MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Minimum prices at Pond5  (Read 18547 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2016, 22:30 »
+4
I'm looking forward to sites forcing top-feeders to lower their prices to (or closer to) an unrespectable level, and reduce contributing to the over-pricing of our collected product. 

I'm probably joking. A bit.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 23:01 by SpaceStockFootage »


« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2016, 03:13 »
+2
You're welcome, from those of us that pushed for this change that is going to increase your earnings against your apparent wishes. To some of us, this isn't just a hobby anymore. So try to understand how the resistance to fair pricing, supporting the companies bringing this whole industry down, and then making sarcastic cracks when a great company does something smart for everyone's benefit, try to understand how that comes off and why it might be aggravating to those of us who depend on this kind of income to pays bills.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2016, 03:16 by Daryl Ray »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2016, 04:15 »
+1
Why would it increase my earnings, I must be missing something? And it pays my bills too. A lot more than just my bills.



« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2016, 04:46 »
+3
Spacestock.... I'm one of the top 5 video selling artists in the world and trust me, you're on the wrong road if you think that stock economics works the way you think it does.  Come back here in three months and tell us how unhappy you are with your earnings at P5.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2016, 04:58 »
+1
I'm just having a bit of trouble grasping how people increasing their sub $25 clips, to $25 (or more), will result in me getting more sales.

« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2016, 05:13 »
+5
Fair enough and I understand your concern.  I was part of the iStock group who were invited into the Vetta photos and video early on.  We were sceptical then too.  We saw our earnings increase virtually overnight.  Vetta pricing was vastly more than we had been paid previously and yet customers were happy to pay.  HD clips for $100's not $25.

$25 for a clip of a duck or clouds is good value.  $50 for a shot of time lapse traffic is good value. $100 for a shot of a good looking model on a location wearing great clothes, make up artist, art direction prepared 5 days in advance, lighting, camera, travel, expenses, insurance etc...... is * good value.

Now wake up and realise that you are an artist. Behave like an artist and understand that like all artists you can earn good money for your art and still it's GOOD VALUE to corporate producers, web sites, music video editors, etc.

$10 clips will drag us into the dust.  Have respect for the artistic community. Respect yourself and stop selling yourself and us short!  We are not point and shoot idiots. We are professionals now breathe deep and act like one too.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2016, 06:22 »
+2
Well you've efficiently explained why people may be willing to pay $25 rather than $10, to the people who had previously been pricing their clips under $25... but I'm still not getting how that benefits me, a person whose clips are currently over $25.

If these people are happy to pay more for the ultra cheap clips, surely they just now have less money to spend on my clips?

« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2016, 06:41 »
+2
Maybe the concept is:

Customers that looked only at the pricing, and went for lower quality clips just because they were priced low, now that are enforced to spend almost the same for different quality level clips would (should? could? ) prefer to choose higher qulity ones.

So if I'm a contributor with low quality port I will see my sales going down, while if I have high quality clips priced accordingly my sales will increase.

This in an ideal world....we'll see in the real one.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2016, 06:57 »
+1
OK, that kind of makes sense. If Ronald started charging $50 for his burgers, then the Michelin restaurant next door wouldn't seem like that much extra for the higher quality. I'll go with that.

« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2016, 07:41 »
0
OK, that kind of makes sense. If Ronald started charging $50 for his burgers, then the Michelin restaurant next door wouldn't seem like that much extra for the higher quality. I'll go with that.

Exactly. You managed to explain it with much less words.  ;)

« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2016, 08:22 »
+3
My apologies spaceman. By your remarks about prices being too high, and support of companies like Envato, I was assuming you were one of the $10 Pond5 club members. Still have no idea why you (seemingly) would be against this minimum price increase. I tend to agree on many of your points, defending bottom barrel pricing is not one of them. My remarks were intended to be more generic, but your sarcastic rewriting of my first comment in this discussion drew a direct response from me.

Would like to think there's some truth to alexzappa's theory. General customer perception of clip values will be forced to adjust closer to reality. It's a step in the right direction, without a doubt.

My overall point, regardless, is that we all should have the philosophy of keeping our prices fair (not outrageous, fair) and not supporting the garbage companies. There has never been a valid argument otherwise, only fear, gullible contributors who buy into the bs that companies like iStock feed them, and a general misunderstanding of marketing and value of their own product.

We need more input from top sellers like UKstock. We should all be vocal and keep pressuring bottom feeders to wake up, and thief companies to clean up their act. The fact that iStock still gets away with their crap shows there's way too many misinformed, scared, uneducated sellers out there.

alno

« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2016, 03:01 »
+3
I see a lot of people with expensive equipment here willing to sell brilliant hi-end clips for quite a high price to pay for their equipment. I'm not the one who is selling my average to poor quality HDs for $10, but I'd definetely experiment with something close to it since I'm supporting the "garbage company", Envato. I'm quite new there but a lot of people I know have Envato (mostly Videohive) as the second or the third biggest earner for them. Are they crazy? I doubt that. Do they make good money with video stock in total for years? Definitely yes, especially if you consider poor average salary in Russia and Ukraine. I really don't care if Sora photography would afford their next Phantom Flex 4K with plenty of cheap worse clips on stock sites (mine too) made with cameras of 1/100 of it's price. All I know is that they all sell, Sora's much better I guess. And this is a real great free market with everybody free to set their own prices. Isn't it fair enough to set price VERY differently for same stuff shot with Phantom and Sony RX? It's every person's right to choose the pricing if it's allowed and even if somebody would give his or her clips for free it's still their right. All those minimum level adjustments seem to me as unnatural as sunset supervisor job, it all just works fine by itself.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2016, 05:00 »
+5
Call me scared and gullible... but as long as I'm getting $2000+ a month from Envato, and less than that from Pond5, Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia, Artbeats, Artbeats Express, Clip Dealer, Deposit Photos, 123RF, Dreamstime, Videoblocks and Clipcanvas combined... I'll stick with the garbage company for now.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2016, 09:14 »
+3
Hold on... I've just thought of something. If somebody is selling stuff on Pond for $10, then I'm sure the general consensus would be that they should increase their prices. And based on what people are saying here, and in a bunch of other threads, they'd make more money if they did so.

And they will increase their prices, to $25, because they have to. Maybe more, but if they were selling at $10 before then the $25 minimum is more likely.

But... what you're saying is that if there's less of a difference between this guy's stuff and my stuff, people are more likely to buy my stuff. So, as a result, this guy isn't actually going to earn more, he's going to earn less. And if this less of a difference thing works across the board, then if I put my prices up, then there will be less of a difference between my stuff and more expensive stuff... so I'll also make less, as people will be more likely to go for the more expensive stuff.

It seems slightly contradictory. Sure, I get that my stuff needs to be better than his to warrant the higher price, but the general 'put your prices up and value your work' advice seems to be dished out to everybody without taking quality into account. I'm sure nobody on the microburgergroup.com forums are telling Ronald and Hamburgler that they should be charging $10 for a beefburger.

The thing is, making stock isn't exactly rocket science, and I just feel that a lot of people put maybe a bit too much value on their work. Yes, we hear anecdotes of how people sell clips at $250 and buyers are more than happy to pay it so everything's wonderful... but who's to say that 10 sales at $250 couldn't be 100 sales at $50 or even 1000 sales at $5?

I think pricing is a bit if a dark art and there's no perfect one size fits all formula. You've got content, duration, the site you're selling it on, quality, usability, amount of similar clips you're competing with etc etc. Some clips just aren't worth $25. Some are worth more than $250.

I feel that some people are influenced a bit too much by what they feel the price should be, no matter the clip, rather than the potential value of the lifetime sales of the clip. I have a clip at Videohive that has made me $1370 over 15 months. I've probably doubled that with sales from other sites. It took me about six hours and $250 to create (I had to hire a dude to help with something I was stuck on). Am I not valuing my work if I'm earning over $450 per hour for those six hours I put in? And that's for just over a year... I'm sure I'll at least double that for the lifetime of the clip sales. It's actually three different clips where I've just changed the colours on the other two... work smart, not hard! You could say that a lot of clips just don't have that sales potential. To that, I'd say... well they're obviously not good enough. Make better stuff!

So yeah, I'm just rambling a bit now, thinking out loud.

« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2016, 12:06 »
+7
There is just no defense to selling HD clips for $8 a pop. I'm done trying to explain why it's about setting a terrible precedent for all of us and why it's going to mean you, and all of us, lose in the long run. If you don't get it yet, you never will, until it's too late. Or when enough of us that do get it step up and pressure these companies to sell at fair, sustainable prices. Oh well, screw everyone else, right?

Just glad at least Pond5 took control of what they could, slightly better chance that we can all still be doing this in 5 years.

« Reply #40 on: October 08, 2016, 12:08 »
+3
Do you have files in the membership collection?

Or does your disdain for low prices exclude subscriptions?

I think it would be very interesting if one of the chosen few would release their download numbers or income and compare that to their regular sales of 200 dollar files.

Then we could all see if low prices with ultra high volume would make sense or not.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 12:15 by cobalt »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #41 on: October 08, 2016, 13:13 »
+2
There is just no defense to selling HD clips for $8 a pop. I'm done trying to explain why it's about setting a terrible precedent for all of us and why it's going to mean you, and all of us, lose in the long run. If you don't get it yet, you never will, until it's too late. Or when enough of us that do get it step up and pressure these companies to sell at fair, sustainable prices. Oh well, screw everyone else, right?

Just glad at least Pond5 took control of what they could, slightly better chance that we can all still be doing this in 5 years.

I don't get it because you, and many others, have never actually explained why I'll lose out in the long run. You may feel like you're explaining it, but just saying that it's a dangerous precedent and everyone will lose out, isn't actually explaining why it's a dangerous precedent and everyone else will lose out.

If you could give me some kind of step by step guide on how selling lots of items at a low price for a decent overall revenue, will result in me no longer selling lots of items at a low price for a decent overall revenue... then that would be much appreciated. 


angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #42 on: October 08, 2016, 20:34 »
+2
Pond5 is like a department store - some items are very superior and SHOULD cost more (Calvin Klein perfume) and some are not-so-superior (Vanilla Fields) and are priced lower.

I do recognize when a video is so well done it deserves a $250 price. Cheers to the brilliant work. We are all working this microstock beast together ...
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 20:38 by angelawaye »

« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2016, 22:07 »
0
Using reason, mathematics and common sense didn't work. Finally, Pond5 had to force you bottom feeders to raise your prices to (or closer to) a respectable level, and reduce contributing to the cheapening of our collected product. Thank you Pond5!

Now let's see if you stubborn $10 (now $25) clip sellers will be honest and report back when your monthly dollar amounts increase in the coming months and admit that those of us begging you to raise your prices were correct and trying to steer you the right way all along.

Then maybe even after that, you'll realize we were also right about dumping bottom feeding sites like Envato and artist-hating, commission stealing pieces of garbage like iStock/Getty. Time to start letting those companies adapt or die, and time to only support the fair(er) ones.

We all know you won't though.

Great post. Any clip sold under $50 is bottom feeding IMO and to the detriment of everyone. Lift your game and pricing please bottom feeders.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2016, 22:12 »
+1
I am a "bottom feeder" according to you because 5 or so clips are priced below $25. I will be happy to report back to you the tremendous increase in the coming months...

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2016, 22:41 »
+3
The reason why bottom feeders feed at the bottom is because there's food there. There's enough food in the ocean to go around and if some people are happy eating a great white once a week, there's plenty of people happy to continuously chow down on the smaller varieties.

This is more of a devil''s advocate question, but is it to the detriment of everyone, or just to the detriment of you.... when people realise they're probably paying a bit too much?

But like Angela says... not everything is worth $10 or $50 or even $25. There's a lot of rubbish out there! Should people steadfastly keep all their clips at $50 or more, even if they are gathering dust and selling one a year?

« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2016, 02:26 »
+2
Keeping to a sensible minimum ($25 seems like an affordable rate) then all the clips from low to high quality stay reasonably buoyant.  If you bring the 'bottom feeder' clips down too low ($10 for instance) then the gap from reasonable quality pricing to low is increased.

It drags down all pricing.

After a spell of people dropping prices to compromise, what will be the new low, $5?

What will be the new high, $20?

I think what we all worry about is that race to the bottom.  Spacestock, you don't want to protect against that?

I think what might be going on here is that one persons idea of a low fee is another's high.  It also depends how much you're earning and which part of the world you're from.  $25 to someone might seem like a fortune and to another just pocket change.

There is no obvious $number for lowest priced clips but we've been in this business long enough to know that you are shooting yourself in the wallet by going too low.

I've experimented for 8 years on Pond 5 and my findings tell me it's better to go $25 and not $10.  If you just give customers a $25 option then that's what they'll buy.  If you give them a $10 option on another site then that's where they'll buy it from.   Just remove that $10 option.  What are they going to do? Stop buying clips?  No... of course not.

Make sense?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2016, 02:36 by UKstock »

« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2016, 03:34 »
0
Bottom feeders is just another name for desperation. Stock video is never going to be a turnover game unless you have 10,000 quality varied clips. I don't think the people with super low prices are doing this professionally, more likely they are part time hobbyists.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2016, 03:46 by pkphotos »

« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2016, 03:54 »
+1
Actually, my impression is the exact opposite, lots of hobbyists  totally overpricing their clips.

If you offer quality files for high prices customers will understand, but the endless sunsets, holiday snapshots and pet videos for 200 dollars?

A pro can distinguish what is high and low quality from his output and price accordingly.

Also pond5 does not offer the customer the option to buy a smaller, web resolution file for less than dollars like other agencies do.

I do this for a living, to be able to work different levels and markets is crucial if you do stock full time.

There is no "one price is right for everyone" solution. Just like there isn't just one stock picture or video for a situation.

I am always interested in real data, though.

So I would love to see numbers from the membership sales.

How many files are being sold hundreds of times a month at 6-8 dollars?

« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2016, 04:03 »
+1
Actually, my impression is the exact opposite, lots of hobbyists  totally overpricing their clips.

If you offer quality files for high prices customers will understand, but the endless sunsets, holiday snapshots and pet videos for 200 dollars?

A pro can distinguish what is high and low quality from his output and price accordingly.

Also pond5 does not offer the customer the option to buy a smaller, web resolution file for less than dollars like other agencies do.

I do this for a living, to be able to work different levels and markets is crucial if you do stock full time.

There is no "one price is right for everyone" solution. Just like there isn't just one stock picture or video for a situation.

I am always interested in real data, though.

So I would love to see numbers from the membership sales.

How many files are being sold hundreds of times a month at 6-8 dollars?


Yeah...that's the right question!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3285 Views
Last post July 27, 2008, 10:01
by oboy
9 Replies
5767 Views
Last post December 06, 2015, 17:50
by duben
2 Replies
3335 Views
Last post September 29, 2009, 14:37
by Dreamframer
33 Replies
8622 Views
Last post August 02, 2018, 07:04
by Sstr
23 Replies
1836 Views
Last post September 07, 2019, 09:08
by StockDaebak

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results