MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Pond5 => Topic started by: Noedelhap on October 04, 2016, 05:20
-
Received this exciting (no, really) email:
Our goal is to help you grow your business on Pond5. One of the trends we’ve seen recently is that some creative assets are being under-priced and can command a price greater than what they are currently listed for. We want to address that.
Starting on October 6, 2016 we will be raising the minimum price for all video assets on the site to the following:
4K / 4K+
$50 Minimum
HD / 2K
$25 Minimum
SD / WEB
$15 Minimum
Good news! Even though the minimum prices are still far from what I would ask, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully it also teaches some contributors the value of video footage.
-
Way too low of course :\
-
--
-
Way too low of course :\
HD minimum increased by 150% and you can still set the prices to whatever you want...
Personally, I think that a common cat clip can cost $25 while a hyperlapse spanning five buildings in Madrid can cost $300. I think it's crazier to set "easy" clips to $79 while hard clips cost the same... THAT, if anything, will lead to people looking elsewhere for lower prices.
-
I got the email too. I made some of my videos $10 so they probably want more profit ... Not sure if it will hurt my sales though...
Why do you set clip prices so low? I think by setting too low might hurt your sales more than raising prices.
Can we see those 10$ clips :)
-
I'm surprised how pond5 has become quite a good selling agency with such inconsistency and experimentation. Raising minimum prices seems good for contributors but quite desperate irrational action with rapidly growing collection. It's quite obvious that trashy clips numbers are increasing way faster than quality ones as they are produced by thousands instead of hundreds.
I always wondered why some simple 150 frames long static 4K clip has to cost 200 times more than a screenshot from it :)
-
I've never figured out why 4K has to be four times more than HD. Sure, there's four times more pixels, but does it cost four times more to produce? Yes, you'll get people saying about render times, storage space, the cost of cameras for example. But take storage... if you get $75 more for a 4K clip then you only need to sell one and you've got a 1TB hard drive right there.
The shooting takes the same time, the editing as well, maye not rhe rendering... yes, you need better equipment, but I still think that 4K is overpriced. What's going to happen when 8K is on the up in five to ten years? Will that be $800 a clip? Will 16K be $3200?
If stock is anything like the technology used to create it, then 4K should reduce over time, and the 8K should be sold at the price that 4K did originally. I appreciate there's more to stock than technology, but if you ask somebody why their 4K stuff is so expensive, that's usually all they'll talk about.
-
I've never figured out why 4K has to be four times more than HD. Sure, there's four times more pixels, but does it cost four times more to produce? Yes, you'll get people saying about render times, storage space, the cost of cameras for example. But take storage... if you get $75 more for a 4K clip then you only need to sell one and you've got a 1TB hard drive right there.
The shooting takes the same time, the editing as well, maye not rhe rendering... yes, you need better equipment, but I still think that 4K is overpriced. What's going to happen when 8K is on the up in five to ten years? Will that be $800 a clip? Will 16K be $3200?
If stock is anything like the technology used to create it, then 4K should reduce over time, and the 8K should be sold at the price that 4K did originally. I appreciate there's more to stock than technology, but if you ask somebody why their 4K stuff is so expensive, that's usually all they'll talk about.
There are a lot of cloud storages which cost close to nothing nowdays. 4K quadruple render time is a real issue for you I guess since you have a lot of CG.
Almost every $700+ compact camera produced recently is capable of shooting 4K, not to mention modern smartphones. Of course quality is not the same everywhere and great deal of that will look really terrible on 4K TV screen. As a stock producer I'm happy to sell some 4K footage for $191 on Videoblocks but I clearly understand that average 4K non-slow motion clip is hugely overpriced now.
-
I guess we will have to see how it goes in due time ...
-
I think these are good prices to test how they will do. If they like the result they´ll probably raise them even more.
But if they see a loss of critical volume, they might roll back.
Of course this is an opportunity for envato, if they gave people a proper upload system, they would get more content and more traffic because their prices are lower. If you are a video blogger, you´ll be looking for alternatives.
-
I got the email too. I made some of my videos $10 so they probably want more profit ... Not sure if it will hurt my sales though...
$10 per video is an absolute joke. Did you forget to take the lens cap off? You're shooting yourself and everyone else in the foot.
-
Of course this is an opportunity for envato, if they gave people a proper upload system, they would get more content and more traffic because their prices are lower.
They wouldn't get more content :) Sometimes it looks like all other agencies have saboteurs working for Videohive as reviewers not accepting 80% of uploaded footages.
-
--
-
Well done pond5...artists must be educated to value their work...raising prices is always good if you want to keep stock healthy...the only reason why bloggers buy footages at 10$ is because some hobbyst artist sell it...
Stock footage is different from stock photography...volume is not enough to price so low...
-
pond5 doesn't allow you to buy a small web size version for a lower price. Many other agencies do, so you can buy a websize for 10 dollars or less.
So the flat higher price for hd or 4k at other agencies is balanced against the option to buy a small resolution file.
And of course other agencies give very high discounts, so the 200 dollar 4k price might just be window dressing.
I like real price models, I am sure they had a look at the whole market and chose their prices close to what customers are actually paying elsewhere.
And then there is membership...high quality files for 8 dollars...will be interesting to see how many customers will switch to membership now. And of course those customers are lost to all of us who don't have files in the membership program.
-
And of course other agencies give very high discounts, so the 200 dollar 4k price might just be window dressing.
Exactly, the good people at Shutterstock do it all the time. I believe the average HD price can be somewhere closer to $59 rather than $79... That's 75%.
-
And of course other agencies give very high discounts, so the 200 dollar 4k price might just be window dressing.
Exactly, the good people at Shutterstock do it all the time. I believe the average price can be somewhere closer to $59 rather than $79... That's 75%.
Are you talking about commission or sales price? Subs (packs) or cart sales?
4K cart sales are priced at $199, we get $59.70. I have not seen discounts from that. 4K packs are priced from $185.80 to $170.36, netting us around $51-$56. I also have not seen anything lower than that. Not that I've had that many 4K sales -- probably only about a dozen over the last few years. So maybe you've seen some discounts I haven't.
-
4K cart sales are priced at $199, we get $59.70. I have not seen discounts from that. 4K packs are priced from $185.80 to $170.36, netting us around $51-$56. I also have not seen anything lower than that. Not that I've had that many 4K sales -- probably only about a dozen over the last few years. So maybe you've seen some discounts I haven't.
I was talking HD clips. Don't see many 4k sales (even though almost all my clips have a 4k version) so that's not a reality right now.
-
I was talking HD clips Don't see many 4k sales (even though almost all my clips have a 4k version) so that's not a reality right now.
Oh! Sorry, since the last several posts were all about 4K, I assumed that's what you had meant.
You're right, HD clips are supposed to be priced at $79 for cart sales, giving us $23.70, but sometimes (often) are priced less. Same goes for sub sales -- they're supposed to range around $68-74, giving us $20-$22, but those are frequently showing up at < $20. :(
-
Oh! Sorry, since the last several posts were all about 4K, I assumed that's what you had meant.
Yes, I saw that now too. I get a lot of $11.55 sales, so maybe that's a discount on a standard def version?
-
I get a lot of $11.55 sales, so maybe that's a discount on a standard def version?
Yeah, I get a lot of sales like that (that don't fit in the price range they are supposed to). I assume like you that it's a discount on the next higher bracket. So a $16 sub sale is most likely an HD, and a $8 or $10 sub sale is likely an SD. ($11.55 is close to the normal range, according to my notes.) It's a bit annoying they don't identify them as such, but it's always been that way. It happens with cart sales, too, but less often.
-
Raising the minimum can't be a bad thing. I didn't get the email but thanks for sharing.
-
Received this exciting (no, really) email:
Our goal is to help you grow your business on Pond5. One of the trends we’ve seen recently is that some creative assets are being under-priced and can command a price greater than what they are currently listed for. We want to address that.
Starting on October 6, 2016 we will be raising the minimum price for all video assets on the site to the following:
4K / 4K+
$50 Minimum
HD / 2K
$25 Minimum
SD / WEB
$15 Minimum
Good news! Even though the minimum prices are still far from what I would ask, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully it also teaches some contributors the value of video footage.
Progress! I didn't get the email, but I found out why on the P5 forums:
Hi all. We are testing higher minimum pricing levels starting with video later this week. This email went out only to artists who had clips which fell below our new minimum pricing levels. If you did not receive the email, there is nothing to worry about, your clip prices already comply. If you did receive the email please check your clips priced below the minimum and adjust accordingly. As many of you know and appreciate, we remain the only major player in the industry which allows artists to set their own prices. Please let us know if you have any questions.
So only people who had files below the new minimum got the mail. Apparently recently uploaded and unedited files which are at 1$ also trigger the mail.
-
Will they force current clips at 15 or 20 dollars up to 25 or will it just be newly uploaded content?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why would it increase my earnings, I must be missing something? And it pays my bills too. A lot more than just my bills.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
So when Author Driven Pricing is implemented on Video, and I increase my prices from $8 to $50... are you saying that instead of making $2000 a month, I'll be making $12,500 instead? Should I go for $250 per clip and sit back as $62,500 comes rolling into my account every month?
In fact, if the general consensus is that clients will pay whatever, everyone should put their prices up, quality doesn't really matter that much when it comes to pricing, and high prices won't reduce in less sales... maybe I should go for $2500 a clip. $7.5m a year would be pretty sweet. I'll get on it!
-
You just got a bit extreme with your pricing argument. That's OK but again you missed the point of SENSIBLE pricing.
-
So when Author Driven Pricing is implemented on Video, and I increase my prices from $8 to $50... are you saying that instead of making $2000 a month, I'll be making $12,500 instead? Should I go for $250 per clip and sit back as $62,500 comes rolling into my account every month?
In fact, if the general consensus is that clients will pay whatever, everyone should put their prices up, quality doesn't really matter that much when it comes to pricing, and high prices won't reduce in less sales... maybe I should go for $2500 a clip. $7.5m a year would be pretty sweet. I'll get on it!
If you increase your prices form $8 to $50 you won't make $12500, but it's very possible to make $2050 or more with less sales! Isn't it good enough reason to do it?
-
Will the income be reliable income every month? Or will it be 600 in one month, 2500 the next etc...?
For us this is not a hobby, finding the right price level for reliable income is very difficult and every portfolio and artists has their own solution what works for them.
IF you are making a living from stock.
If you don´t and stock is just the add on to your day job, you can price whatever you like and just wait and be happy.
-
So when Author Driven Pricing is implemented on Video, and I increase my prices from $8 to $50... are you saying that instead of making $2000 a month, I'll be making $12,500 instead? Should I go for $250 per clip and sit back as $62,500 comes rolling into my account every month?
In fact, if the general consensus is that clients will pay whatever, everyone should put their prices up, quality doesn't really matter that much when it comes to pricing, and high prices won't reduce in less sales... maybe I should go for $2500 a clip. $7.5m a year would be pretty sweet. I'll get on it!
If you increase your prices form $8 to $50 you won't make $12500, but it's very possible to make $2050 or more with less sales! Isn't it good enough reason to do it?
Absolutely! It's a good enough reason, but there's nothing to say that's what will happen. My earnings could go up, they could stay the same... or they might go down. I don't know, and you don't know. Not for certain anyway.
It's just the continuous 'put your prices up' advice doesn't seem to take any of this into account.
By their reasoning, it comes across as $100 a clip is always better than $50 a clip, even if your overall income takes a hit. It just seems like people would rather cut of their nose to spite their face.
I mean if you're sat in the bank managers office trying to get a mortgage, and he asks you how much you make a year... "I earn $199 per clip" just isn't going to cut it. His natural reaction would be... "Erm, yeah... that's lovely. But how much actual money do you make in a year?"
They then reply with "I get 50% of all my sales and I avoid the garbage companies" which is great, but will eventually result in the guy calling security.
Percentage's are nice. Gross sales prices are nice. But at the end of the day, nobody gives a flying puck if you're getting 100% royalties on $1000 clips if you're only selling half a dozen a year. Yes, everyone keeps saying that you'll earn more if you increase the price of your clips, but will they? Is that certain? My clips are $49 at Pond5 and $99 for 4K. Is anybody willing to guarantee my earnings if I double my prices, or put them up by 50%? We split the profit increase? I think I made $375 in September, so you'd get half of whatever I make over that if I earn more, but you have to top me up to $375 if I earn less?
-
If you never try, you'll never know!
-
Yes you WILL make more money. How do I know?
8 years testing the non exclusive market with price and quality. I'm still doing it now. In the last year I've increased my prices by about 10% across all my 60,000 video clips. They now range from $50 to $200.
There are clips in HD from 8 years ago that still sell well. There are 4K clips that sell well too.
I have animated footage (including space and Earth) that continue to sell well for high prices - usually $79 to $100. I also have easy peazy shots of landscape and cities etc. that sell equally well for $50-$69
I try to price my footage evenly across all agencies because I know customers are wise to finding the same material.
Yes $10 is a silly price. $25 is acceptable.
-
Let me also try and influence you by saying that some of my individual clips make at least $10K per year. I wish that were true for all of them :) I won't give out my name so you're going to have to trust me here :) Another reason that I'll stay anonymous is because I've also been part of the early Getty business (way back) so my experience is good.... very good!
-
Let me also try and influence you by saying that some of my individual clips make at least $10K per year. I wish that were true for all of them :) I won't give out my name so you're going to have to trust me here :) Another reason that I'll stay anonymous is because I've also been part of the early Getty business (way back) so my experience is good.... very good!
I appreciate you chiming in, UKstock. Great to hear perspectives from successful artists. As far as pricing clips goes, my biggest support of not pricing low is as I've said in previous posts on MSG about this subject: Look what happened to photos. Look at the prices customers paid in days past. And today 38 cent subs and lower. Look at agencies such as Envanto who is driving pricing down on videos. Supporting lowball sites as video demand goes up will condition customers to that pricing. The rest of the good priced sites will slowly erode into nothingness or join the low pricing bandwagon. I see video going down the same toilet Coriolis as images if we support $10 clips, even decent $25 clips. Probably a good blend of cross selling prices but clips would have to be curated well to ensure a robust cross selling mix. Specialty clips like Spacestockfootage should never sell for anything less than $79 until the market adjusts for 4k and so on. They are too good to be in the bargain bin. If there's demand customers will pay. But Envanto (among others like DP) is trying to win on price alone and that is the catalyst for impending price wars should they make a dent in the consumer base that other better priced agencies currently enjoy. It's a hard argument to win, though, when the mantra for many is why shouldn't one clean up now on high volume, low price? Money is money and I need to feed the family.
For me, I haven't uploaded any video to Envanto or DP or DT and simply will not support the low pay agencies. But many do for reasons besides what's right for the industry. That's, unfortunately, a cold, hard fact.
-
It is remarkable this: "raise your price and not only income but actual number of sales increases"
I've heard one guy raised his prices by over 120% and actually makes more sales - never mind more income.
I'm happy with my income and so don't want to risk rocking the boat - also I'm a cautious soul - so I only raised my prices by 10% and, lo and behold, I make the same number of sales (they haven't increased or decreased)
So I just gave myself a 10% rise. If things remain steady over the next month I'm going to give myself another 10%.
-
Good idea Pablito. Let us know how you get on. There are plenty of people who would love to see this working for you. BTW what price did you begin with? Are we talking $10 or vastly more?
-
"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."
"but there's nothing to say that's what will happen. My earnings could go up, they could stay the same... or they might go down. I don't know, and you don't know. Not for certain anyway....everyone keeps saying that you'll earn more if you increase the price of your clips, but will they? Is that certain?"
"Will the income be reliable income every month?"
Of course there is no perfect formula, or step by step guide, or we'd all be doing it. However, there's personal integrity. There's business ethics. There's doing the right thing for the sake of the very industry you're depending on, at the expense of some risk to yourself in the short term.
When I started in this business, I knew nothing. I was only selling SFX at iStock and was so impressed at making money doing something I considered a hobby for 20 years that I accepted anything they offered. I was even considering exclusivity. If MSG forums was around, I hadn't found it yet. When iStock took their arrogant step of reducing my share of the sales to 16%, I drew the same naive conclusions you guys are. "If I sell enough, and the dollars seem like enough each month, who cares about the details?" Fortunately, I started reading the iStock forums and some posts by sellers much more experienced and knowledgeable than myself inspired me to think a little deeper into it. I made the hard choice to seek out more fair, reputable companies, and started deleting my content from iStock. I lost money, at first, and was conflicted for a bit. But I know I was doing the right thing. And now there is no doubt that my risk payed off financially.
Unfortunately, I'm still naive enough to think we as contributors could act as a united front pushing back against such crap as taking 85% of sales of our product. But there's always too many frightened sellers. Unsure about how to proceed, but a little too confident in their narrow views. So here we are today, iStock still pays its contributors as little as 15%, Envato is selling HD vids for $8. Both with constant defenders in these forums.
We should never accept less than 50% of our sales. We should ensure our product is being priced fairly. How can these minimal standards be too much to ask? Why would any reasonable content creator argue with this?
What's pricing fairly? That's not up to me to decide for you. But take into consideration the consensus of your peers. Take into account what Shutterstock sells for, Videoblocks, the average sales prices on Pond5, Fotolia/Adobe, even iStock/Getty. How can you not conclude that less than $25 for any HD clip is absolutely ridiculous?
-
How can you not conclude that less than $25 for any HD clip is absolutely ridiculous?
I wonder why some Gucci executive not imposing everyone around that selling jeans for less than $100 is absolutely ridiculous.
-
Good idea Pablito. Let us know how you get on. There are plenty of people who would love to see this working for you. BTW what price did you begin with? Are we talking $10 or vastly more?
Hi UKStock,
$10 "You cannot be serious!" (to be said with a J.McEnroe accent)
Like you I'm full-time at this. I've been a full-time RM stills guy at Getty (and at Ace & Telegraph Colour Library before Getty had heard of Stock Photography & Corbis R.I.P.(from the day they started - as Continium).
Now it's full-time video.
I started @ $120 for HD then because of pricing pressure I reduced to $60 and am now creeping back up. Basically HD sells 'sans problem' up to $79. I've put 4K (actually UHD) at $150 and get enough sales to know that can be a minimum.
What's your pricing strategy?
-
Pablito, Yes same strategy and it works. I've increased from $69 to $79 HD and yes $149 for 4K
-
Yeah, I need to up my HD price a little quicker. Pointless selling for less than necessary.
-
My prices are double the average pricing and I'm in the top sellers (revenue) every week/month. It's very hard to pinpoint exactly which number to go for but going way above average doesn't seem like something you need to be afraid of.
-
Well here's my best selling clip...
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/51754730/global-network-orange.html (https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/51754730/global-network-orange.html)
And if you search for global network or networked earth you come up with stuff like this (there's mine on the second row)...
https://www.pond5.com/stock-video-footage/1/global-network.html#1 (https://www.pond5.com/stock-video-footage/1/global-network.html#1)
And although some of them are not that impressive, most of them are of a pretty similar standard. Some are $25, but they're mainly the pretty rubbish ones. Some of them are $60, but most of them are $49 or $50.
Yes, there are differences between mine and the others. I've gone for a more realistic kind of look whereas a lot of the others are more grid/glossy/no clouds kind of stuff. So if somebody is specifically looking for something in that style, then they might pay $79 if I was to increase the other price. Otherwise, they're going to see a bunch of clips with a similar concept, but half a dozen or so of them are $50, and one of them is $79. For some that might not be a big deal, but I think it might influence the decision of a good portion of people. I mean, they're on Pond5 at the end of the day, not Artbeats or something.
It could be said that you should price what you think your work is worth and screw everyone else... but you've got to take your competition into account. Would Pepsi and Coke be as close if Coke was twice the price?
-
How can you not conclude that less than $25 for any HD clip is absolutely ridiculous?
I just feel that people make too much of a link between selling stock and creating custom shots for clients. Would I create a custom piece for a client and sell it to them for $8 or $25? Absolutely not! Most of my clips take between half a day and a day, sometimes two days if it's pretty fancy. The last ten second space clip I made for a client I charged $500. I think that was fair for the amount of work involved. I had integrity, valued my work and charged a decent rate for some decent work.
But would I set the price of such a clip to $500 on Pond5? No way. The whole concept of stock is that you get paid out for it several times. If you're not getting paid out for it several times, then you're not making stuff that's of a good enough quality and/or there's just not enough demand for it.
The Force Awakens cost $300m. Was JJ not valuing his work, not thinking of the industry or being unethical by letting the cinemas charge $10 a go? I appreciate we're not working in the motion picture industry, but there are similarities. I just don't think it's right to create ten shots in a day, charge $100 each for them and then you've made $500 for that day if they all just sell once. It would be easier to just hire a videographer for the day for $750 and get exactly what you need, rather than something that's very close.
(I appreciate that a day's shoot can and probably will cost a lot more than $750 if you're factoring in travel, props, talent, rental fees, location fees, crew, audio etc... but if it's a local shoot with no additional stuff required and you can get 10 shots wrapped up in half a day, then $750 is plenty.)
I mean, what does it cost to make one can of Coke from scratch? Let's say $5,000,000. What does it cost to make two cans of coke? Probably $5,000,002 give or take. So if they're making two cans of Coke, they can afford to sell them at just over $2,500,000 each. Add in a bit of profit and everyone's happy. Keep going down that route and you've got a $0.50 can of Coke which still makes them a whole bunch of profit. What if you don't get enough sales to offset the initial cost of your clip... well that serves you right for not making better stuff.
If I make an average of $10 per clip, per month, for a clip that took me one day... then I'm happy enough with that. That means I'll get $600 over five years, or $80 per hour for every hour I put in. So if I get less than $5 a month then I consider the clip a bit of a failure, $10 will do, $20 is good... and thankfully I have a few that get me $50 to $75 or a bit more. Plus my After Effects stuff which can get me over $300 a month per item, but that's a bit different.
That's the way I see it. It is possible that pricing higher will bring me more profit even if there are slightly reduced sales. However, pricing lower will make my work more attainable for those that can't afford such stuff. I price at $50 or higher on every other site, but I'm happy to have my stuff on Videohive at $8 as it opens up that area of the market for me. There's a mass of people out there creating media that just don't have the money to pay $50+ per clip. Places like VideoHive gives them the ability to create that media, but without the hefty costs.
I think, although I could be wrong, that there's a slightly different clientele on VideoHive than there is on SS and iS and all that jazz. I don't think that ditching all my stuff on VH would mean that people would buy it on other sites instead, I think they just wouldn't buy it.
And last but not least, a lot of people keep mentioning price wars and erosion of the market and a race to the bottom... but VH have been around for ten years and I've not seen any of this yet. Has anyone seen a whole bunch of sites putting their prices down to compete with VH? Sure, there's the subscription offerings, but that's a bit different. It's not like Shutterstock changing from $79 to $69 is going to have all the VH customers jumping ship and heading to SS.
Anyway, that's the way I see it!
-
I know it's only a short time, but since I upped my prices by 10%, my sales haven't missed a beat. Nice to see the odd 4K at the new price too.
This is on the backdrop of most being in the membership program - so, at least for me, that hasn't affected individual sales at all. P5 is back on top by a very good margin now - even though SS are breaking records as well.......I love video!
-
My prices are double the average pricing and I'm in the top sellers (revenue) every week/month. It's very hard to pinpoint exactly which number to go for but going way above average doesn't seem like something you need to be afraid of.
How do you know you are in the top sellers every week?
-
How do you know you are in the top sellers every week?
Bottom of page: Artist Resources.
-
I see what you mean.
You mean you have some videos which are in top grossing sellers of the week. That's great.
I thought you meant that YOU were in the top grossing sellers each week! Different thing altogether.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
-
I see what you mean.
You mean you have some videos which are in top grossing sellers of the week. That's great.
I thought you meant that YOU were in the top grossing sellers each week! Different thing altogether.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
Yes, no way of knowing the total top sellers as far as I know. But one can make an educated guess that Axiomimages is #1 overall.
-
Either way, it takes some doing to appear in that list.....respect!
I got in it once - but that was before the invention of the drone ;)
-
Haha, yeah the drones have quickly devalued all those nice helicopter shots. But axiom's RED stuff still seems to sell incredibly well, so it's not all over...
Pond5 has been absolutely crazy these last two months with several thousand over my previous best month. They must have gotten a lot more new buyers or I'm just extremely lucky.
-
Here you can find some datas about october best sellers...
No wonder they are all high priced clips...
I wonder if those people that sell on evanto or videohive sell the same clips on other agencies at higher price...
https://www.pond5.com/collections/1610446-top-sellers-october-2016 (https://www.pond5.com/collections/1610446-top-sellers-october-2016)
-
So with a third of the month to go, my October sales are estimated to end up about 45% less than my September sales. I was under the impression that raising the minus from $10 to $25 would increase my sales? Was that an oversight or does it take a bit longer? I'm assuming it's the latter, as all you guys were so steadfastly convinced that sales would go up as a result, so perish the thought that any of you might be wrong.
Is a considerable dip in sales normal after a price increase, before they then increase?
If possible, anecdotal evidence, based on historical data and actual sales figures, would be preferable over views based on a non-descript, misguided, self belief in the value and importance of ones own work. Thanks!
-
Well, of course no one can say for sure what will happen on an individual basis. It is possible that there were some buyers lined up for the cheap price that then decided not to. And then it takes some time for other buyers who may sort by higher price to find the clips. It can often take weeks or even months sometimes from finding a clip to actually buying it.
Anyway, the only thing you can do is to experiment. With a couple of hundred clips I have tried different price levels at the same time so I can compare. Of course, they're not the same clips/tracks, but it can give me an idea.
In MY experience, I make the most money from my highest priced clips. They also have lots of sales from before and a few have been featured. But the buyers don't seem to be scared. Bestsellers at P5 every month so compared to other assets they must be doing pretty well. Of course, they are also what I consider to be some of my best work.
Anwyay, good luck, and maybe try different pricing for different clips if you haven't already.
I'm having the two best months ever on P5, by almost 100%! October is always good, but this is a big step up. Of course, there can be a million reasons why that has happened. Not really any new material though.
-
Spacestockfootage can i ask you how long have you been in this industry??you cannot judge changes after 1 month and you cannot compare sept with oct...every month is different,it's a rollercoaster...
Btw the datas confirms that no one of 10/20$ clips are best sellers in october....do your maths...
-
All valid advice. I just found it slightly annoying that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all clips should be priced higher and everyone who prices their clips higher will automatically make more money.... whether it's an 8K aerial clip of New York or a handheld 720p clip of your cat shot in low light on an iPhone 4.
Some things aren't always worth $25, and pricing such stuff at $99 is highly unlikely to result in increased revenue!
-
Spacestockfootage can i ask you how long have you been in this industry??you cannot judge changes after 1 month and you cannot compare sept with oct...every month is different,it's a rollercoaster...
Btw the datas confirms that no one of 10/20$ clips are best sellers in october....do your maths...
Six years. The previous guy said three months is enough, you're saying one month is not enough... so what's the cut off point? How many days is it?
Of course the $10/$20 clips aren't bestsellers. Even I know that if your clips are in the best sellers list, then you shouldn't be pricing them at $10/$20. It just seems that almost everyone is saying that you should put your prices up across the board... even if you have a five year old clip at $10 which hasn't even sold once. Is it going to become a top seller if you put it up to $49, or $99? I can't see it happening.
But hey, we should value our work... even if it doesn't make us any money!
-
Yes every clip is different and i agree with you...i'm not saying that all clips should be priced at 199...but i wondering why people sells the same clip at 10$ on pond5 and 79 on shutterstock...buyers are not stupid and as a buyer i can say that i check every sites to buy...so in the long run low prices will end with a rush to the bottom and that isn't going to give you more money....
-
All valid advice. I just found it slightly annoying that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all clips should be priced higher and everyone who prices their clips higher will automatically make more money.... whether it's an 8K aerial clip of New York or a handheld 720p clip of your cat shot in low light on an iPhone 4.
Some things aren't always worth $25, and pricing such stuff at $99 is highly unlikely to result in increased revenue!
Again and again, you completely miss the point. Trying my best to simplify this as much as possible: Collectively, as sellers of digital content, we should never allow a company to take more than 50%, and our content should be priced high enough for long-term sustainability. Both of these are fairly impossible to imagine right now, and that's only because too many of you don't get it.
So you feel ok selling clips for $8 now, next month someone else will feel fine selling clips for $5. Next year for $2. Buyers are lulled into thinking that those prices are where they should be. This is how the photo contributors of the past screwed us all by allowing an system where iStock gets away with lowering contributor percentage to 15%. Because you guys don't care about anything but your current bottom line and your limited experience. You just want to be right, you're not listening and thinking.
If you were a $10 seller on Pond5, and the same buyers now need to pay $25 for those same clips, you're making $12.50 on each sale rather than $5. $12.50 is more that $5. If that doesn't make sense to you yet, it never will.
That being said, no one can guarantee what kind of sales you're going to have day to day, month to month. This is business. And if you want guarantees, go work for someone. If you want freedom and to be your own boss, you gotta take risks, you gotta make smart decisions that keep the future and sustainability of your business intact. Otherwise, you ARE contributing to the marginalization of what we are ALL doing.
Besides, raising or lowering prices, giving it 2 weeks and then declaring any kind of conclusion is pure amateur activity.
-
Daryl pretty much summed it up perfectly. Protect the business for the long term. BTW for the first time ever, Pond5 will be my highest earner over SS this month. That's because I raised my prices a few months back from $59 to $79 across the board. I'm selling more clips at a better price. 25% increase in sales.
-
You can buy a pair of jeans for 10 dollars and for 5000...both companies survive.
To simply say everyone who works in the Jeans industry should price their jeans at least at 1000 dollars and then customers will always pay 1000 dollars...seriously, life doesn´t work that way.
I wonder how many people here, who complain that some artist price for volume or price by quality always pay the highest prices when they go through their daily life.
Do you all practise what you preach? Buy ONLY fair trade coffe, organic food, clothes form your local tailor? Do you never order from amazon, but always go to your local stores to support them? Do you always hire a professionell painter, instead of the kid next door?
Or do you mix it up - sometimes organic and fair trade, sometimes the cheapest you can buy?
If you have a distinct portfolio with quality work, the prices other artists charge don´t affect you.
And many artists offer different prices and quality for different markets and make a very good living that way. Oversupply and thus lower visibility in the flood of files is the biggest problem.
I have photos from 30 cents to 600 dollars, and that works really well. I will follow the same strategy for video or any other products. Some products are high volume, some are not. Some clips are expensive to produce, some are not.
There used to be countries where every price was decided by the government and there was usually just one product or company per category. We all know how successful that was...
If you have active entrepreneurs and free markets, you have choices.
There are agencies that specialize in high prices - you can upload only there if you want to.
There are agencies with fixed prices, you can select them. And then there is pond5 which used to be the only free marketplace. It now has a floor at 8 dollars or whatever their lowest price is in membership.
We will see how it goes and what happens. The data from the membership program will be the most important for those looking for some help how to price their files.
However the real challenge will always be the flood. How will customers find my files, in a sea of 100 million or more?
-
Some time ago I spoke to a person who often buys clips for medium and small video projects. He said he is buying clips on Envato now and he wouldn't buy anywhere for some "crazy $79". I assume he simply downloaded them before on torrents or "special" sites for free. You and me will never trace down all usage of the clip downloaded more that 2 or 3 times from stock sites. Yes, that's thievery. What all this about is getting 2.88 per HD is better than 0 per HD. I guess lowering prices for some software in poor countries is not a courtesy of major companies, it's a way to get SOME profit instead of zero profit.
-
Daryl pretty much summed it up perfectly. Protect the business for the long term.
It's a beautiful thought. But it only works if EVERYONE does it, which is impossible and will never happen. $100 in your pocket today is worth more than possibly more down the line. You never know where the business is heading, or if it even exists 10 years from now.
It's quite simple really - you follow the buyers.
I have very different pricing on different sites, and I sell on all. I can't change the pricing on most sites, but they have lots of buyers which makes me want to sell there. People also steal my stuff, which I have seen many times. It's a fact of life in the digital age and you can't do too much about it. I have caught more than a few selling my material as their own, but can't really do more than report them and shut down their account. They probably open up a new account elsewhere and go on selling.
I don't think most buyers shop around that much on all the different sites, it's too time consuming. If they all did that I would never see any high-priced sales, but I do despite having the same material sometimes at 10% of the price elsewhere.
Buyers with high budgets don't care about $50 here and there and will buy an expensive clip/track if it fits. Buyers with low budgets will look for the lowest price meaning no sale at all, or a cheap sale.
-
All valid advice. I just found it slightly annoying that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all clips should be priced higher and everyone who prices their clips higher will automatically make more money.... whether it's an 8K aerial clip of New York or a handheld 720p clip of your cat shot in low light on an iPhone 4.
Some things aren't always worth $25, and pricing such stuff at $99 is highly unlikely to result in increased revenue!
Again and again, you completely miss the point. Trying my best to simplify this as much as possible: Collectively, as sellers of digital content, we should never allow a company to take more than 50%, and our content should be priced high enough for long-term sustainability. Both of these are fairly impossible to imagine right now, and that's only because too many of you don't get it.
So you feel ok selling clips for $8 now, next month someone else will feel fine selling clips for $5. Next year for $2. Buyers are lulled into thinking that those prices are where they should be. This is how the photo contributors of the past screwed us all by allowing an system where iStock gets away with lowering contributor percentage to 15%. Because you guys don't care about anything but your current bottom line and your limited experience. You just want to be right, you're not listening and thinking.
If you were a $10 seller on Pond5, and the same buyers now need to pay $25 for those same clips, you're making $12.50 on each sale rather than $5. $12.50 is more that $5. If that doesn't make sense to you yet, it never will.
That being said, no one can guarantee what kind of sales you're going to have day to day, month to month. This is business. And if you want guarantees, go work for someone. If you want freedom and to be your own boss, you gotta take risks, you gotta make smart decisions that keep the future and sustainability of your business intact. Otherwise, you ARE contributing to the marginalization of what we are ALL doing.
Besides, raising or lowering prices, giving it 2 weeks and then declaring any kind of conclusion is pure amateur activity.
"Collectively, as sellers of digital content, we should never allow a company to take more than 50%"
Why should you not allow them to take more than 50%? Why not 49% or 51%? Is it just that it happens to be a nice round number that you feel is fair... or is there anything a bit more concrete to it?
"and our content should be priced high enough for long-term sustainability"
What do you mean by this, I must be missing something? Does setting prices high quarantee losts of sales over an extended period of time?
"So you feel ok selling clips for $8 now, next month someone else will feel fine selling clips for $5. Next year for $2."
You probably would have said that back in 2006 when Envato started. Or in 2010 when I started selling stock there. Where are these $5 and $2 sites? Surely if next month it will be $5 and the month after it will be $2... there should be a bunch of $0.01 sites out there? But on a side note... HD was $6 when I started at VideoHive... they went up to $7 in 2012 and $8 in 2014.
"Buyers are lulled into thinking that those prices are where they should be."
Maybe they'd be right. Are they wrong? If so, where should the prices be? Have you done the research and the math or have you decided on a price that just happens to be the same as one of the sites you sell on... maybe it also happens to be the site you sell the most at? The site I sell the most at is Envato, so maybe their prices are where they should be?
"Because you guys don't care about anything but your current bottom line and your limited experience."
If I shouldn't be caring about my bottom line that has been doubling year on year since 2010, then what should I be caring about?
"You just want to be right, you're not listening and thinking."
The same could be said for you. What makes you right? What stats and facts and evidence do you have that $8 HD clips will result in the end of civilization as we know it?
If you were a $10 seller on Pond5, and the same buyers now need to pay $25 for those same clips, you're making $12.50 on each sale rather than $5. $12.50 is more that $5. If that doesn't make sense to you yet, it never will.
I thought we'd come to the consensus that as there's now less of a gap between the $25 clips and the $35/$45/$55 clips (since they increased from $10) then people will go for the more expensive clips and not buy the $25 clips. So yes, $12.50 per sale is a lot more than $5, but not if you're not selling any.
If you want freedom and to be your own boss, you gotta take risks,
So you're going to take a risk and give VideoHive a try?
"you gotta make smart decisions that keep the future and sustainability of your business intact."
I still don't get this. I must be stupid. Low prices don't automatically result in an unsustainable business. Budget airlines, dollar stores, instant noodles, McDonalds, Walmart... there's quite a few billionaire CEOs out there that might disagree with you.
Besides, raising or lowering prices, giving it 2 weeks and then declaring any kind of conclusion is pure amateur activity.
I know, I was being facetious... all the people saying "yeah, even though you don't have any clips under $25, the minimum going from $10 to $25 will mean you'll make more money!" And then I made less. But yes, I know such things take time... but I can pretty much guarantee that it's not going to happen! Do I have facts and figures to back that up? No. But you don't have anything to base your opinions on how my approach isn't sustainable either. Any increase in my earnings from now on will be due to me uploading new content. And possibly a growth in the customer base, but that'll probably be offset by all the new content.
-
Spacestock, What price do you have for your clips on Pond5 out of interest?
-
Guys if you think thay the only way to sell is lowering price i suggest to invest more time in shooting something new that stands out...i don't see a reason to sell at 25$ since i'm selling well at higher price...so again if you don't get sales at higher price you should improve your skills and shoot better...
Here it seems that the only way to sell is undercut other artists...i think the only way to sell is create something that stands out....and it's not all about price....
-
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 $25, but they're far from impressive.
-
Guys if you think thay the only way to sell is lowering price i suggest to invest more time in shooting something new that stands out...i don't see a reason to sell at 25$ since i'm selling well at higher price...so again if you don't get sales at higher price you should improve your skills and shoot better...
Here it seems that the only way to sell is undercut other artists...i think the only way to sell is create something that stands out....and it's not all about price....
I think you might have put two and two together and got a bag full of cats. If you're on about me, anyway! I've never lowered my prices and I'm very happy with my sales. And I also sell at more than $25 on Pond5 and am selling well at those higher prices.
I agree that quality is the key, I just disagree with the blind arrogance that every single person who sells stock should price their clips as high as humanely possible as they will automatically make more money as a result. Nobody has said exactly that, but it's being heavily insinuated here and there.
-
Good movement. All microstock sites must raise prices and curated image quality, similar series and composition best!
-
All microstock sites must raise prices...
Why?
-
Honestly don't care that the three vocal sellers here with a mental block against selling content at fair, sustainable prices and not letting agencies screw us over refuse to understand. Do what you want. I post my opinion not for you, but in the hopes that the silent majority of readers of these forums can have something to think about when making their decisions on what agencies to trust, and how to value their own worth. We all have choices to make, I hope more people start making the right choices for the right reasons. And you guys that have made the choice that the agencies can give you whatever percentage they want no matter how small, and that the floor is the limit on prices, good for you. Keep giving yourselves pats on the back for your nonsense analogies and theories. Keep ignoring the urging of your peers to respect our craft and business.
As it keeps getting said, the problem boils down to not enough of you wanting to do the right thing because you don't value your own product, and you honestly just don't comprehend long term business strategy. Some of us want to keep this going indefinitely, some of you want to ruin it for everyone by supporting bad companies and by having such a negative self opinion of their own work that they can't imagine someone paying reasonable money for it. It's sad actually. Fingers crossed someone with the time and energy organizes some kind of union among us to unify our cause and make this all work for the long term. But you guys would argue against that too, I'm sure.
-
The more I hear it, the more I'm convinced that people really have no idea what they're on about when they're consistently talking about sustainable prices, the long term and valuing our work. It seems like some kind of ideal, a concept that people have signed up for, where they are the masters of the universe because they own a half decent camera or a reasonable spec comouter and they actually know how to use them... but they have no real clue exactly what any of it all means.
If somebody would like to explain it to me, then I'd be happy to listen. Or you could just say something along the lines of because I don't get it now I never will... and thus reinforcing your sense of self importance, belief that you're right, and avoidance of the fact that making stock isn't exactly rocket science.
-
You asking for a step by step procedure for success. I'm giving an opinion on a philosophy. Yes, it is an ideal, a concept.
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 but you can get an good idea of how to do that by taking into consideration what the agencies have been doing. For HD: Shutterstock says $80. Videoblocks says $50. Fotolia/Adobe says $75. Average sold price on Pond5 $65. These are the top companies making real money doing this. They price these ways for a reason. So, we should really all agree that $8 is too low, that under $25 is too low. That's not really an opinion, that's what a sane, logical human would conclude by looking at those numbers. Beyond that, do what you need to do. If you create low quality content that has little value, more power to you. That's as specific as I can possibly get.
I don't price based on the fear that thieves would steal it otherwise. But that's a whole different topic.
And really, my sense of self importance? I'm freaking anonymous on here. I'm legitimately concerned when these forum threads are dominated by "sell cheap, let the agencies take all they want" and the pushing of self-destructive precedents that could be leading new artists down the path of further marginalization of our craft.
This is my last post in this thread. We're just going in circles.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"That says it all about the IQ of many suppliers in this industry."
An incredibly arrogant statement. I almost take this personal. ;D
-
"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.
-
Ok :)
-
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 doesn´t 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 don´t 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 won´t be long when the agencies will be swamped with 1 million videos a week.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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....
-
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.
-
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......
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Oh Spacestock you do make me laugh with your exaggerations lol.... $5000 indeed. No 'silly beans' you should just raise it to $50 or $70 because your work is very nice indeed. Some lovely animations like that command a good price.
I actually need some space clips for a Microsoft corporate video I'm producing. I'm off to videohive to look for it first ;) Thanks for the tip.
-
An exaggeration of lowering prices to $1 resulting in earnings of millions, required an equally proposterous exaggeration in the other direction!
But still... an exaggeration of $5000 still makes a valid point. Nobody would buy any of my clips at they were that much and people are buying my clips because they're not that much. But there's not some hard and fast line, some cutoff point where people will and won't buy. But every dollar you increase your price, it does reduce the chance of somebody buying your work. I'm not saying that an extra dollar will mean one less sale, just that people do look at the price tag, no matter how much money they have, and the more dollars you add on the harder it's going to be to justify the purchase.
Were in a crazy new world where people need more and more content and they need it better, faster and cheaper. The thing is, producing stock is also becoming better and faster and cheaper. Can we justify charging, and can buyers justify paying, $100 per clip when the average budget for a production is generally on the decrease... especially if you include Web content in that average?
And all my clips are $50 anyway! Well, on Pond5 they are. More on other sites, a lot less on Envato, obviously!
-
SpaceStockFootage what you are doing is working well for you. I don't think you have to keep defending your prices. You may never get answers to your questions. Everyone has a different technique and attitude about pricing, that is why I love Pond5. We all get to choose what works for us.
I don't sell anything at VH as they report their "share" of earning on my MISC 1099 so they don't have to pay taxes on it. Creative Market does this but they don't sell video...