Quote from: cobalt on May 11, 2025, 01:31

Now we have to wait for what getty will do.

Are your hopeful Getty will be able to improve pond5 ?

I don't know. If I look at how my videos are sold on istock I am not that optimistic.

On the other hand the merger will basically create a monopoly for editorial content, both photo and video.

Getty also does occasionally have some very high special licenses, so perhaps we might get more of that.

But I keep getting nudged to send videos to istock. Consensus seems to be if you have 10k videos there you will make 600-1200 dollars as an indie.

And from different creators I am given similar numbers for non exclusive content.

I think the biggest question is the royalty?

I get 30% on p5 for indie content. What will happen to that with a merger?

And will they keep the exclusive program?

Will content be distributed over all the merged companies?

So many questions.

For now I will just focus on uploading content. I only have 1090 videos on pond5. Shame on me.

If you write less on forums, you can shoot and upload more videos. This is an axiom. 

A statement that certainly also applies to you too ;-)

Quote from: danielvisuals on May 11, 2025, 02:43

Quote from: cobalt on May 11, 2025, 01:31

Now we have to wait for what getty will do.

Are your hopeful Getty will be able to improve pond5 ?

So many questions.

Remember back in the days when we use to have reps from almost all the agencies active here on the forum?

This should tell you all you need to know.

The only supply that increases are the endless amount of duplicates.


Actual fresh content going into needed genres is a tiny amount.



Just look at Adobe

- kw people / all assets - 66 million files

- people, Germany - 263k

- people india - 574k

- people china - 472k

If you think of all the different professions, food, business needs for many countries of the world there is hardly any content. Just duplicates and more duplicates.

Even 66 million files with kw people is very little

Once you drill down into more specifics you see that "everything" is missing.

There is a huge supply of content. But it is an endless stream of duplicate content, not carefully researched needed content for buyers.

Or food

- food/all assets - 89 million

- food, china - 744k

- food, india - 480k

- food germany - 208k files

My favorite search: recipe and documentation of a baking a black forest cake , ideally with the happy family gathered around a table and eating it too.

- black forest cake recipe - 8k cakes, but not a single systematic recipe that you can put in your blog or food magazine or cut into your youtube channels. Forget about the happy family and grandma having a Sunday afternoon black forest cake...

I have been using the black forest cake example for over 10 years. One day I will have to do that recipe and document it.

As soon as you start looking for a systematically documented progress of anything, the myth of 1 billion images in agencies just collapses.


Also stock agencies need fresh material every year with the latest visual styles, the latest electronics, the latest meme trends, the latest news and editorial.

Ai could be used to fill the missing content.

But - what do the ai providers do - they sort any kw by downloads or popular and copy the first 3 pages down to the last detail...so even more copies of copies.

Which does not mean I agree with using a random reject algo to "cull it down" without any logic. The Rejectiongate on Adobe is crazy.

Adobe should simply implement upload limits, then the upload slot becomes valuable and producers will automatically be more selective and look for missing content instead of duplicating.


So, yes, business is supply and demand.

But the supply in stock is not targeting the demands.

I also disagree that agencies don't need us.

Crowd sourcing always just means that a platform is an open entry point and allows talent that works hard to move to the top.

The majority of producers try stock, then drop out after 2 years when they realize it is hard work.

And where the uploads go, the clients follow.

Shutterstock broke up with the creative community and closed all forums to stop interacting with the producer community.

But no matter how many agencies they bought, the creators, the content and the buyers kept running away from them.


Obviously everybody has to make their own decisions, but as long as I see gigantic gaps in the colections and noone producing needed content, i will be happy to do that for the rest of my life.

Obviously everybody has to make their own decisions, but as long as I see gigantic gaps in the colections and noone producing needed content, i will be happy to do that for the rest of my life.

It depends on what you mean by necessary content. If it's only what you need, but what's not on the stocks, then this is not necessary content for most buyers.
I have videos on some topics that are not on the stocks. And do you think people buy these videos from me? Zero sales! Zero!
You need to shoot not what you think you need to shoot or what you need, but what is trending on the stocks and what the stocks recommend shooting. All stocks publish advice on what content they need.
You write about some duplicates, but this is normal. This is how it should be. If you shoot a model who does something, then in a month you should shoot another model who does the same thing. Buyers need different faces. No one wants to use the same model all the time in their projects.
Therefore, in reality, the stocker's job is not to search for something that is not on stocks (and that no one needs. And you have no idea what buyers need if it is not on stocks), but only to shoot stories that are either trending or that the stock recommends shooting.

I obviously mean content that is missing and needed by buyers.

The concept of "missing" is very vague. Stocks are a competitive market. This means that I can upload what is already on the market and compete with other authors. Accordingly, even in a saturated market, you can compete and make money.
The phrase "needed by buyers" is also not clear. Usually, all authors know what buyers need and all stocks write about it.
Thus, you do not have to reinvent the wheel, but shoot what everyone shoots and this is also needed by buyers.
But, if you can make a list of what buyers need and what is scarce on stocks and you guarantee that this content will sell well, you can publish this list, I will read it. 

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 15, 2025, 03:51

Quote from: stoker2014 on May 11, 2025, 03:08

As for getty, this is not a classic stock. This stock sells videos at very low prices.

Yeah, so cheap! Lol

https://www.gettyimages.com/plans-and-pricing

You probably don't sell videos on iStock. Authors who sell know that for 99% of videos, authors receive from 2 to 9 dollars. Basically, the author receives less than 5 dollars.
The prices you indicate possibly may only apply to exclusive content.

If you meant iStock, you probably should have said iStock. But you didn't. And those prices do not only apply to exclusive content, but please, do continue guessing and making stuff up to support your position. We all love it when you do that.

The last month or so ive been hammered by P5 buyer aimed emails offering crazy discounts (latest is 50 audio tracks for $10 etc).
Never really saw any of this.  Wondering if Shutterstock enshitification is hitting them so driving bargain basement sales.

Looking at the numbers, 2024 average income per month: 238$, for 2025: 100$.

P5 should of just left things the way they were.

How does a reputable company with a more than a decade long history of selling stock video to the public become so irrelevant?

Just shows how far things have fallen for the stock video industry in general.

Pond5 is definitely not dead. We might also have a surprise dataset payout in September. I certainly hope so !