MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Minimum prices at Pond5  (Read 18254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: October 23, 2016, 12:22 »
+3
If you're confident that your work is better than the rest, then by all means, price higher. But isn't the purpose of a free market that everyone should be able to do what they want? Sell how they want?

There are hundreds of thousands of completely FREE music tracks available for licensing, even directly within YouTube. Composers got really scared but I have only seen my sales go up since it was introduced a few years ago. Why would they just not go for the free stuff? Because, naturally, not every clip is identical, and not every track is identical.

If you feel threatened by other people pricing low that's your problem. You should be confident that you price what's good for you and let others do what they wish.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 13:02 by increasingdifficulty »


alno

« Reply #101 on: October 23, 2016, 12:44 »
0
I noticed that in order to ruin something good and self-organized that just works by itself many people here consistently suggest some pathetic restrictions like unions. Thankfully not Soviet Unions yet... For better future of industry of course.

The underlying tone of the union tone in this forum begins with understanding the original intent of unions themselves.  "Labor unions were created in order to help the workers with work-related difficulties such as low pay, unsafe or unsanitary working conditions, long hours, and other situations." The talk of such unions in here isn't about "pathetic restrictions", it's about a fair pay, fair play model. Businesses like DP and FT continue to find ways to cheat the contributor and the speak in here was mainly about a support mechanism (a union of some sort) to protect the contributor.  I'm not saying a union is the answer because I don't know, but the idea behind what unions were originally meant to be sounds awfully good right about now.  Without such a mechanism, we will continue to see a decline in pricing and commissions within the micro stock industry.

What kind of fair pay can we talk about? What is low pay or universal fair pay for a hipster from New York, senior from Switzerland and teenager from Belarus? It's all not about semi-slavery and making same bolts and nuts at the same factory and living in the same neighborhood in late 1880's. Every single contributor is free to upload or not upload, nobody is forced. If somebody seeing constant decline of his or her income there is no any cheating, it only means there are people somewhere in the world who are ready to work for less income. That is their fair pay and that is their way of supporting their families. Will you blame them for it? Sometimes I read video stock community news in some Russian social network. This comunity is quite small, but several new members are being added every single day. It's because of either average Russian monthly salary less than $500 or f..d up national photo and video market. What is fair pay for them? Will they join any kind of union carrying them away from some famous cheap stock site?

« Reply #102 on: October 23, 2016, 15:32 »
+1
I noticed that in order to ruin something good and self-organized that just works by itself many people here consistently suggest some pathetic restrictions like unions. Thankfully not Soviet Unions yet... For better future of industry of course.

The underlying tone of the union tone in this forum begins with understanding the original intent of unions themselves.  "Labor unions were created in order to help the workers with work-related difficulties such as low pay, unsafe or unsanitary working conditions, long hours, and other situations." The talk of such unions in here isn't about "pathetic restrictions", it's about a fair pay, fair play model. Businesses like DP and FT continue to find ways to cheat the contributor and the speak in here was mainly about a support mechanism (a union of some sort) to protect the contributor.  I'm not saying a union is the answer because I don't know, but the idea behind what unions were originally meant to be sounds awfully good right about now.  Without such a mechanism, we will continue to see a decline in pricing and commissions within the micro stock industry.

What kind of fair pay can we talk about? What is low pay or universal fair pay for a hipster from New York, senior from Switzerland and teenager from Belarus? It's all not about semi-slavery and making same bolts and nuts at the same factory and living in the same neighborhood in late 1880's. Every single contributor is free to upload or not upload, nobody is forced. If somebody seeing constant decline of his or her income there is no any cheating, it only means there are people somewhere in the world who are ready to work for less income. That is their fair pay and that is their way of supporting their families. Will you blame them for it? Sometimes I read video stock community news in some Russian social network. This comunity is quite small, but several new members are being added every single day. It's because of either average Russian monthly salary less than $500 or f..d up national photo and video market. What is fair pay for them? Will they join any kind of union carrying them away from some famous cheap stock site?

Like I said, I don't know the answers, I was pointing out why unions are discussed here.

« Reply #103 on: October 23, 2016, 15:56 »
+2
I noticed that in order to ruin something good and self-organized that just works by itself many people here consistently suggest some pathetic restrictions like unions. Thankfully not Soviet Unions yet... For better future of industry of course.

The underlying tone of the union tone in this forum begins with understanding the original intent of unions themselves.  "Labor unions were created in order to help the workers with work-related difficulties such as low pay, unsafe or unsanitary working conditions, long hours, and other situations." The talk of such unions in here isn't about "pathetic restrictions", it's about a fair pay, fair play model. Businesses like DP and FT continue to find ways to cheat the contributor and the speak in here was mainly about a support mechanism (a union of some sort) to protect the contributor.  I'm not saying a union is the answer because I don't know, but the idea behind what unions were originally meant to be sounds awfully good right about now.  Without such a mechanism, we will continue to see a decline in pricing and commissions within the micro stock industry.

What kind of fair pay can we talk about? What is low pay or universal fair pay for a hipster from New York, senior from Switzerland and teenager from Belarus? It's all not about semi-slavery and making same bolts and nuts at the same factory and living in the same neighborhood in late 1880's. Every single contributor is free to upload or not upload, nobody is forced. If somebody seeing constant decline of his or her income there is no any cheating, it only means there are people somewhere in the world who are ready to work for less income. That is their fair pay and that is their way of supporting their families. Will you blame them for it? Sometimes I read video stock community news in some Russian social network. This comunity is quite small, but several new members are being added every single day. It's because of either average Russian monthly salary less than $500 or f..d up national photo and video market. What is fair pay for them? Will they join any kind of union carrying them away from some famous cheap stock site?

Like I said, I don't know the answers, I was pointing out why unions are discussed here.

First of all, FT is one of the best agencies from a contributors relations point of view. Not sure where  you see the cheating you are talking about.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with unions, as long as the "union" is on voluntary basis. The problem is that in several areas, union membership is mandatory, or else you can't exercise your profession.
Moreover, one of the primary union goals is to block new comers to compete with union members, by supporting those politicians who favor minimum wage laws, regulations and certifications. Certifications and minimum wage laws insure that unemployed people, desperate to work, even for lower wages, are denied employment. From this point of view, unions harm exactly the poor they claim they help.

From a similar point of view, I see nothing wrong with people selling cheap clips on P5. They are hurting themselves, when they sell under market prices.
Let them be free to be wrong.

Fyi, all clips I sell on P5 are equal or more expensive than SS. I start slightly under SS prices and I bump them up as soon as I get a sale.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 16:17 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #104 on: October 23, 2016, 17:26 »
0
I noticed that in order to ruin something good and self-organized that just works by itself many people here consistently suggest some pathetic restrictions like unions. Thankfully not Soviet Unions yet... For better future of industry of course.

The underlying tone of the union tone in this forum begins with understanding the original intent of unions themselves.  "Labor unions were created in order to help the workers with work-related difficulties such as low pay, unsafe or unsanitary working conditions, long hours, and other situations." The talk of such unions in here isn't about "pathetic restrictions", it's about a fair pay, fair play model. Businesses like DP and FT continue to find ways to cheat the contributor and the speak in here was mainly about a support mechanism (a union of some sort) to protect the contributor.  I'm not saying a union is the answer because I don't know, but the idea behind what unions were originally meant to be sounds awfully good right about now.  Without such a mechanism, we will continue to see a decline in pricing and commissions within the micro stock industry.

What kind of fair pay can we talk about? What is low pay or universal fair pay for a hipster from New York, senior from Switzerland and teenager from Belarus? It's all not about semi-slavery and making same bolts and nuts at the same factory and living in the same neighborhood in late 1880's. Every single contributor is free to upload or not upload, nobody is forced. If somebody seeing constant decline of his or her income there is no any cheating, it only means there are people somewhere in the world who are ready to work for less income. That is their fair pay and that is their way of supporting their families. Will you blame them for it? Sometimes I read video stock community news in some Russian social network. This comunity is quite small, but several new members are being added every single day. It's because of either average Russian monthly salary less than $500 or f..d up national photo and video market. What is fair pay for them? Will they join any kind of union carrying them away from some famous cheap stock site?

Like I said, I don't know the answers, I was pointing out why unions are discussed here.

First of all, FT is one of the best agencies from a contributors relations point of view. Not sure where  you see the cheating you are talking about.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with unions, as long as the "union" is on voluntary basis. The problem is that in several areas, union membership is mandatory, or else you can't exercise your profession.
Moreover, one of the primary union goals is to block new comers to compete with union members, by supporting those politicians who favor minimum wage laws, regulations and certifications. Certifications and minimum wage laws insure that unemployed people, desperate to work, even for lower wages, are denied employment. From this point of view, unions harm exactly the poor they claim they help.

From a similar point of view, I see nothing wrong with people selling cheap clips on P5. They are hurting themselves, when they sell under market prices.
Let them be free to be wrong.

Fyi, all clips I sell on P5 are equal or more expensive than SS. I start slightly under SS prices and I bump them up as soon as I get a sale.

Again I am not saying unions are the answer but what you describe is today's unions.  What you describe is exactly what they have evolved into. And for that reason alone I agree with your statement.  I was watching high school football last week and then spoke to a buddy of mine. I asked him why is it you think I really enjoyed watching high school football and he hit the nail on the head. It is pure and untainted. That is the utopian union I was mentioning....what their original intent was....when the poor were getting poorer without unions.

« Reply #105 on: October 23, 2016, 17:56 »
0
I noticed that in order to ruin something good and self-organized that just works by itself many people here consistently suggest some pathetic restrictions like unions. Thankfully not Soviet Unions yet... For better future of industry of course.

The underlying tone of the union tone in this forum begins with understanding the original intent of unions themselves.  "Labor unions were created in order to help the workers with work-related difficulties such as low pay, unsafe or unsanitary working conditions, long hours, and other situations." The talk of such unions in here isn't about "pathetic restrictions", it's about a fair pay, fair play model. Businesses like DP and FT continue to find ways to cheat the contributor and the speak in here was mainly about a support mechanism (a union of some sort) to protect the contributor.  I'm not saying a union is the answer because I don't know, but the idea behind what unions were originally meant to be sounds awfully good right about now.  Without such a mechanism, we will continue to see a decline in pricing and commissions within the micro stock industry.

What kind of fair pay can we talk about? What is low pay or universal fair pay for a hipster from New York, senior from Switzerland and teenager from Belarus? It's all not about semi-slavery and making same bolts and nuts at the same factory and living in the same neighborhood in late 1880's. Every single contributor is free to upload or not upload, nobody is forced. If somebody seeing constant decline of his or her income there is no any cheating, it only means there are people somewhere in the world who are ready to work for less income. That is their fair pay and that is their way of supporting their families. Will you blame them for it? Sometimes I read video stock community news in some Russian social network. This comunity is quite small, but several new members are being added every single day. It's because of either average Russian monthly salary less than $500 or f..d up national photo and video market. What is fair pay for them? Will they join any kind of union carrying them away from some famous cheap stock site?

Like I said, I don't know the answers, I was pointing out why unions are discussed here.

First of all, FT is one of the best agencies from a contributors relations point of view. Not sure where  you see the cheating you are talking about.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with unions, as long as the "union" is on voluntary basis. The problem is that in several areas, union membership is mandatory, or else you can't exercise your profession.
Moreover, one of the primary union goals is to block new comers to compete with union members, by supporting those politicians who favor minimum wage laws, regulations and certifications. Certifications and minimum wage laws insure that unemployed people, desperate to work, even for lower wages, are denied employment. From this point of view, unions harm exactly the poor they claim they help.

From a similar point of view, I see nothing wrong with people selling cheap clips on P5. They are hurting themselves, when they sell under market prices.
Let them be free to be wrong.

Fyi, all clips I sell on P5 are equal or more expensive than SS. I start slightly under SS prices and I bump them up as soon as I get a sale.

Again I am not saying unions are the answer but what you describe is today's unions.  What you describe is exactly what they have evolved into. And for that reason alone I agree with your statement.  I was watching high school football last week and then spoke to a buddy of mine. I asked him why is it you think I really enjoyed watching high school football and he hit the nail on the head. It is pure and untainted. That is the utopian union I was mentioning....what their original intent was....when the poor were getting poorer without unions.

A classical case of good "intentions" followed by "unintended" consequences, indeed. Today's world is full of them.
The problem is that a lot of people are still falling for it, blindly following utopic mirages. Moreover, often politicians even know their promises will never work, but they still do the promise, because this is what people like to hear. And you don't have to look far: just check what is being discussed in these presidential elections.   :o
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 18:01 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #106 on: October 24, 2016, 04:19 »
+6
All this preaching of high pricing starts to get annoying.

And extra annoying are some of the "high price" preaching footage producers at the P5 forum but then they happily added some of their content to the cheap mempership program. ;)

« Reply #107 on: October 24, 2016, 05:56 »
+1
Spacestock, What price do you have for your clips on Pond5 out of interest?

$50 for HD and $99 for 4k. I think I have a couple of clips at $25, but they're far from impressive.


Too cheap, you don't do yourself or anyone else any favours by selling so cheap. Try higher prices for a few months and I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised, I know I was.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #108 on: October 24, 2016, 22:55 »
+1
You want someone to tell you specifically how to price your product. I've explained that you have to make that decision on your own

We're going in circles because you're not reading my posts! I'm not asking for a pricing strategy*, or advice on what I should set my prices at. I'm asking for somebody to explain to me how submitting my work to an established stock selling site that sells HD content for $8, a site that has been doing so for ten years... is going to result in the end of stock footage as we know it. I want to know why pricing low is not sustainable and why pricing high is sustainable.

These are questions I've asked several times and nobody can give me an answer.

*In a couple of posts I've asked why should something be $X rather than $X, but there I'm not really looking for pricing advice, I'm just curious why people have this fixed figure in their head of exactly $X... not $1 more or less.

« Reply #109 on: October 24, 2016, 23:27 »
+1
You want someone to tell you specifically how to price your product. I've explained that you have to make that decision on your own

We're going in circles because you're not reading my posts! I'm not asking for a pricing strategy*, or advice on what I should set my prices at. I'm asking for somebody to explain to me how submitting my work to an established stock selling site that sells HD content for $8, a site that has been doing so for ten years... is going to result in the end of stock footage as we know it. I want to know why pricing low is not sustainable and why pricing high is sustainable.

These are questions I've asked several times and nobody can give me an answer.

*In a couple of posts I've asked why should something be $X rather than $X, but there I'm not really looking for pricing advice, I'm just curious why people have this fixed figure in their head of exactly $X... not $1 more or less.

People probably don't understand why you want to earn less when most content producers are always looking to earn more. Maybe you get a kick out of selling your clips for less than you could and earning less as a result.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #110 on: October 24, 2016, 23:36 »
+2
You want someone to tell you specifically how to price your product. I've explained that you have to make that decision on your own

We're going in circles because you're not reading my posts! I'm not asking for a pricing strategy*, or advice on what I should set my prices at. I'm asking for somebody to explain to me how submitting my work to an established stock selling site that sells HD content for $8, a site that has been doing so for ten years... is going to result in the end of stock footage as we know it. I want to know why pricing low is not sustainable and why pricing high is sustainable.

These are questions I've asked several times and nobody can give me an answer.

*In a couple of posts I've asked why should something be $X rather than $X, but there I'm not really looking for pricing advice, I'm just curious why people have this fixed figure in their head of exactly $X... not $1 more or less.

People probably don't understand why you want to earn less when most content producers are always looking to earn more. Maybe you get a kick out of selling your clips for less than you could and earning less as a result.

It's quite simple. Although I earn a lot less on VideoHive per sale, I earn more than any of the other sites I sell on, due to the volume I sell.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #111 on: October 24, 2016, 23:42 »
+4
And it's not about wanting to earn less, it's about wanting to earn more... not selling a clip on VH for $8 doesn't automatically mean it will then sell on SS for $79 instead. I see VH sales as being 'in addition to' the higher priced sites, not instead of. 

« Reply #112 on: October 25, 2016, 01:02 »
+2
And it's not about wanting to earn less, it's about wanting to earn more... not selling a clip on VH for $8 doesn't automatically mean it will then sell on SS for $79 instead. I see VH sales as being 'in addition to' the higher priced sites, not instead of.

Did you arerrive in stock photography yesterday....it seems so by your statements..... This has been said ad nauseum and that argument does not hold ground one inch if you mean selling the same clips for 79$ at one place while doing the same for 8 quids on another. This is just plain dumb. Now if you segment your content creations by perceived quality/ production value that is another thing. There is a reson in all other industries a Ferrari has a different price to a Skoda or to eat a Filet Mignon you have to pay more than a boiled egg. People in stock photography don't seem to understand this rule. That says it all about the IQ of many suppliers in this industry.

« Reply #113 on: October 25, 2016, 01:18 »
+1
"That says it all about the IQ of many suppliers in this industry."

An incredibly arrogant statement. I almost take this personal. ;D

« Reply #114 on: October 25, 2016, 02:27 »
+1
"That says it all about the IQ of many suppliers in this industry."

An incredibly arrogant statement. I almost take this personal. ;D

Don't take it personally. There is truth in the statement.

« Reply #115 on: October 25, 2016, 02:29 »
+1
Ok  :)

« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2016, 04:12 »
+3
And it's not about wanting to earn less, it's about wanting to earn more... not selling a clip on VH for $8 doesn't automatically mean it will then sell on SS for $79 instead. I see VH sales as being 'in addition to' the higher priced sites, not instead of.

Did you arerrive in stock photography yesterday....it seems so by your statements..... This has been said ad nauseum and that argument does not hold ground one inch if you mean selling the same clips for 79$ at one place while doing the same for 8 quids on another. This is just plain dumb. Now if you segment your content creations by perceived quality/ production value that is another thing. There is a reson in all other industries a Ferrari has a different price to a Skoda or to eat a Filet Mignon you have to pay more than a boiled egg. People in stock photography don't seem to understand this rule. That says it all about the IQ of many suppliers in this industry.

I am sorry, it doesnt work that way. Agencies with high list prices, especially macrostock sites, will happily sell your files for under 1 dollar even if your file is listed as 600 dollars for full size.  Sometimes more than 50% of your sales in a month are ultra low price sales. You have absolutely no control over what they will actually charge the customer.

On high volume sites with lower list price, the prices are reliable and stable, even if the individual sales price is low. The overall results in the year is often much higher.

The only thing that counts is the money you actually make.

And the most important factor, is not the price, but visibility in search results. If your files are at the back of the search, you make zero money.

That and of course if the agency is good at marketing and attracting customers.

You can play around with price levels all you want, if the customers dont see your files your portfolio is dead.

Video is in the very, very early stages, only about 5 million files. But the flood is coming and it wont be long when the agencies will be swamped with 1 million videos a week.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 11:07 by cobalt »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #117 on: October 25, 2016, 08:04 »
+2
And it's not about wanting to earn less, it's about wanting to earn more... not selling a clip on VH for $8 doesn't automatically mean it will then sell on SS for $79 instead. I see VH sales as being 'in addition to' the higher priced sites, not instead of.

Did you arerrive in stock photography yesterday....it seems so by your statements..... This has been said ad nauseum and that argument does not hold ground one inch if you mean selling the same clips for 79$ at one place while doing the same for 8 quids on another. This is just plain dumb. Now if you segment your content creations by perceived quality/ production value that is another thing. There is a reson in all other industries a Ferrari has a different price to a Skoda or to eat a Filet Mignon you have to pay more than a boiled egg. People in stock photography don't seem to understand this rule. That says it all about the IQ of many suppliers in this industry.

Maybe on Pond5, but what about Shutterstock or iStock or Fotolia... your egg would cost exactly the same as your filet mignon. That shouldn't really matter if it's on a low priced site, or a high priced site, as end of the day... when it comes to sites where you can't set the price, it's the quality of the clip that that will dictate the number of sales, not the price. On a site where you can set the price, the price will dictate the number of sales, in conjunction with the quality of the clip.

But saying that, do you have all your best stuff on Artbeats, all your worst stuff on Videohive, and all your somewhere in between stuff on SS, iS and FT? If not, then I'm assuming you only sell on sites where you can set your own price... otherwise you're contradicting your own analogy.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #118 on: October 25, 2016, 10:22 »
+3
However... in the meantime, I'm going to leave these questions here, and maybe post them every day or two, in the hope that somebody will answer at least some of them, at some point, before the sun expands and engulfs the Earth.

How does pricing high make selling stock footage sustainable, and pricing low makes it unsustainable? How does pricing low contribute to the demise of the stock industry? Is there any evidence to show that's the caseor is that just a feeling? If videohive has been selling stock for ten years without resulting in the demise of Shutterstock, iStock or Fotolia... then what are the odds it will contribute to their downfall in the next one, five or ten years?

« Reply #119 on: October 25, 2016, 14:07 »
+4
Now istock will pay a minimum of 0.02 c to non exclusives.....but don't worry because contributors will surely make it up in volume.....but wait......Shutterstock is loosing ground I guess to Istock for once, among other agencies.....so what should they do.....increase prices of assets? pay more to contributors...? I think not...;-) But hey...we really have not to worry, as we surely will sell 100x more, all heard a 1000x before....

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #120 on: October 25, 2016, 16:19 »
+1
Now istock will pay a minimum of 0.02 c to non exclusives.....but don't worry because contributors will surely make it up in volume.....but wait......Shutterstock is loosing ground I guess to Istock for once, among other agencies.....so what should they do.....increase prices of assets? pay more to contributors...? I think not...;-) But hey...we really have not to worry, as we surely will sell 100x more, all heard a 1000x before....

Aww, bless your heart! Volume pricing only really results in considerably more sales when the prices are considerably less than elsewhere. Not when most prices are pretty much in the same region as most of the other big sites.

Don't worry Everest, I'm sure you'll figure it all out one day. You'll get there. Were all here for you if you get stuck and have questions though. 

« Reply #121 on: October 25, 2016, 16:26 »
0
Now istock will pay a minimum of 0.02 c to non exclusives.....but don't worry because contributors will surely make it up in volume.....but wait......Shutterstock is loosing ground I guess to Istock for once, among other agencies.....so what should they do.....increase prices of assets? pay more to contributors...? I think not...;-) But hey...we really have not to worry, as we surely will sell 100x more, all heard a 1000x before....

Aww, bless your heart! Volume pricing only really results in considerably more sales when the prices are considerably less than elsewhere. Not when most prices are pretty much in the same region as most of the other big sites.

Don't worry Everest, I'm sure you'll figure it all out one day. You'll get there. Were all here for you if you get stuck and have questions though.

Wrong ! Volume pricing is all about if you are a dominant player in the market or not. But as you believe in hocus pocus I suggest you to contribute to many of the agencies on the bottom of the list on your right side. They make huge volumes as some are selling images unlimited for 99$/year. They sell so much that their servers just blow up every three months. Just  chewing it for you....so you can digest it better......

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #122 on: October 25, 2016, 17:21 »
+2
Cheers dude... not sure what I'd do without you! But yes, you're right about the prominent player part, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong about the pricing part as well. People need to find your stuff, obviously, and they're not going to do that if the site doesn't have any traffic or buyers. But when the buyers do get there, it's not outside the realms of possibility that they'll buy more content as the content is cheaper.

But Videohive does have a lot of buyers, which is one of the reasons why I have a large volume of sales. And one of the reasons why they have a lot of buyers, is probably because they have low prices.

« Reply #123 on: October 25, 2016, 19:12 »
+2
Cheers dude... not sure what I'd do without you! But yes, you're right about the prominent player part, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong about the pricing part as well. People need to find your stuff, obviously, and they're not going to do that if the site doesn't have any traffic or buyers. But when the buyers do get there, it's not outside the realms of possibility that they'll buy more content as the content is cheaper.

But Videohive does have a lot of buyers, which is one of the reasons why I have a large volume of sales. And one of the reasons why they have a lot of buyers, is probably because they have low prices.

I have an idea for you using your formula for success. Price everything you have at $1 and the turnover should make you a millionaire

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #124 on: October 25, 2016, 20:54 »
+1
You really need to keep up.... the minimum at Pond is $25. But on the other side of the coin, by your reasoning, should I increase my prices to $5000 per clip, as I'll then automatically earn 100 times more every month?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4873 Views
Last post April 17, 2007, 03:50
by Gizeh
5 Replies
3232 Views
Last post July 27, 2008, 10:01
by oboy
9 Replies
5726 Views
Last post December 06, 2015, 17:50
by duben
2 Replies
3296 Views
Last post September 29, 2009, 14:37
by Dreamframer
33 Replies
8320 Views
Last post August 02, 2018, 07:04
by Sstr

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results