Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on September 14, 2016, 12:17
No it doesn't. Curiosity about the correct price point for your work signals nothing more than being sensible. Is $79 the holy grail of pricing? Does it automatically result in optimal sales numbers? What data do you have to support this?
[...]
Your professional opinion on the optimal minimum pricing, just happens to coincide with 'what Shutterstock charge'.

Shutterstock is one of the market leaders. If they sell for HD for $79 they probably have research results that show that most customers are fine with that price level. If the agency is performing well with these prices over a long period, I would say that it is not "too expensive" but probably close to the sweet spot. AFAIK Fotolia has similar prices and they are also doing well.

I price the vast majority of my HD clips at $75 and 4K at $150-250.
The reasoning behind that is that I prefer when buyers buy my clips from P5 because of the royalties, but at the same time I don't want to (significantly) undercut other major agencies, because when they react and undercut me, I will lose the most.

Quote from: LDV81 on September 14, 2016, 21:55
If they sell for HD for $79 they probably have research results that show that most customers are fine with that price level.

The thing with Shutterstock is that very few clips actually sell for the full price... They usually give discounts in the form of clip packs. So it's not really $79... In my experience, only about 1-2 out of 10 go for $79. Many go for half that.

As we speak...the copyrights lawsuit is in full swing...Hempton v. Pond5, Inc. 
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9470397/Hempton_v_Pond5,_Inc_et_al

What is this lawsuit about, in non-legalese?

I think that the pricing gap between sites like Envato and others like SS is too high. The whole stock market needs a new concept of RF or Rm which bases its pricing on usage like a) rpivate or b) commercial usage.

The cheap sites exist (and won't go anywhere) because there is an enormous market for them. This is a market that simply cannot pay $79 for a single clip - the YouTube market, and the very small business owner market (Grandma's apple juice, with YouTube marketing). It is up to each photographer to supply them, naturally, and maybe not give them their best stuff.

The market still exists though, and they will only buy there, or not at all (steal, or just not produce).

I agree they should have tiered licensing (more than the two options) so that a real company would still pay $80-300 per clip if they are used in a commercial/film/tv.

Quote from: ccbcc on September 26, 2016, 19:45
What is this lawsuit about, in non-legalese?

It's about    17:101 Copyright Infringement...

Still on...over 1 year... wow!!!

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