MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pond5 cuts out contributors with membership product to take 100% commission.  (Read 22437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 25, 2016, 12:09 »
+11
POND5 just launched a membership program which looks like videoblock's model with 200,000 videos available at $49 per month.  This P5 product has almost 2x the videos and is 1/2 the price of videoblocks...no doubt the plan is to compete directly with VB in a race to the bottom for cheaper and cheaper content.

Here are the details: https://www.pond5.com/membership

So now we have a situation where POND5 will promote the 200k video ahead of any contributor videos and will force down video prices to take market share from videoblocks by copying their business model.

After stalling for months without getting videos approved, P5 pulls this shady move and kicks all contributors in the face competing on price to further collapse any contributor revenue and take 100% of the revenue with their own 200k collection.  Sneaky little guys used their analytics data on what was selling and bought up 200k videos to fill those niches to now get 100% of the profit and cut out contributors.  Thoughts on how this analysis is wrong?



« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2016, 12:39 »
+3
Yes I saw that post but folks don't seem to get what is happening here...P5 just played everyone...they stalled for months about approvals only to be creating this VB clone product that vastly negatively impacts contributors.  Anyone that is their 'Ambassador' program should really feel duped.

« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2016, 12:43 »
+4
What? This is nothing like videoblocks. Contributors chose to opt in for a monthly payment or a per download comission (for images). Videoblocks is completely different  (see other threads if you want to know what they're like, in short awful)

« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2016, 12:46 »
+4
POND5 just launched a membership program which looks like videoblock's model with 200,000 videos available at $49 per month.  This P5 product has almost 2x the videos and is 1/2 the price of videoblocks...no doubt the plan is to compete directly with VB in a race to the bottom for cheaper and cheaper content.

Here are the details: https://www.pond5.com/membership

So now we have a situation where POND5 will promote the 200k video ahead of any contributor videos and will force down video prices to take market share from videoblocks by copying their business model.

After stalling for months without getting videos approved, P5 pulls this shady move and kicks all contributors in the face competing on price to further collapse any contributor revenue and take 100% of the revenue with their own 200k collection.  Sneaky little guys used their analytics data on what was selling and bought up 200k videos to fill those niches to now get 100% of the profit and cut out contributors.  Thoughts on how this analysis is wrong?

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion above. I suspect you don't actually understand the program and are just (over)reacting to a change to the site.
I think your "analysis" misses out a very major part of the equation (where contributors get paid for their content).

« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2016, 12:48 »
+2
Yeah, it just sounded like a subs program that they chose not to call a subs program.

« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2016, 12:50 »
+3
@Justanotherphotographer your missing the point...the payment models might be different but the product from a buyer standpoint is virtually the same. There is no doubt that p5 created this model to compete against VB...so regardless of how exactly they are paying on content doesn't matter.  As they ran the numbers and saw that a popular clip was downloaded x amount of times per month and so they can offer a monthly payment, it's just like insurance actuary math to figure out how much an asset is worth.  At the end of the day, help me understand how this is good for contributors?

« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2016, 12:51 »
+5
Yes I saw that post but folks don't seem to get what is happening here...P5 just played everyone...they stalled for months about approvals only to be creating this VB clone product that vastly negatively impacts contributors.  Anyone that is their 'Ambassador' program should really feel duped.

Just because you don't think your view is represented in a thread doesn't mean to start another one.  Just add to that one.  Otherwise you get duplicate discussions.

« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2016, 12:55 »
+1
@Copidosoma okay help me understand how this is good for contributors? The bottom line is that prices for content are coming down...ie 5 downloads for $49 = $10 downloads...

To prove my point about how they will push these membership videos over others...

https://www.pond5.com/stock-video-footage/1/.html#1/2063/membership:1

....look at the order of the checkboxes for filters and which videos come up 1st.

« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2016, 12:56 »
+1
@Sean Locke Photography I noticed after I posted and stop attacking the poster and add to the conversation if your going to post in this thread.

« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2016, 13:08 »
+3
I may be wrong but I think these sub/membership things will be the future. I will stay relaxed and when I cant make a decent amount of money somewhere in the future I will move on to something different than stock footage.

« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2016, 13:17 »
+2
$49 per month.  This P5 product has almost 2x the videos and is 1/2 the price of videoblocks...Thoughts on how this analysis is wrong?

Yes, Videoblocks costs $99 per YEAR = $8.25 per month with unlimited downloads.

Pond5 costs $349 to $599 per year for 60-120 downloads.

Quite a big difference and not even close to competing on price...

« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2016, 13:22 »
+2
@BlackJack yes I can't see how these aren't the future. Marketplaces will figure out what the best selling clips are and will buy/build/clone them and lock in buyers to a subscription model. This way they can make better revenue projections based on subscriber numbers to investors.  Plus, as a subscriber you are less likely to switch and will feel compelled to just use 1 marketplace...it's genius for the marketplaces, but it reduces the value of contributors and each clip.  All contributors are being systematically cut out of the profits...welcome to modern business consolidation as usual ;)

stockVid

« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2016, 13:26 »
+4
POND5 just launched a membership program which looks like videoblock's model with 200,000 videos available at $49 per month.  This P5 product has almost 2x the videos and is 1/2 the price of videoblocks...no doubt the plan is to compete directly with VB in a race to the bottom for cheaper and cheaper content.

Here are the details: https://www.pond5.com/membership

So now we have a situation where POND5 will promote the 200k video ahead of any contributor videos and will force down video prices to take market share from videoblocks by copying their business model.

After stalling for months without getting videos approved, P5 pulls this shady move and kicks all contributors in the face competing on price to further collapse any contributor revenue and take 100% of the revenue with their own 200k collection.  Sneaky little guys used their analytics data on what was selling and bought up 200k videos to fill those niches to now get 100% of the profit and cut out contributors.  Thoughts on how this analysis is wrong?


Changes are inevitable.

Stay relaxed - work hard - create a niche - you will survive the changes.

« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2016, 13:33 »
+1
As long as the subs collection doesn't get too big and stays relatively low quality, I'm not too concerned.  Don't blame Pond5, blame Videoblocks for coming up with this model and all the people here that fell for their 100% when it was obvious that they were likely to make other sites do this if they attracted enough buyers.

« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2016, 13:36 »
+4
@Sean Locke Photography I noticed after I posted and stop attacking the poster and add to the conversation if your going to post in this thread.

Yes sir!

« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2016, 13:49 »
+1
As long as the subs collection doesn't get too big and stays relatively low quality, I'm not too concerned. Don't blame Pond5, blame Videoblocks for coming up with this model and all the people here that fell for their 100% when it was obvious that they were likely to make other sites do this if they attracted enough buyers.

From buyers point of view, why would they opt for low quality and pay for membership well in advance. I simply doubt that will happen.

« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2016, 11:57 »
+1
Isn't this the same as the Bigstock deal that everybody was upset about? But Pond5 is a popular site so they get a free pass. It's going to hurt, it's going to cut into you r earnings. Stop trying to find excuses why it's not going to hurt income.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/

Agencies will pay up front, flat fee, own their own content. Video, photo, graphics. This is the future. Remember when people wondered what the next cut would be? Can't cut commissions, so why not divert sales to the home collection.

« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2016, 12:52 »
+1
really bad thing....

« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2016, 13:01 »
+2

Agencies will pay up front, flat fee, ... This is the future.

Interesting you say that.

I had a contract with a gallery selling some of my photos. My share was 30% of each sale. I made a few thousands dollars in 2015, from this colaboration.

Now they consider a new contract were they proposed to pay upfront, for a few hundreds of prints of a given photo, at once. But I am only supposed to get 10%, upfront.
Guaranteed 10% for me, instead of "maybe" 30%.

This obviously means more risks for them, since they have to invest, upfront, in printing things that might not sell as much as expected.

I have yet to decide what to do. Advice is welcome.




Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 13:07 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2016, 13:09 »
0
We need to get used to the idea of sub packages but all agencies weren't created equal. Pond5 has a much better offering for contributors than videoblocks.

« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2016, 14:16 »
+2

Agencies will pay up front, flat fee, ... This is the future.

Interesting you say that.

I had a contract with a gallery selling some of my photos. My share was 30% of each sale. I made a few thousands dollars in 2015, from this colaboration.

Now they consider a new contract were they proposed to pay upfront, for a few hundreds of prints of a given photo, at once. But I am only supposed to get 10%, upfront.
Guaranteed 10% for me, instead of "maybe" 30%.

This obviously means more risks for them, since they have to invest, upfront, in printing things that might not sell as much as expected.

I have yet to decide what to do. Advice is welcome.




Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Tell them you need to try it for a year and would like to split your content 50/50 between both models. Sell it as being good for them as well, to see if the risk is worth it for them.

Then, after a year, you can both negotiate a new deal that works for everyone.

If they are really interested in your work, they should agree to test phase for both parties.

« Reply #22 on: February 29, 2016, 16:09 »
+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.

« Reply #23 on: February 29, 2016, 20:15 »
+3
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.

Well, if what they are doing is abusing their contributors, call me a masochist. I just got another $35 for a footage clip today. There aren't too many other places that do that for me on such a regular basis (ever).

Have whatever opinion of them you want. Whatever helps you deal with not selling material there.

As long as everyone knows that it is the opinion of an outsider.


« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2016, 01:29 »
0
I don't get it either how are they hoods? Good percentage, set your prices. Could you explain what your issue with them was?

« 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
4735 Views
Last post January 30, 2011, 02:49
by microstockphoto.co.uk
2 Replies
2494 Views
Last post November 29, 2011, 10:02
by michealo
49 Replies
9522 Views
Last post March 05, 2016, 04:12
by KnowYourOnions
8 Replies
5546 Views
Last post May 25, 2016, 00:57
by BlackJack
32 Replies
14215 Views
Last post July 07, 2017, 11:54
by Vlad

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results