pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pond 5 review changes  (Read 34588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2016, 04:24 »
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFympKLy1os

The man who made some  interesting choices after this interview, 4 years ago.
Surely he is sunning somewhere super warm while we all trying to conclude what's going on with P5.




« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2016, 04:26 »
+2
I have not been a fan of pond5 accepting literally everything so this is a welcome move...... as long as it's not too extreme without decent consideration of all footage.

« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2016, 04:31 »
0
I got a reply from P5 today and I was right. They spot check, blanket reject.  They looked at my first couple of videos, didn't like them and rejected them all.  They then went in and looked again and a few others and said we have too many of these. I pointed out to them that I have dozens that were not "over saturated" that they would not acknowledge. Verdict. All 120 rejections stand. They DO NOT review the entire batch, of large batches anyway. I am not surprised. They are going down the toilet.
Don't alamy do the same thing? Reject a whole batch if they don't like a couple of the images?

« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2016, 04:47 »
+1
Does anybody know if we can 'sneak' the refused images up again in with other batches or is there some sort of automatic system that knows that they have been refused before? My batch that got refused had images from 6 different shoots all of which had images from the same shoots approved previously.  There is no way that most of them should have been refused.  I get the feeling that a reviewer just refused them all without even looking at them properly.
ps I just looked and before refusing these last large batch I had only ever had a total of 15 rejections from them.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 05:04 by fotografer »

« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2016, 05:22 »
+1
Does anybody know if we can 'sneak' the refused images up again in with other batches or is there some sort of automatic system that knows that they have been refused before? My batch that got refused had images from 6 different shoots all of which had images from the same shoots approved previously.  There is no way that most of them should have been refused.  I get the feeling that a reviewer just refused them all without even looking at them properly.
ps I just looked and before refusing these last large batch I had only ever had a total of 15 rejections from them.

Desperation call at its best ... is there any pride left?  :o

« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2016, 05:39 »
+3
Does anybody know if we can 'sneak' the refused images up again in with other batches or is there some sort of automatic system that knows that they have been refused before? My batch that got refused had images from 6 different shoots all of which had images from the same shoots approved previously.  There is no way that most of them should have been refused.  I get the feeling that a reviewer just refused them all without even looking at them properly.
ps I just looked and before refusing these last large batch I had only ever had a total of 15 rejections from them.

Desperation call at its best ... is there any pride left?  :o
I am talking about images that have sold many times in the little while that they have been up at other sites.  One of the images refused has sold nearly 60 times at Fotolia alone in less than 2 months.  I don't put up images just for the sake of it. I am very choosy about what I upload and it really annoys me when I take the time to upoad and  they aren't reviewed properly.  It's not sourgrapes it's the fact that I know that there is nothing wrong with the images.

« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2016, 05:59 »
0
Does anybody know if we can 'sneak' the refused images up again in with other batches or is there some sort of automatic system that knows that they have been refused before? My batch that got refused had images from 6 different shoots all of which had images from the same shoots approved previously.  There is no way that most of them should have been refused.  I get the feeling that a reviewer just refused them all without even looking at them properly.
ps I just looked and before refusing these last large batch I had only ever had a total of 15 rejections from them.

Desperation call at its best ... is there any pride left?  :o
I am talking about images that have sold many times in the little while that they have been up at other sites.  One of the images refused has sold nearly 60 times at Fotolia alone in less than 2 months.  I don't put up images just for the sake of it. I am very choosy about what I upload and it really annoys me when I take the time to upoad and  they aren't reviewed properly.  It's not sourgrapes it's the fact that I know that there is nothing wrong with the images.

I hear you... but what kind of business is that, where contributors got to make plans to sneak their product in, in order to prove right!

How about writing to their investors or CEO and explain the nonsense taking place and asking for help/clarification. 

https://twitter.com/ryan1scott

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanmscot

info@stripesgroup.com


off I go...great Easter folks!
 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 06:25 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2016, 07:07 »
+2




How about writing to their investors or CEO and explain the nonsense taking place and asking for help/clarification. 


I wrote to support and didn't get a very satisfactory answer

« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2016, 07:28 »
0




How about writing to their investors or CEO and explain the nonsense taking place and asking for help/clarification. 


I wrote to support and didn't get a very satisfactory answer

ok, one last shout before I really take off for some Easter fun ....

Who is support? Some young kid working remotely on low salary, probably not knowing what you on about.
Always go to the top to get things done.
When in shop and not happy with sales assistant, you usually ask for manager to help you, no?


On a much more serious note here...
Could THIS copyright lawsuit against P5 (link below) that is going on since last September be the reason for all this paranoid behaviour?
Nobody messes up with Gordon Hempton of SoundTracker.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9470397/Hempton_v_Pond5,_Inc_et_al

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/3:2015cv05696/221382

« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 07:39 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #84 on: March 26, 2016, 07:54 »
+2
I got a reply from P5 today and I was right. They spot check, blanket reject.  They looked at my first couple of videos, didn't like them and rejected them all.  They then went in and looked again and a few others and said we have too many of these. I pointed out to them that I have dozens that were not "over saturated" that they would not acknowledge. Verdict. All 120 rejections stand. They DO NOT review the entire batch, of large batches anyway. I am not surprised. They are going down the toilet.

So they no longer review our files?

What are we supposed to do, send batches with single files? Instead of batch uploading, one or two a day?

What about 4k content, do they at least review that?

I am merely communicating what they told me...."we looked at your first few and didn't like them, so they were rejected".  That's when I wrote back and found out that they didn't even check the others. They "blanket rejected". They refused to even acknowledge the videos I pointed out that they either only had a dozen or so or none....yes none.  They did not care.

« Reply #85 on: March 26, 2016, 09:11 »
+2


Who is support? Some young kid working remotely on low salary, probably not knowing what you on about.
Always go to the top to get things done.
When in shop and not happy with sales assistant, you usually ask for manager to help you, no?



Yes you are right.  Thank you.  Have a great Easter.
ps no idea what all that copyright stuff is all about but it looks serious.

« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2016, 00:23 »
+4
I had a decent approval rate there and then suddenly hey started rejecting everything,inc. photos that were accepted and selling everywhere else (SS, FT, DT, BS...)  I wrote them and got back some canned bogus response,  I deleted all my portfolio there because other sited have better sales for me and honestly, I would rather spend my time photographing for sites that have better sales than waste any more time with Pond5.  If they get their act together, maybe but right now, Pond5 is a waste of time.

« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2016, 01:52 »
0
Itˋ s not a good place for photos, they dont know how to sell them  and now they have completly crazy rejections.

But for video they are a very, very strong agency. They were ahead of everyone else for many years.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 06:42 by cobalt »

« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2016, 03:47 »
+6
They were good for video but I'm not sure they still are after all the changes.  A lot of the good feeling I had about Pond5 has gone this year.  The only positive now is the 50% but wont that be on their list of things to ruin?

ACS

« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2016, 06:26 »
+5
With 600 files video portfolio my last sale was on Feb 29. No sales since the membership program started. Maybe I am a little bit unlucky but I do think there is a shift in sales from the private portfolios to the membership collection.

« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2016, 06:56 »
+5
With 600 files video portfolio my last sale was on Feb 29. No sales since the membership program started. Maybe I am a little bit unlucky but I do think there is a shift in sales from the private portfolios to the membership collection.

Weirdly that was the day of my last decent sale before things fell off a clip. One of the admins did post in the P5 forums saying they acknowledged there was some issues and had made some changes and since then a few sales have trickled in but nothing major. Right now March 2016 running at 10% of March 2015 in revenue.

« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2016, 08:23 »
+2
My belief is that we are only seeing the beginning of the P5 transition from fair trade to something quite different. With new management & funding, my gut tells me we will see a 50% royalty go to 30%.  I think it's also probable that they will do more to control pricing. If they create a boutique-type collection (which it looks like they are doing) that will be a "premium collection"priced accordingly.  If buyers find something in the "general"collection they won't want to pay boutique pricing, they would likely expect to pay quite less.  The collections can't compete; there has to be a clear divide between them, which is content and price.  The only way to make that work is to devalue or control the general collection in some way so as to make the boutique collection of higher perceived value. The reason I say this is that other sites offer spectacular footage at regular micro stock rates. P5 won't be able to compete with that so the only way is to devalue existing work below the threshold of which the boutique collection is priced.  In any event Pond 5 has begin eroding the trust of its contributors who helped build them. Classic behavior once you are rolling in dough.  The direction of their inspections alone has alienated a lot of us contributors, especially knowing that they spot check and batch reject, even after waiting 10 weeks for inspection to happen. No thank you Pond 5.

As I mentioned earlier, I hope the rumors are true that Istock is feeling the pinch on video and changing their game later this year to be " a little bit "more equitable on royalties.  If anyone follows the Istock forums feel free to post any news you find on this, if any. I browsed the forums but could only find that they are maybe going to build a CSV capability of ESPAWS, but nothing specific about the video program being re-engineered like someone said in another MSG thread.

« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2016, 11:34 »
+1
I wouldn't put much hope in istock, they would have to pay at least 30% for non exclusive content if Adobe is paying 33 and SS 30.

This would mean paying 40% or more to the exclusives.

Not very likely.

with all the debt getty has...

No, the only real hope for additional revenue at the moment is adobe, but they don't even take editorial.

If pond5 folds on the regular producers, it will be hard to replace, because it was the only real marketplace. It basically functioned as our personal webstore.

Not anymore, now it is boutique with editors that micromanage our portfolios and with curators imposing their opinion without even looking at the files.

I still don't understand why, but it is easy to see what is coming.

Maybe if enough producers ask photoshelter, or vimeo or youtube very nicely, somebody will run the numbers, look at the stage of the market and decide this is a fantastic time to get in.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 11:43 by cobalt »

« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2016, 11:59 »
+1
I wouldn't put much hope in istock, they would have to pay at least 30% for non exclusive content if Adobe is paying 33 and SS 30.

This would mean paying 40% or more to the exclusives.

Not very likely.

with all the debt getty has...

No, the only real hope for additional revenue at the moment is adobe, but they don't even take editorial.

If pond5 folds on the regular producers, it will be hard to replace, because it was the only real marketplace. It basically functioned as our personal webstore.

Not anymore, now it is boutique with editors that micromanage our portfolios and with curators imposing their opinion without even looking at the files.

I still don't understand why, but it is easy to see what is coming.

Maybe if enough producers ask photoshelter, or vimeo or youtube very nicely, somebody will run the numbers, look at the stage of the market and decide this is a fantastic time to get in.

Agree. I just wonder if they realized their shortsightedness through revenue loss via contributor defection.  In simplest of terms, they could have a much more complete collection that would attract buyers that they've either lost or simply never hooked because they don't/didn't meet the very basics of a collection: variety of subject matter & breadth of each subject. Perhaps that loss may be realized and when one balances current state against future state to assess what the revenue/margin delta really is.  They HAVE TO KNOW they are getting killed in video. I am surprised any indy is even uploading 4k there when you get paid the same as HD. Pathetic. 

Anyway, I agree with you that the new rabbit hole at P5 will not really be contributor friendly for the "basic shooters"as opposed to the professional production artists they are looking for. That leaves me out.   
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 12:01 by Mantis »

« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2016, 14:32 »
+1
The istock video team have some of the loveliest people youll ever meet. They are really passionate about their community.

I am sure they are fully aware their content is lacking and producers are leaving, hardly anyone going exclusive.

But I doubt there is anything they can do, Getty simply has no money.

I still upload to istock, but only what is appropriate for 4-8 dollars..., and after everyone else.

There is no point in uploading higher quality content.

I am sure most people dont supply them at all, if you invest in production, you cant submit there.

Somebody will pick up and continue what pond5 is about to leave behind, but we might have a really difficult year in video.

I really hope Adobe starts accepting editorial soon, that would make such a difference.

However, Adobe is no real replacement for producer webshops, where you can set your own prices, create your own galleries and decide the direction of your portfolio and your business.

The entrepreneurial approach, that is what is needed somewhere.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 14:36 by cobalt »

« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2016, 16:35 »
+1
As I mentioned earlier, I hope the rumors are true that Istock is feeling the pinch on video and changing their game later this year to be " a little bit "more equitable on royalties.  If anyone follows the Istock forums feel free to post any news you find on this, if any. I browsed the forums but could only find that they are maybe going to build a CSV capability of ESPAWS, but nothing specific about the video program being re-engineered like someone said in another MSG thread.

Hi Mantis I think you probably mean me. I read on the forum that istock were going to change some of the exclusive contributors files around so some would end up in the Essentials collection. Another contributor then wrote does that mean the signature collection will be a Vetta like collection again and this was the response by a istock idmin...

"As far as a more premium tier reminiscent of Vetta, we technically have a Signature+ collection for video, and we continually edit content into it just like we do for photos. The only difference being that we do not use it as a marker for mirroring to Getty Images and it is not flagged to customers. This may change and will play into the new royalties system that we going to be rolling out later in the year yes, that's a dropped hint to something big coming, and we're confident that contributors are going to like it."

« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2016, 17:13 »
0
As I mentioned earlier, I hope the rumors are true that Istock is feeling the pinch on video and changing their game later this year to be " a little bit "more equitable on royalties.  If anyone follows the Istock forums feel free to post any news you find on this, if any. I browsed the forums but could only find that they are maybe going to build a CSV capability of ESPAWS, but nothing specific about the video program being re-engineered like someone said in another MSG thread.

Hi Mantis I think you probably mean me. I read on the forum that istock were going to change some of the exclusive contributors files around so some would end up in the Essentials collection. Another contributor then wrote does that mean the signature collection will be a Vetta like collection again and this was the response by a istock idmin...

"As far as a more premium tier reminiscent of Vetta, we technically have a Signature+ collection for video, and we continually edit content into it just like we do for photos. The only difference being that we do not use it as a marker for mirroring to Getty Images and it is not flagged to customers. This may change and will play into the new royalties system that we going to be rolling out later in the year yes, that's a dropped hint to something big coming, and we're confident that contributors are going to like it."

Thank you Cider Apple.  Probably good news for exclusives at the least.  Thanks for digging that up. Much appreciated.

KB

« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2016, 18:31 »
+4
This may change and will play into the new royalties system that we going to be rolling out later in the year yes, that's a dropped hint to something big coming, and we're confident that contributors are going to like it."
And I'm just as confident we won't.

I wonder who's going to be right?  ::)

« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2016, 19:40 »
+3
This may change and will play into the new royalties system that we going to be rolling out later in the year yes, that's a dropped hint to something big coming, and we're confident that contributors are going to like it."
And I'm just as confident we won't.

I wonder who's going to be right?  ::)

I'm going with you... ;)

« Reply #99 on: March 28, 2016, 04:15 »
+4
As I mentioned earlier, I hope the rumors are true that Istock is feeling the pinch on video and changing their game later this year to be " a little bit "more equitable on royalties.  If anyone follows the Istock forums feel free to post any news you find on this, if any. I browsed the forums but could only find that they are maybe going to build a CSV capability of ESPAWS, but nothing specific about the video program being re-engineered like someone said in another MSG thread.

Hi Mantis I think you probably mean me. I read on the forum that istock were going to change some of the exclusive contributors files around so some would end up in the Essentials collection. Another contributor then wrote does that mean the signature collection will be a Vetta like collection again and this was the response by a istock idmin...

"As far as a more premium tier reminiscent of Vetta, we technically have a Signature+ collection for video, and we continually edit content into it just like we do for photos. The only difference being that we do not use it as a marker for mirroring to Getty Images and it is not flagged to customers. This may change and will play into the new royalties system that we going to be rolling out later in the year yes, that's a dropped hint to something big coming, and we're confident that contributors are going to like it."
If they were going to raise royalties wouldn't they say "we are going to raise royalties"?  A new system could well mean they have found an new way to cut royalties, maybe raise prices so we make a bit more per sale?  As the previous royalty cuts were dressed up as something we would like, I wouldn't get too excited about this.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2090 Views
Last post January 09, 2014, 09:33
by Mantis
11 Replies
11129 Views
Last post June 18, 2014, 10:12
by PeterChigmaroff
0 Replies
1996 Views
Last post August 27, 2014, 12:41
by kentannenbaum
Pond 5 #4

Started by Rinderart Shutterstock.com

9 Replies
2730 Views
Last post December 15, 2015, 15:12
by everest
1 Replies
1261 Views
Last post February 28, 2016, 14:02
by ChrisGardinerPhotography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results