pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pond5 cuts out contributors with membership product to take 100% commission.  (Read 22101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2016, 12:09 »
+1
I looked at Pond5, very early on for my still images and decided that they were a bunch of hoods then and have watched with interest, how they have performed as an entity, abusing there contributors all the way.

It's time us image creators started our own coop and got rid of the rip off artists.

Provide a good honest service to users as well as contributors. Like Stocksy but more reasonable prices.

A COOP would be great.
small % on sale price and a small fee on uploading too just to paid for servers and limit useless upload.
something like... contributor reviewer... you review so you can upload. There is many way to make it happen.
We a bunch of investors for it and a big head to manage it. - hmmmm...


« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2016, 14:43 »
+4
I understand that some (most?) agencies will eventually get involved in a price war and gradually lower the price of clips or the percentage going to artists in a way or another. That should partially be offset by increasing the number of sales to more budget conscious buyers.
But surely there is a market for professionals members of the industry who are happy to pay several hundreds for a clip and need an agency with the highest quality and a good selection.
It would be wrong if all agencies will go for the race to the bottom, one or two should take the higher segment of the market by keeping high prices and good retribution to artists, like some sort of "macroish" stock.
Pond 5, by allowing artists to set the price, was the closest thing to that: many artist upload their best clips exclusively at Pond 5 and set a price of several hundreds. At the same time, higher end buyers go to Pond 5 because they find special content.
It would not be a wise move if Pond 5 should position itself for the cheapest segment of the market
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 14:49 by Brightontl »

« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2016, 21:37 »
+6
I understand that some (most?) agencies will eventually get involved in a price war and gradually lower the price of clips or the percentage going to artists in a way or another. That should partially be offset by increasing the number of sales to more budget conscious buyers.
But surely there is a market for professionals members of the industry who are happy to pay several hundreds for a clip and need an agency with the highest quality and a good selection.
It would be wrong if all agencies will go for the race to the bottom, one or two should take the higher segment of the market by keeping high prices and good retribution to artists, like some sort of "macroish" stock.
Pond 5, by allowing artists to set the price, was the closest thing to that: many artist upload their best clips exclusively at Pond 5 and set a price of several hundreds. At the same time, higher end buyers go to Pond 5 because they find special content.
It would not be a wise move if Pond 5 should position itself for the cheapest segment of the market

I've slightly re-written your message below:

"agencies are will eventually get involved in a price war and are gradually lowering the price of clips or the percentage going to artists"

Examples:

1. SS reduced 4k From 299 to 199
2. VB offers $49 HD from the standard of $79, but at least you get 100%......currently. But others will have to follow if they get the right amount of traction
3. Dissolve screwed contributors by penalizing them if they contributed to VB, forcing them to sell the Dissolve content at $49 (instead of $79), but only giving you 30 percent of that 49 bucks
4. IStock screwed all non exclusive video contributors by only paying a royalty of like 15% ($6-$8 bucks a clip) regardless of HD or 4K.....you get the same regardless of size.

I am sure others can chime in with more examples.

« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2016, 04:45 »
0
Mantis, I perfectly agree with you.
There has been a consolidation of the market towards the low end of the consumer segment, with lower prices to appeal bloggers, people posting in social networks, etc. This is a normal economic trend and it will go on.
What is unusual is that some agencies (maybe be one or two) should position themselves for the higher end of the professional market, where price is not a concern, up to a certain point.
The idea behind macrostock was that corporate could buy an image or clip of the highest quality for several thousand, with some sort of exclusivity , and save huge amounts of money compared to doing it internally. Also, TVs or online newspapers are happy to pay several hundreds for quality editorial content. I have the feeling that most of them are going back to producing their content internally at much higher cost because nobody cater for their needs

« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2016, 05:11 »
+1
I understand that some (most?) agencies will eventually get involved in a price war and gradually lower the price of clips or the percentage going to artists in a way or another. That should partially be offset by increasing the number of sales to more budget conscious buyers.
But surely there is a market for professionals members of the industry who are happy to pay several hundreds for a clip and need an agency with the highest quality and a good selection.
It would be wrong if all agencies will go for the race to the bottom, one or two should take the higher segment of the market by keeping high prices and good retribution to artists, like some sort of "macroish" stock.
Pond 5, by allowing artists to set the price, was the closest thing to that: many artist upload their best clips exclusively at Pond 5 and set a price of several hundreds. At the same time, higher end buyers go to Pond 5 because they find special content.
It would not be a wise move if Pond 5 should position itself for the cheapest segment of the market

Ha...wishful thinking!
There is no proof that high-end-buyers use P5 regularly.
They are with Shutterstock, who offers them better sales experience.
Also try to compare indemnification and liability offered from both and you will guess where big fishes go to shop.
Sadly enough we don't get much of that final bill.
Media sales is more complicated than online food ordering service!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2016, 05:19 by KnowYourOnions »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
4701 Views
Last post January 30, 2011, 02:49
by microstockphoto.co.uk
2 Replies
2439 Views
Last post November 29, 2011, 10:02
by michealo
49 Replies
9328 Views
Last post March 05, 2016, 04:12
by KnowYourOnions
8 Replies
5374 Views
Last post May 25, 2016, 00:57
by BlackJack
32 Replies
13672 Views
Last post July 07, 2017, 11:54
by Vlad

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results