is a smaller percentage of contributors than non-exclusives, so it's not evenly divided).

« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2019, 14:57 »
0
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

Ah, so it's a punishment of sorts? Because I undercut myself at other sites, Pond5 follows that race to the bottom? According to your logic anyways. I thought they didn't want to do a race to the bottom.

But the content I sell on all three sites is priced pretty evenly, so for the buyers there's hardly a difference. Now Pond5 grabs a bigger cut, and for what? To compensate for the expensive Exclusivity or to force me into exclusivity?

Why would you defend their greed?
It's hard to call them greedy when they pay more for nonexclusive work than sites you like (SS, Adobe for example).  They still seem to be the least greedy of the bunch don't they? 
A race to the bottom involves undercutting the competition, matching pricing and paying a higher royalty rate doesn't seem to me to be part of the race to the bottom, if anything I'd say contributors accepting lower rates and prices are what's driving the race to the bottom.


They paid more than other sites, yes, but will stop doing so. They weren't greedy, but now they are.

This isn't anything else than a cash grab, and their livestream didn't give us an explanation, only a unfair comparison to the 60% for exclusive members (which is a smaller percentage of contributors than non-exclusives, so it's not evenly divided).
Why should it be evenly divided they want exclusive content, nonexclusive content just isn't as valuable.

« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2019, 15:06 »
+2
Why should it be evenly divided they want exclusive content, nonexclusive content just isn't as valuable.

No stock clip is exclusive for the customer if it can be bought more than once. It's just another way to be able to use the word "exclusive" in marketing.

It's more valuable for Pond5, sure, because they get more customers. It's not more valuable for the customer, or the contributor.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 15:08 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2019, 15:09 »
+2
Why should it be evenly divided they want exclusive content, nonexclusive content just isn't as valuable.

No stock clip is exclusive to the customer if it can be bought more than once. It's just another way to be able to use the word "exclusive" in marketing.
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2019, 15:10 »
+1
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

Obviously. But that doesn't make it more valuable to the customer. Or us.

« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2019, 15:12 »
0
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

Obviously. But that doesn't make it more valuable to the customer. Or us.
If they pay 60% rather than 30,35, or 40% it does.

« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2019, 15:14 »
+4
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

Obviously. But that doesn't make it more valuable to the customer. Or us.
If they pay 60% rather than 30,35, or 40% it does.

Really? Since you have to remove your clips from every other site it definitely does not.

About 90% of my earnings comes from other sites. So would that 60% suddenly increase my P5 sales to astronomical levels? I think not.

But of course this was more about the "higher value for the CUSTOMER". Which is just bull****.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 15:16 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2019, 15:18 »
+1
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

Obviously. But that doesn't make it more valuable to the customer. Or us.
If they pay 60% rather than 30,35, or 40% it does.

Really? Since you have to remove your clips from every other site it definitely does not.

About 90% of my earnings comes from other sites. So would that 60% suddenly increase my P5 sales to astronomical levels? I think not.
If you're happy getting 90% of sales at 30-35% then what's the problem getting the last ten at 40%?  How many people will quit uploading to a site that pays better than most?  By putting the same clips at sites that pay 30-35% you've told them that is how much they should pay out.

« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2019, 15:19 »
+1
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

Obviously. But that doesn't make it more valuable to the customer. Or us.
If they pay 60% rather than 30,35, or 40% it does.

Really? Since you have to remove your clips from every other site it definitely does not.

About 90% of my earnings comes from other sites. So would that 60% suddenly increase my P5 sales to astronomical levels? I think not.
If you're happy getting 90% of sales at 30-35% then what's the problem getting the last ten at 40%?  How many people will quit uploading to a site that pays better than most?  By putting the same clips at sites that pay 30-35% you've told them that is how much they should pay out.

My biggest earners all pay 50%. Which really should be the minimum everywhere. Even that is somewhat insulting.

« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2019, 15:20 »
0
It's not just marketing though.  If you need a specific video and it's only on Pond5 then you need to go to Pond5 to get it.

Obviously. But that doesn't make it more valuable to the customer. Or us.
If they pay 60% rather than 30,35, or 40% it does.

Really? Since you have to remove your clips from every other site it definitely does not.

About 90% of my earnings comes from other sites. So would that 60% suddenly increase my P5 sales to astronomical levels? I think not.
If you're happy getting 90% of sales at 30-35% then what's the problem getting the last ten at 40%?  How many people will quit uploading to a site that pays better than most?  By putting the same clips at sites that pay 30-35% you've told them that is how much they should pay out.

My biggest earners all pay 50%. Which really should be the minimum everywhere. Even that is somewhat insulting.
I've been away from here for a while which sites are paying 50%?

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2019, 15:22 »
+1

Why should it be evenly divided they want exclusive content, nonexclusive content just isn't as valuable.

Which proves my point they're not doing this for contributors, only for their own good. I.e. greed.

I couldn't even offset my prices by 20% due to their rule that it should match competitors' prices. "Suck it up or join our program", that is what it boils down to. Why would I reward Pond5 with my exclusive files after a power move like this?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 15:25 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2019, 15:24 »
0
The whole Town Hall livestream was a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. It started off great with them claiming they would never want to do a race to the bottom and they give contributors total freedom.
And then monkey came out of the bag, as we all predicted on this forum: a commission cut...unless you join our Exclusivity Program!
 
Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what it.
If you are licensing content for a lower price and accepting a lower royalty rate at other sites I'm not sure what the complaint is?  SS is 30% and Adobe is 35%, last I checked 40% was better.  If you value your work lower then why should you expect agencies to value it higher?

Ah, so it's a punishment of sorts? Because I undercut myself at other sites, Pond5 follows that race to the bottom? According to your logic anyways. I thought they didn't want to do a race to the bottom.

But the content I sell on all three sites is priced pretty evenly, so for the buyers there's hardly a difference. Now Pond5 grabs a bigger cut, and for what? To compensate for the expensive Exclusivity or to force me into exclusivity?

Why would you defend their greed?
It's hard to call them greedy when they pay more for nonexclusive work than sites you like (SS, Adobe for example).  They still seem to be the least greedy of the bunch don't they? 
A race to the bottom involves undercutting the competition, matching pricing and paying a higher royalty rate doesn't seem to me to be part of the race to the bottom, if anything I'd say contributors accepting lower rates and prices are what's driving the race to the bottom.


They paid more than other sites, yes, but will stop doing so. They weren't greedy, but now they are.

This isn't anything else than a cash grab, and their livestream didn't give us an explanation, only a unfair comparison to the 60% for exclusive members (which is a smaller percentage of contributors than non-exclusives, so it's not evenly divided).
Why should it be evenly divided they want exclusive content, nonexclusive content just isn't as valuable.

Which proves my point there not doing this for contributors, only for their own good. I.e. greed.

I couldn't even offset my prices by 20% due to their rule that it should match competitors' prices. "Suck it up or join our program", that is what it boils down to. Why would I reward Pond5 with my exclusive files after a power move like this?
Because they pay a higher % and you can set your prices.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2019, 15:27 »
+6

Because they pay a higher % and you can set your prices.

Joining their Exclusive Program is a leap in the dark, you'd lose maybe 50% of your revenue overnight (by deleting it from other sites) and there's no promise Pond5 will make up for that loss.

« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2019, 15:29 »
+1
Which proves my point they're not doing this for contributors, only for their own good. I.e. greed.

Exactly.

The thing is that instead of making up this elaborate story, they could have been honest.

"Guys, revenue is decreasing, this is what it costs to run the site, we are losing market share, etc. In order to keep the site alive, we regretfully have to lower the commission."

Sure, this would also suck, but it would be done in a more honest way.

Being played for fools makes few people happy.

« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2019, 15:30 »
0

Because they pay a higher % and you can set your prices.

Joining their Exclusive Program is a leap in the dark, you'd lose maybe 50% of your revenue overnight (by deleting it from other sites) and there's no promise Pond5 will make up for that loss.
I'm small time in video and Pond5 is my best site.  The problem for most people here is that they've accepted getting paid 30-35% so it doesn't really make sense to complain that P5 is "only" paying 40%.  Will they lose anyone because of this, I doubt it.

« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2019, 15:40 »
0
Quote
Will they lose anyone because of this, I doubt it.

If they end up with only web sales as fixed 24$ price and 40/60 split yes they will lose interest to contribute there I guess.

---

Quote
I'm small time in video and Pond5 is my best site.

 +1

HEre is a question: Can anyone please explain how this Global Partner program work?
how my rejected in Adobe and accepted in P5 exclusive clip will appear in Adobe through this GPP?
How Vimeo that rejected me will quality control my exclusive yet, handheld shots again through this program?


???

« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2019, 15:57 »
+4
Why should it be evenly divided they want exclusive content, nonexclusive content just isn't as valuable.

No stock clip is exclusive for the customer if it can be bought more than once. It's just another way to be able to use the word "exclusive" in marketing.

It's more valuable for Pond5, sure, because they get more customers. It's not more valuable for the customer, or the contributor.

Definitely, customers don't care if a clip is exclusive P5 or not. P5 makes it sound like they're doing the customer a favour, but they just don't want them to shop around. They're greedy, why not offer 70% for exclusive and leave it at 50% for non exclusive if they are doing so much for us contributors? Oh and also they never mentioned price matching in the town hall, that's quite an important part that they purposely forgot.

Time to bump all the prices up by 25% to get the same share as before.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 16:06 by Not Today »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2019, 16:08 »
+4
Well, I've increased my prices, I noticed they'd been tinkering with my prices without giving me notice. Never increasing prices, only lowering them. At least I think that's what happened, I saw some weird prices for my content that I had never set myself.

« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2019, 16:45 »
+2
Yes, a bunch of my prices were lowered as well - I think they were doing split testing/testing which price points generated more sales.

Well, I've increased my prices, I noticed they'd been tinkering with my prices without giving me notice. Never increasing prices, only lowering them. At least I think that's what happened, I saw some weird prices for my content that I had never set myself.

« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2019, 17:14 »
+1
0 people are going to become exclusive with pond5. pond5 will pay everyone 10% less. this is what will happen.

That is probably the plan all along to justify the cut. I make way too much on other sites to go exclusive on p5. Sales are 3-5 vide a month. No thanks. Take your 20% p5. Money grab.

« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2019, 18:48 »
0
I liked how the townhall went till I heard our royalty cut to 40%.  That sucks. 

« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2019, 19:15 »
+6
...Being forced to raise prices or become exclusive, if that's not a total lack of respect towards your contributors, I don't know what is.

The way you know it's disrespectful is that it's exactly what Getty did to PumpAudio contributors when they acquired that formerly good stock music agency in 2009. In that case a 50/50 split went to 35/65 except for those they chose to become exclusive who could keep the 50/50

« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2019, 20:28 »
0
Such a disappointment, this year I was planning to increase my prices slightly but now even If i did I would still receive less commission after this cut.

When they implement decisions like these it's highly likely that this was on the cards for a long time and that there were probably elements within the P5 management structure championing for the cut to be 35%, similarly others with a more conservative approach wanting 45%

And so naturally the end number was to go with 40% and monitor contributor reaction like a hawk right from the get go, and you can bet your bottom dollar that right now they are listening because they haven't made such a drastic change to contributor policy in over a decade.

So guys and girls, now's the time or it's all down hill from here.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2019, 22:14 »
+2
I just read the summary of the Town Hall (3am Sydney time, yeah, I never get to see those things live) and relieved to see everyone here is also concerned. I don't have much of a portfolio at P5, currently putting video on Stocksy and some stuff on SS, Getty. There is no way I could go exclusive at Pond 5 without removing probably 1000 images from stocksy, and of course you can't remove content from Getty anyway. This whole idea is bonkers.

I would very happily go per video exclusive at P5, and the majority of us are well trained in what is a "sister image" so we understand the rules. But they must show us respect (rather that talking about respect) and allow us to put rejected work, or more niche work, where it's going to sell best.

I urge P5 to reconsider this move. It's not respectful.

« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2019, 22:52 »
+2
agree, its a simple code implementation:
Do you wish this clip to be exclusive:
  • yes, [ ] no

Are y selling similar clips at other agencies [ ] yes,
  • no

Done.



I would very happily go per video exclusive at P5, and the majority of us are well trained in what is a "sister image" so we understand the rules. But they must show us respect (rather that talking about respect) and allow us to put rejected work, or more niche work, where it's going to sell best.

I urge P5 to reconsider this move. It's not respectful.
[/quote]

« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2019, 03:03 »
0
Quote

 rejected work


Rejected clips on Pond5?
I find it hard to understand, actually from a newbies perspective AS and SS kill around 15-35% of my uploads (from an initial 50-65% rejection rate) that actually get accepted in P5. Only files returned for missing releases and similar minor errors.

I dunno if curation will go harder and reject easier now with those new rules.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 03:07 by georgep7 »

« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2019, 14:18 »
0
So how do we react? Do we start bombarding them with mails telling them that the move is unfair? Do we hit them on instagram, facebook, twitter? Do we set up a petition? Lets actually act in a way that tells them this is not a welcome move.

« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2019, 15:10 »
0
So how do we react? Do we start bombarding them with mails telling them that the move is unfair? Do we hit them on instagram, facebook, twitter? Do we set up a petition? Lets actually act in a way that tells them this is not a welcome move.
You have videos on SS and get 30% for them what's your complaint about 40%?  You've sent them the message that 30% is good enough already.

« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2019, 15:12 »
0
So how do we react? Do we start bombarding them with mails telling them that the move is unfair? Do we hit them on instagram, facebook, twitter? Do we set up a petition? Lets actually act in a way that tells them this is not a welcome move.

easiest way would be to either delete your portfolio, or stop uploading. they don't care if you just send e-mails, because people will continue to upload. so they really don't care that way.

« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2019, 23:38 »
0
Definitely stop uploading till they clear out this mess. The idea with instagram/twitter/facebook is that they are public enough to tell the buyers also that there is something wrong. Plus a lot of us are buyers as well as contributors so us stopping purchases also puts some pressure. Similarly a petition on change.org shows them a scale of the issue, it's better for all of us to see that there are a thousand people actively resisting the new change rather than reading the few replies on this group. It's worked before for the storyblocks fiasco

some requests
- Can someone with good understanding set up the petition and post the link here
- Can we stop uploading till Pond5 responds to our suggested changes
- Can we stop buying from pond5 till they respond
- During this time can we ensure we message them on email/instagram/twitter/facebook to ensure they don't miss the petition or our requests

« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2019, 04:12 »
+1
I have just increased prices of all my videos accordingly. So it is still cheaper compared to site with 30% royalties but it is pricier then before when we had 50%.

I am not selling my clips on any of those cheap sites, only ss, as, vb i pond5.


« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2019, 12:42 »
+2
Exclusivity benefits Pond5 while a contributor is sure to have an overall income loss. Its an insulting smokescreen to offer such a lame deal while at the same time lowering our cut to 40% - a whopping 20% earnings cut. Its a profit-grabbing betrayal by a company that has always marketing itself as artist-friendly, and it should to be called out as such.

Some asked, why call them out for cutting commissions when others pay even less? Because all of it is unfairly low 30% is too low and 40% is too low. Pond5 says they dont want a race to the bottom, but by cutting artist pay theyre participating in a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Is the CEO getting a pay cut? Is any employee there getting a pay cut? So why . should the creators be OK with a 20% earnings cut?

The only good option here is to push back strongly against the commission cut. If Pond5 wants to go 60/40 for exclusive footage, fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what everyone else is paid. Stock companies can look to other areas of their business model for profit or accept the profit they're making, but they need to stop thinking they can take more money from contributors just because they want it.

Pushing back against Storyblocks worked because tons of people wrote emails and posted online. I wrote the petition against them and just created this petition against Pond5. Please sign this petition and share with everyone you know! https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists

And please contact Pond5 to let them know its not OK for them or any other site to cut our earnings for the work we create. Email is support@pond5.com, and cc CEO Jason Teichman at jteichman@pond5.com.

« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2019, 16:37 »
+3
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2019, 16:55 »
0
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

Just because 30% royalty is terrible, that doesn't mean 40% isn't bad as well. ANY lowering of our cut is bad, it's all part of a race to the bottom in what we get paid for our work. So I agree that pressure should be directed to the lowest paying sites as well, but that doesn't excuse Pond5 from cutting our rate. The petition encourages buyers to buy from Storyblocks, which still has a 50/50 split.

« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2019, 17:08 »
0
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

Just because 30% royalty is terrible, that doesn't mean 40% isn't bad as well. ANY lowering of our cut is bad, it's all part of a race to the bottom in what we get paid for our work. So I agree that pressure should be directed to the lowest paying sites as well, but that doesn't excuse Pond5 from cutting our rate. The petition encourages buyers to buy from Storyblocks, which still has a 50/50 split.
It kind of does, doesn't it?  If contributors are willing to put the same exact clips on sites with 30% why should any site pay more?

« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2019, 17:33 »
0
Letting contributos keep their old accounts open and non-exclusive and letting them create a second, all-exclusive account while keeping all their old content on all other agencies is counter-intuitive and defeats their original desire to have artist be exclusive to P5 and deleting all their content elsewhere.

Customers will still be able to "shop around" since the bulk of the P5 portfolio (for now) is still on other agencies.

Maybe in 5-10 years when P5 has a nice chunk of exclusive content this will work out, but in the short term, this solves nothing.

« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2019, 18:11 »
0
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

Just because 30% royalty is terrible, that doesn't mean 40% isn't bad as well. ANY lowering of our cut is bad, it's all part of a race to the bottom in what we get paid for our work. So I agree that pressure should be directed to the lowest paying sites as well, but that doesn't excuse Pond5 from cutting our rate. The petition encourages buyers to buy from Storyblocks, which still has a 50/50 split.
It kind of does, doesn't it?  If contributors are willing to put the same exact clips on sites with 30% why should any site pay more?

When I sign with a company the deal is for a certain rate. Whatever that rate is, if the company lowers it, I push back. Both because they're taking earnings from me and because rate drops anywhere can feed an industry-wide race to the bottom. You seem to only want to empathize with the agency side, so tell you what, why don't you contact Pond5 and invite them to lower your commission to 30% because that's what other companies pay? Then if any other agency drops commissions further, be sure to update Pond5 about it so they can match it. If that sounds inane because it's lacking in rational self-interest, well then now you know how your posts sound.

« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2019, 18:28 »
+4
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

Just because 30% royalty is terrible, that doesn't mean 40% isn't bad as well. ANY lowering of our cut is bad, it's all part of a race to the bottom in what we get paid for our work. So I agree that pressure should be directed to the lowest paying sites as well, but that doesn't excuse Pond5 from cutting our rate. The petition encourages buyers to buy from Storyblocks, which still has a 50/50 split.
It kind of does, doesn't it?  If contributors are willing to put the same exact clips on sites with 30% why should any site pay more?

When I sign with a company the deal is for a certain rate. Whatever that rate is, if the company lowers it, I push back. Both because they're taking earnings from me and because rate drops anywhere can feed an industry-wide race to the bottom. You seem to only want to empathize with the agency side, so tell you what, why don't you contact Pond5 and invite them to lower your commission to 30% because that's what other companies pay? Then if any other agency drops commissions further, be sure to update Pond5 about it so they can match it. If that sounds inane because it's lacking in rational self-interest, well then now you know how your posts sound.
For me, I'll stop uploading to other sites and put everything up exclusively with Pond5.  I was leaning towards doing that before this change.  It's not that I want royalty rates lower it's that it seems inevitable if people put the same work on different sites.  The value will move towards the worst place.  Sites that pay lower royalties can use that money to market more or make the site nicer and in turn sell more content.  From the agencies' side if contributors are happy accepting less then why should they pay more, what's the benefit for them?

« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2019, 19:06 »
0
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

Just because 30% royalty is terrible, that doesn't mean 40% isn't bad as well. ANY lowering of our cut is bad, it's all part of a race to the bottom in what we get paid for our work. So I agree that pressure should be directed to the lowest paying sites as well, but that doesn't excuse Pond5 from cutting our rate. The petition encourages buyers to buy from Storyblocks, which still has a 50/50 split.
It kind of does, doesn't it?  If contributors are willing to put the same exact clips on sites with 30% why should any site pay more?

When I sign with a company the deal is for a certain rate. Whatever that rate is, if the company lowers it, I push back. Both because they're taking earnings from me and because rate drops anywhere can feed an industry-wide race to the bottom. You seem to only want to empathize with the agency side, so tell you what, why don't you contact Pond5 and invite them to lower your commission to 30% because that's what other companies pay? Then if any other agency drops commissions further, be sure to update Pond5 about it so they can match it. If that sounds inane because it's lacking in rational self-interest, well then now you know how your posts sound.
For me, I'll stop uploading to other sites and put everything up exclusively with Pond5.  I was leaning towards doing that before this change.  It's not that I want royalty rates lower it's that it seems inevitable if people put the same work on different sites.  The value will move towards the worst place.  Sites that pay lower royalties can use that money to market more or make the site nicer and in turn sell more content.  From the agencies' side if contributors are happy accepting less then why should they pay more, what's the benefit for them?

To your point, the responsibility is on contributors to let agencies know they're NOT happy accepting less, unless perhaps it comes with higher volume and overall more money. For example, Shutterstock pays me a lower commission but I make more money with them than with Pond5 (so exclusivity with Pond5 would not work for me). I do not upload to sites that have poor commissions and poor sales, or low prices. Part of the problem is there's no true transparency in regard to agency marketing costs - a cut in our earnings could be going to marketing or simply to their pockets. They're not trustworthy enough to assume the former, despite what they say. I agree that value can move to the worst place, and no matter what way we come at this, the only balance against agency profit greed is a strong response from contributors. I wish we were organized enough to have a powerful influence, but unfortunately we're all incredibly scattered and disjointed in our voices. 

« Reply #60 on: March 23, 2019, 20:05 »
+1
I am happily going as a Pond5 Exclusive now! Yep all my choice and I know the risk.....Here we go.....

« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2019, 10:34 »
0
Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at jteichman@pond5.com

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 youre 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 well 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, youre 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.

« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2019, 11:40 »
+1
I received a personal response from CEO Jason Teichman, and we will have a phone conversation soon to discuss the matter. If contributors would like me to ask certain questions to him or make a certain point beyond what I've expressed above, please let me know.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2019, 11:51 »
+1
I received a personal response from CEO Jason Teichman, and we will have a phone conversation soon to discuss the matter. If contributors 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 for the thread and the other thread.

"...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."

Which must be invisible to everyone except me?

Translation, you can have exclusive video on Pond5, based on which account you put it into.


« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2019, 22:44 »
+1
Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

I can't and I'm going exclusive with Pond5 for almost everything from now on. I won't upload to the 20% sites.

« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2019, 05:25 »
0
Exclusivity benefits Pond5 while a contributor is sure to have an overall income loss. Its an insulting smokescreen to offer such a lame deal while at the same time lowering our cut to 40% - a whopping 20% earnings cut. Its a profit-grabbing betrayal by a company that has always marketing itself as artist-friendly, and it should to be called out as such.

Some asked, why call them out for cutting commissions when others pay even less? Because all of it is unfairly low 30% is too low and 40% is too low. Pond5 says they dont want a race to the bottom, but by cutting artist pay theyre participating in a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Is the CEO getting a pay cut? Is any employee there getting a pay cut? So why . should the creators be OK with a 20% earnings cut?

The only good option here is to push back strongly against the commission cut. If Pond5 wants to go 60/40 for exclusive footage, fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what everyone else is paid. Stock companies can look to other areas of their business model for profit or accept the profit they're making, but they need to stop thinking they can take more money from contributors just because they want it.

Pushing back against Storyblocks worked because tons of people wrote emails and posted online. I wrote the petition against them and just created this petition against Pond5. Please sign this petition and share with everyone you know! newbielink:https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists [nonactive]

And please contact Pond5 to let them know its not OK for them or any other site to cut our earnings for the work we create. Email is newbielink:mailto:support@pond5.com [nonactive], and cc CEO Jason Teichman at newbielink:mailto:jteichman@pond5.com [nonactive].

You are calling 20% reduction masive. But you write 40% is just as bad as 30%.

40% is about 31% more than 30%!

So 40% is extremely massive more than 30% in your math!

« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2019, 05:36 »
+2
You are calling 20% reduction masive. But you write 40% is just as bad as 30%.

40% is about 31% more than 30%!

So 40% is extremely massive more than 30% in your math!

40% is 33.3% more than 30%. And a 20% reduction is of course massive. If you're making $5,000 a month that's $1,000 gone, just like that!

And just because someone offers 10% doesn't make 40% good, does it? Anything below 50% is quite frankly an insult, and 70% for us should be the standard.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 05:39 by increasingdifficulty »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2019, 07:54 »
+2
For me, I'll stop uploading to other sites and put everything up exclusively with Pond5.  I was leaning towards doing that before this change.  It's not that I want royalty rates lower it's that it seems inevitable if people put the same work on different sites.  The value will move towards the worst place.  Sites that pay lower royalties can use that money to market more or make the site nicer and in turn sell more content.  From the agencies' side if contributors are happy accepting less then why should they pay more, what's the benefit for them?

Same here.

Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense?  Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.

I can't and I'm going exclusive with Pond5 for almost everything from now on. I won't upload to the 20% sites.

That too, I'm not so desperate that I'll take crap percentages of low prices, just for some more minimal income. Then people complain about the percentage drop, and upload to places that pay lower commissions on lower prices. Where's that outrage?

I am happily going as a Pond5 Exclusive now! Yep all my choice and I know the risk.....Here we go.....

Going, Going, here's hoping this works out for all of us who choose this path.

In my case, small numbers, I just need to decide 100% or all new? Being the lazy type, I think I'm just going to convert and have only one video stock site for now. I can change my mind later. Yeah I suppose that means I am greedy, I like 60% of something over 20% of nothing.  8)

GONE

« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2019, 10:06 »
+2
Here it goes feel free to follow my journey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvyF_mnv8HI

« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2019, 10:32 »
0
the exclusivity or the youtube journey!? XD :P

good luck! in a way we start even.
coming from youtube if I can only suggest not to get burned out soon there.
take care! :)

« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2019, 10:42 »
+1
Thanks, youtube is just a side hobby I enjoy doing, no income there for me but love to teach and share so that is it for me. Of course I put links up and try to teat it as a business to some degree but I have no goals to retire on youtube!

« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2019, 12:13 »
+1
Exclusivity benefits Pond5 while a contributor is sure to have an overall income loss. Its an insulting smokescreen to offer such a lame deal while at the same time lowering our cut to 40% - a whopping 20% earnings cut. Its a profit-grabbing betrayal by a company that has always marketing itself as artist-friendly, and it should to be called out as such.

Some asked, why call them out for cutting commissions when others pay even less? Because all of it is unfairly low 30% is too low and 40% is too low. Pond5 says they dont want a race to the bottom, but by cutting artist pay theyre participating in a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Is the CEO getting a pay cut? Is any employee there getting a pay cut? So why . should the creators be OK with a 20% earnings cut?

The only good option here is to push back strongly against the commission cut. If Pond5 wants to go 60/40 for exclusive footage, fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what everyone else is paid. Stock companies can look to other areas of their business model for profit or accept the profit they're making, but they need to stop thinking they can take more money from contributors just because they want it.

Pushing back against Storyblocks worked because tons of people wrote emails and posted online. I wrote the petition against them and just created this petition against Pond5. Please sign this petition and share with everyone you know! https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists

And please contact Pond5 to let them know its not OK for them or any other site to cut our earnings for the work we create. Email is support@pond5.com, and cc CEO Jason Teichman at jteichman@pond5.com.
Signed, this is a good initiative, we should be supporting this otherwise it also sends out a message that we are indifferent to reductions in our royalties. The bigger issue is that here the reduction does not even specify what that extra 10% will go towards, will it be used to drive more traffic or get the shareholders a new Porsche?


https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists?recruiter=275844661&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

readding the link so it does not get lost
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 12:16 by izzikiorage »

« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2019, 12:23 »
+1
Thank you. I entirely agree - whether someone plans to go exclusive or not, it's in the best interest of every contributor to send a message to agencies that it is never OK to cut our earnings. That's not something we can be apathetic about.

If you haven't already, please sign the petition against the commission cut and share with everyone you know: https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists

I have a phone call this afternoon with Jason Teichman of Pond5. He talked in the Town Hall about how this business runs on trust. I'll definitely be making the case with him that cutting our earnings is a serious violation of trust, in addition to the other negative effects it will bring.

« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2019, 12:42 »
+6
The thing everyone going exclusive have to understand is that of all the times agencies do something along these lines and do not follow up with all the marketing needed to drive traffic to P5, when that exclusive journey fails you have to re-upload all your clips back to the agencies you just yanked them from.  The sales volume at p5 is so miniscule for me that i would never go exclusive there. They WILL HAVE TO HAVE A MASSIVE marketing campaign and be able to fund it. Perhaps their plan is to fund their marketing from the ones who refuse to go along with exclusivity. I wonder if anyone is getting a special deal to be positive about the whole thing. Because without any plan to grow and sustain foot traffic through costly marketing, bringing broad awareness to exclusivity then having the content to back it up, then exclusivity is really a moot point.

« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2019, 13:22 »
0
Well said Mantis.

I have been with Pond5 for many years. I am disappointed in their royalty grab. I have no intention of going exclusive with them. My clips can earn more going to all agencies.

« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2019, 14:37 »
+4
Just had a 45 minute phone call with Jason Teichman. Wish I could say I was able to convince him to keep non-exclusive commissions at 50%, but the best I can say is that I argued it a half-dozen ways (literally) and gave it my all. As he explained it, the situation at Pond5 is that in the last couple years they've increased sales and marketing by millions of dollars, and it has increased sales, but at the same time they're constantly getting under-bid by Getty and Shutterstock, who are more focused on photos and will sell their videos at greatly discounted prices to big buyers. The price war that collapsed the stock photo world is occurring in the footage world, and he sees exclusivity as the best possible bulwark against it. For non-exclusives, he says marketing expenses and price competition have made it impossible to maintain 50/50 splits. I have my arguments against that, such as that cutting commissions will lead to price increases at Pond5 and people signing up with more agencies, both of which will hasten the price war. And of course cutting commission kills trust and partnership. I think he genuinely understood and empathized, but in the end he said from a financial perspective there's no way they can continue a 50/50 split when the competition is so much lower. Disappointing for sure. On the plus side, it was good to get more insight into what is happening in the industry. And I give him credit for spending 45 minutes in conversation with someone who was criticizing his decisions. The one big thing we agreed on is that the commoditization of footage is the death knell of the industry. How to fight it is an evolving question, but he was receptive to my point that Pond5, while viewing exclusive content as a way to maintain value, also needs to work more with non-exclusive contributors on solutions to maintain the value of non-exclusive content. So glad I deleted my videos at iStock years ago.

« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2019, 14:41 »
+3
You have to respect a CEO who will talk to the artist!! This is not the norm trust me! He is right about the market and where it is headed. I hope Pond5 can pull off the magic!

« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2019, 14:47 »
0
How to fight it is an evolving question, but he was receptive to my point that Pond5, while viewing exclusive content as a way to maintain value, also needs to work more with non-exclusive contributors on solutions to maintain the value of non-exclusive content.
What are the solutions other than not supporting sites that pay less? 

« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2019, 14:57 »
0
Not uploading to sites that sell low and pay crap is a huge thing contributors should do. But it gets trickier when it comes to Shutterstock, which pays well on some sales and a pittance on others. It's not clear what Pond5 and contributors can do about that (or Getty), but if we don't collectively think of something the price war will slowly hurt us all.

« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2019, 17:39 »
+1
I'm newbie to this market, only 4 years of experience,  but would like to give my thoughts

Any exclusive content has a reason to be exclusive only if it is really unique, no other reasons.
As the video stock market is full of content in quite any niches I strongly doubt that going exclusive could give a real advantage for single contributor.
I work as content manager for commercial television and  in my company (medium national company) the exclusive content is really high value considered only for few top projects. This market is really specific.

I sincerely doubt that exclusive could be a great value in stock market. I could understand if pond5 or any agency should promote selected high value contents giving more to authors (ss with offset, as with premium do that). At the contrary, cutting royalties for contributors will never be a good answer to market.
Let's see
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 17:41 by derby »

« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2019, 09:53 »
+2
The line from Pond5 is that the buyers looking for exclusive content are generally companies concerned about branding, such as agencies (as opposed to social media buyers or lower end corporate work). They want clips that are not on ten different stock sites, and I guess not as frequently used. I don't entirely understand this. Whether a clip is exclusive to one agency or not, it's still "used goods." And for us contributors, we of course want our clips to sell as often as possible, which seems to be at odds with what buyers are looking for when they shop for exclusive content. The only point where our interests align is if a buyer requests a permanent buyout on a clip, which will be an option with Pond5 exclusive - this would be a multi-thousand dollar sale. Of course, a contributor will have to do the math to see how much money is worth giving up years and years of repeat sales.

The Town Hall showed a graph showing that exclusive content has double the "average revenue per clip" compared to non-exclusive. However, they did not detail how they did the math on that, and we have to consider that exclusive clips may in general be of higher quality. I view this whole endeavor as a grand experiment with a lot of variables. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out and what its effects on the industry are.

« Reply #81 on: March 27, 2019, 21:49 »
+1
One part if the problem is that we've always been reactive, we struggle against companies that cut commissions but do nothing against the ones that had low commissions to begin with. We should do a massive ask for fair commissions from companies like SS, istock, getty. Petitions, multiple mails, even roping in fair trade government/international bodies to help. That'll also help players like Pond5 maintain royalties. Maybe we can take their help in ensuring that the race to the bottom does not happen

« Reply #82 on: March 27, 2019, 22:38 »
+1
One part if the problem is that we've always been reactive, we struggle against companies that cut commissions but do nothing against the ones that had low commissions to begin with. We should do a massive ask for fair commissions from companies like SS, istock, getty. Petitions, multiple mails, even roping in fair trade government/international bodies to help. That'll also help players like Pond5 maintain royalties. Maybe we can take their help in ensuring that the race to the bottom does not happen

The only solution is to unionize. As much as many of us would resist, a union where we all collectively agree to work together...refusing to submit to agencies that pay less. Agreeing collectively to set certain price policies and standards.

   It's headed in that direction. It's just a matter of time. Just as it has formed in the past when people asked: You want to pay me how much for picking your cotton? You're going to pay me how much for working in your sweat shop? A union is the only answer. It's now just a matter of someone getting it started.

« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2019, 23:52 »
0
One part if the problem is that we've always been reactive, we struggle against companies that cut commissions but do nothing against the ones that had low commissions to begin with. We should do a massive ask for fair commissions from companies like SS, istock, getty. Petitions, multiple mails, even roping in fair trade government/international bodies to help. That'll also help players like Pond5 maintain royalties. Maybe we can take their help in ensuring that the race to the bottom does not happen

The only solution is to unionize. As much as many of us would resist, a union where we all collectively agree to work together...refusing to submit to agencies that pay less. Agreeing collectively to set certain price policies and standards.

   It's headed in that direction. It's just a matter of time. Just as it has formed in the past when people asked: You want to pay me how much for picking your cotton? You're going to pay me how much for working in your sweat shop? A union is the only answer. It's now just a matter of someone getting it started.
It'll have to get started here only by us. Maybe needs to move to another thread so we don't lose the discussion with Pond5

Find the thread here https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/uniting-contributors-for-better-royalty-price-control-and-safeguarding-this-indu
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 03:28 by izzikiorage »

« Reply #84 on: March 28, 2019, 05:35 »
+4
To be honest the best path forward is to support Pond5! Now I know they are not perfect and some things you may not like but they are paying fair royalties and trying to support the artist. This is a long game not a, oh I had a big sale on SS today! 

« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2019, 09:43 »
0
Totally agree that the best thing we can do to protect and support ourselves long term is create some kind of collective voice, whether that's a formal union or loose collective. Some people are going exclusive with Pond5, for others it doesn't make financial sense - either way, it's a no-brainer that it would be tremendously beneficial to have more (any!) bargaining power with the agencies. Right now we're at their mercy, and even if you like a particular agency, make no mistake that they are much more concerned about their profit than yours. We need to level that playing field.

« Reply #86 on: March 28, 2019, 10:01 »
0
I am all for what you say but I have seen this topic posted over 15 years and no one can do anything. Point is we are all in business for ourselves and no one wants to take the time to work this through. You would have to have people commit to pulling their content and enough of them to have an impact, for photos that time has passed and for video we are getting close!

« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2019, 10:15 »
0
To be honest the best path forward is to support Pond5! Now I know they are not perfect and some things you may not like but they are paying fair royalties and trying to support the artist. This is a long game not a, oh I had a big sale on SS today!
That sarcasm at the end

« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2019, 13:20 »
+2
One part if the problem is that we've always been reactive, we struggle against companies that cut commissions but do nothing against the ones that had low commissions to begin with. We should do a massive ask for fair commissions from companies like SS, istock, getty. Petitions, multiple mails, even roping in fair trade government/international bodies to help. That'll also help players like Pond5 maintain royalties. Maybe we can take their help in ensuring that the race to the bottom does not happen

The only solution is to unionize. As much as many of us would resist, a union where we all collectively agree to work together...refusing to submit to agencies that pay less. Agreeing collectively to set certain price policies and standards.

   It's headed in that direction. It's just a matter of time. Just as it has formed in the past when people asked: You want to pay me how much for picking your cotton? You're going to pay me how much for working in your sweat shop? A union is the only answer. It's now just a matter of someone getting it started.

You aren't working for the company, you aren't picking their products, you are working for yourself. If you want to boycott or stop uploading, you only hurt yourself. There are another 10,000 artists who will fill your spot. And for a petition what will that do, hurt their feelings? To form a union you need something to hold that the company needs or wants. Labor for example. What does anybody with 10,000 pictures have to hold against the agency with 250 million images? If you can find that, you can start a union. If not, you're just imagining that the agencies would listen. No power, no union.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
5947 Views
Last post December 03, 2011, 14:30
by RacePhoto
8 Replies
5097 Views
Last post May 25, 2016, 00:57
by BlackJack
19 Replies
6053 Views
Last post January 16, 2019, 18:45
by Nico
4 Replies
1962 Views
Last post May 21, 2017, 11:41
by suz7
0 Replies
1301 Views
Last post February 04, 2018, 10:54
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results