MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The membership program is a disaster for contributors.  (Read 13983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 22, 2016, 09:37 »
+3
I think Pond5 is making less money overall with the membership program too.  They should get rid of it.  No contributor should participate in that either.  It's a simple math.  If you surrender your precious video clips to that program, you are giving your HD and 4k clips for less than $14 each.  That's horrendous. 

https://www.pond5.com/membership
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 09:42 by helloitsme »


« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2016, 15:21 »
+2
Actually p5 is playing quite clever and will probably kill all of us artists.
It is making less money at the moment it is true: before they were making about $30 per sale ($60 minus the commission for artists), now they are making about $5 per sale in the horrible membership thing.
But they have managed to put together 200.000 hand picked clips of excellent quality, covering basically all the customers needs.
Their aim is to take the whole video stock market, basically the customers of SS, FT and VB and they will probably manage to do it very quickly, unless the other agencies will respond immediately by lowering their prices to single digit per clip.
P5 has started the biggest price war ever seen in the stock market and the artists who participate at the program gave them the rope to hang us all

« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2016, 16:26 »
+1
Can't the people in the membership collection thing opt out?  I don't think people thought P5 would select high quality clips.  If they opt out, P5 will disappoint any buyers they have taken from other sites and will only hurt themselves.

I don't think the other sites will get in to a price war, as it isn't the only reason buyers use sites.  That's obvious with stills, many sites do well selling the same images at higher prices.

« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2016, 16:49 »
+1
Can't the people in the membership collection thing opt out?  I don't think people thought P5 would select high quality clips.  If they opt out, P5 will disappoint any buyers they have taken from other sites and will only hurt themselves.

I don't think the other sites will get in to a price war, as it isn't the only reason buyers use sites.  That's obvious with stills, many sites do well selling the same images at higher prices.
As far as I know the contributors can get out of the scheme, but somebody should make them understand the situation.
If many of them opt out, then things will go back to normal.
This time the dumpng from p5 is too strong: for the price of 1 clip customers can download 10 clips. SS, FT and VB will have to react or die

« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2016, 17:48 »
+5
Unlike Videoblocks, Pond5's membership program consists of contributors' clips not Pond5's  own clips.  So, if everybody in the membership opts out, there'll be no membership clips.  Giving your clips to the membership program is like cutting your own wrist with a knife.  It's not good.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 21:59 by helloitsme »

« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2016, 18:54 »
+3
Unlike Videoblocks, Pond5's membership program consists of contributors' clips not Pond5's  own clips.  So, if everybody in the membership opt out, there'll be no membership clips.  Giving your clips to the membership program is like cutting your own wrist with a knife.  It's not good.

Therein lies the carrot.....members get paid beyond the $6 to have their clips in that collection.  I am sure most are happy with that and really have no concern for the long term ramifications to the industry as a whole.  Honestly, the way things are going across this whole industry I am not sure I would say no if I were invited....take it while I can get it.  It's like a guaranteed income where P5 must have used some form of actuary tables to determine that they can afford to pay members a fee for having their clips in the fancy collection. Otherwise I struggle to see how it can be profitable.

« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2016, 21:59 »
+3
Let's do the math.  Pond5 has 200,000 clips in the membership program now.  They pay $100,000/month to contributors who participate in the program, right?  Membership is $69/month now, but will be $99/month eventually. 

https://www.pond5.com/membership

It will take roughly 1,000 membership buyers to cover the cost of paying contributors.  After 1,000, it's all Pond5's.  If they get 2,000 members, They make $100,000/month by selling HD/4k clips for about $20 per clip.  Before the membership, probably the buyers used to pay $50+ per clip.  Now, they get it for $20/clip although the selection is limited, but vast at the same time.

Is my math correct?

« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2016, 22:31 »
+5
Let's do the math.  Pond5 has 200,000 clips in the membership program now.  They pay $100,000/month to contributors who participate in the program, right?  Membership is $69/month now, but will be $99/month eventually. 

https://www.pond5.com/membership

It will take roughly 1,000 membership buyers to cover the cost of paying contributors.  After 1,000, it's all Pond5's.  If they get 2,000 members, They make $100,000/month by selling HD/4k clips for about $20 per clip.  Before the membership, probably the buyers used to pay $50+ per clip.  Now, they get it for $20/clip although the selection is limited, but vast at the same time.

Is my math correct?

Contributors also get a cut of any sales over the $100,000 threshold, a little difference, but enough to keep the contributors in the scheme salivating.  Surely there must be a salivating smiley.

alno

« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2016, 03:17 »
+4
If you surrender your precious video clips to that program, you are giving your HD and 4k clips for less than $14 each.  That's horrendous. 

https://www.pond5.com/membership

Where is this 'membership' option for contributors located? I guess every person who used to buy drones, fancy cameras and lighting on stock money and who sacrifices his or her work to this nice membership should be very careful with their drones, fancy cameras and lighting since they will not buy any replacement within the next century.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2016, 03:20 by Irina Anosova »

« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2016, 04:30 »
+8
Post deleted
« Last Edit: May 23, 2016, 18:37 by Pablito »

« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2016, 05:16 »
0
Great post Pablito, I agree with pretty much everything

« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2016, 07:43 »
0
OK, so anybody else making more money participating in the membership program?

« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2016, 07:44 »
+1
If you surrender your precious video clips to that program, you are giving your HD and 4k clips for less than $14 each.  That's horrendous. 

https://www.pond5.com/membership

Where is this 'membership' option for contributors located? I guess every person who used to buy drones, fancy cameras and lighting on stock money and who sacrifices his or her work to this nice membership should be very careful with their drones, fancy cameras and lighting since they will not buy any replacement within the next century.

It is by invite only.

« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2016, 08:09 »
+5
@helloitsme, the P5 subscription is merely another salvo in the tit-for-tat battle that's been raging the past 25+ years. You are a proponent of a recent subscription service that you believe is paying you more therefore more worthy, and pardon the vulgarity, but you came into that scheme on the tit end of the saying. It's a tat now and you don't like it.

« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2016, 10:45 »
0
@helloitsme, the P5 subscription is merely another salvo in the tit-for-tat battle that's been raging the past 25+ years. You are a proponent of a recent subscription service that you believe is paying you more therefore more worthy, and pardon the vulgarity, but you came into that scheme on the tit end of the saying. It's a tat now and you don't like it.

What?  Are you the Anonymous or something?  It's my fault now? 

« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2016, 16:39 »
+9
@ Pablito
I like your attitude.
It is similar to mine: I have always been shoot, process, upload, shooit, process upload. I have never posted in forum.
Until now. What p5 is doing is just too dangerous. A sudden dumping like this has never happened, not  even in the still image market.
Overnight the market price of clips has gone from $70 to $7 and it was not called for. In video, prices could have stayed around this area for quite a while, then start to drift down, but at least 5-6 years before they reached single digit numbers.
For the moment you are happy because p5 are putting you on top of the search engine, so you are still experiencing a few sales.
In a couple of months you will realise that all your regular sales in p5 will desappear, also the sales from SS, FT, VB will disappear and you will realise that you have sold yourself for a couple of breadcrumbs.
You say you are clever beacause the money is in your bank. But what money? Maybe $1,000 from a portfolio of probably several thousands clips.
You are giving them the rope to hang you for very, very cheap
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 02:36 by Brightontl »

« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2016, 16:59 »
+4
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.

........Ah, that's better - you've reverted to a reasonable discussion and got rid of the expletives and F words - well done.......

I don't actually believe I'm getting sales because of the search engine giving me preference. That's because what I shoot generally only has 1 page of results - often only 1/2 page - so placement doesn't matter. The competition tends to be pretty weak as well.

If you're still shooting ducks or very common, not-in-demand subjects or 1,000s of similars; then the search engine is going to sink you - even if it didn't there's only slim pickings there anyway.

Love your figure estimates - you must think I do nothing but answer your questions. $1000 a month sure isn't going to keep anyone in business - my cigar bill is higher than that (that's a joke by the way - I don't smoke)
I do agree this whole membership is a risk - I didn't dream it up - I'm just a RM stills photographer who found his income hit by RF then microstocking part-timers, then microstocking full-timers.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. The scheme was happening - I had a choice to be part of it or not and see what happens next. You weren't offered it - have you wondered why that is? You of course, would have refused, but the point is: why weren't you given the choice? I know and you know.

I learned long ago that trying to get stock producers to form a cartel is like herding cats - it ain't gonna happen; so one might as well make the best of what is happening.

I still believe money in my bank right now gives me more options than faith, hope and charity.





« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 08:38 by Pablito »

« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2016, 01:22 »
+2
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.

"Smart" move...the risk is too high to lose that good algorithm position by discussing openly here.
They are watching you! Be afraid, be very afraid...that's what they want.

« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2016, 09:25 »
+1
@helloitsme, the P5 subscription is merely another salvo in the tit-for-tat battle that's been raging the past 25+ years. You are a proponent of a recent subscription service that you believe is paying you more therefore more worthy, and pardon the vulgarity, but you came into that scheme on the tit end of the saying. It's a tat now and you don't like it.

What?  Are you the Anonymous or something?  It's my fault now?
As @Pablito so succinctly put it, the shoe is merely on the other foot is all. No fault, just a recurring condition. All I'm hearing from you is "my subscription program is better than your subscription program" and your not getting all the facts correct to make a proper argument.

« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2016, 11:19 »
+4
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.

........Ah, that's better - you've reverted to a reasonable discussion and got rid of the expletives and F words - well done.......

I don't actually believe I'm getting sales because of the search engine giving me preference. That's because what I shoot generally only has 1 page of results - often only 1/2 page - so placement doesn't matter. The competition tends to be pretty weak as well.

If you're still shooting ducks or very common, not-in-demand subjects or 1,000s of similars; then the search engine is going to sink you - even if it didn't there's only slim pickings there anyway.

Love your figure estimates - you must think I do nothing but answer your questions. $1000 a month sure isn't going to keep anyone in business - my cigar bill is higher than that (that's a joke by the way - I don't smoke)
I do agree this whole membership is a risk - I didn't dream it up - I'm just a RM stills photographer who found his income hit by RF then microstocking part-timers, then microstocking full-timers.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. The scheme was happening - I had a choice to be part of it or not and see what happens next. You weren't offered it - have you wondered why that is? You of course, would have refused, but the point is: why weren't you given the choice? I know and you know.

I learned long ago that trying to get stock producers to form a cartel is like herding cats - it ain't gonna happen; so one might as well make the best of what is happening.

I still believe money in my bank right now gives me more options than faith, hope and charity.
I agree with you on many aspect and as I said I never posted in forums, but rather spend my time shooting and uploading.
The only reason why I am speaking out now is that this membership thing in p5 is making the video clip market crash too early, to soon to $6 for a clip.
200.000 hand picked, good quality clips at ten clips for the price of one is really a lot.
There are a bit more than 5 million clips on the pond. If you take away the bad ones, you are left with less than a million good quality clips. If you take away the repetitions, than you have about that number of good, non-duplicated clips. Basically the membership area is all a customer needs, plus it is much easier for them to find what they want, avoiding repetitions.
I am pretty much sure that in a couple of month, once all customers will be aware of the scheme, there will be no more sales outside the memberhip. At the same time a lot of customers will move from SS, FT and VB to this place and sales will dry up for all of us. All sales will be in the membership area where royalties to artists are not paid.
I guess SS, FT will have to react to this state of things very quickly and bring their prices for clips to single digit. They just have no choice, they cannot compete selling clips at $70 against $6.
Probably P5 will be the first to die in this war price, as they rely only on clip sales, while the other also have photo.
I know that artists cartels have never worked before, but such a dumping never occurred before, even in still images, the prices dropped at a much slower pace, not from $70 to $6 overnight.
And in this case all is needed is that artist get their clips back from the membership. Then we can probably enjoy a few more years doing what we like

« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2016, 11:25 »
+1
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.

........Ah, that's better - you've reverted to a reasonable discussion and got rid of the expletives and F words - well done.......

I don't actually believe I'm getting sales because of the search engine giving me preference. That's because what I shoot generally only has 1 page of results - often only 1/2 page - so placement doesn't matter. The competition tends to be pretty weak as well.

If you're still shooting ducks or very common, not-in-demand subjects or 1,000s of similars; then the search engine is going to sink you - even if it didn't there's only slim pickings there anyway.

Love your figure estimates - you must think I do nothing but answer your questions. $1000 a month sure isn't going to keep anyone in business - my cigar bill is higher than that (that's a joke by the way - I don't smoke)
I do agree this whole membership is a risk - I didn't dream it up - I'm just a RM stills photographer who found his income hit by RF then microstocking part-timers, then microstocking full-timers.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. The scheme was happening - I had a choice to be part of it or not and see what happens next. You weren't offered it - have you wondered why that is? You of course, would have refused, but the point is: why weren't you given the choice? I know and you know.

I learned long ago that trying to get stock producers to form a cartel is like herding cats - it ain't gonna happen; so one might as well make the best of what is happening.

I still believe money in my bank right now gives me more options than faith, hope and charity.
I agree with you on many aspect and as I said I never posted in forums, but rather spend my time shooting and uploading.
The only reason why I am speaking out now is that this membership thing in p5 is making the video clip market crash too early, to soon to $6 for a clip.
200.000 hand picked, good quality clips at ten clips for the price of one is really a lot.
There are a bit more than 5 million clips on the pond. If you take away the bad ones, you are left with less than a million good quality clips. If you take away the repetitions, than you have about that number of good, non-duplicated clips. Basically the membership area is all a customer needs, plus it is much easier for them to find what they want, avoiding repetitions.
I am pretty much sure that in a couple of month, once all customers will be aware of the scheme, there will be no more sales outside the memberhip. At the same time a lot of customers will move from SS, FT and VB to this place and sales will dry up for all of us. All sales will be in the membership area where royalties to artists are not paid.
I guess SS, FT will have to react to this state of things very quickly and bring their prices for clips to single digit. They just have no choice, they cannot compete selling clips at $70 against $6.
Probably P5 will be the first to die in this war price, as they rely only on clip sales, while the other also have photo.
I know that artists cartels have never worked before, but such a dumping never occurred before, even in still images, the prices dropped at a much slower pace, not from $70 to $6 overnight.
And in this case all is needed is that artist get their clips back from the membership. Then we can probably enjoy a few more years doing what we like


It seems like almost everybody who aren't participating in the membership program aren't happy now.  That's bad.  Bad for the contributors as a whole and bad for the industry too maybe.

« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2016, 14:57 »
+2
Nah, not prepared to share the thread with that kind of language.

........Ah, that's better - you've reverted to a reasonable discussion and got rid of the expletives and F words - well done.......

I don't actually believe I'm getting sales because of the search engine giving me preference. That's because what I shoot generally only has 1 page of results - often only 1/2 page - so placement doesn't matter. The competition tends to be pretty weak as well.

If you're still shooting ducks or very common, not-in-demand subjects or 1,000s of similars; then the search engine is going to sink you - even if it didn't there's only slim pickings there anyway.

Love your figure estimates - you must think I do nothing but answer your questions. $1000 a month sure isn't going to keep anyone in business - my cigar bill is higher than that (that's a joke by the way - I don't smoke)
I do agree this whole membership is a risk - I didn't dream it up - I'm just a RM stills photographer who found his income hit by RF then microstocking part-timers, then microstocking full-timers.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. The scheme was happening - I had a choice to be part of it or not and see what happens next. You weren't offered it - have you wondered why that is? You of course, would have refused, but the point is: why weren't you given the choice? I know and you know.

I learned long ago that trying to get stock producers to form a cartel is like herding cats - it ain't gonna happen; so one might as well make the best of what is happening.

I still believe money in my bank right now gives me more options than faith, hope and charity.
I agree with you on many aspect and as I said I never posted in forums, but rather spend my time shooting and uploading.
The only reason why I am speaking out now is that this membership thing in p5 is making the video clip market crash too early, to soon to $6 for a clip.
200.000 hand picked, good quality clips at ten clips for the price of one is really a lot.
There are a bit more than 5 million clips on the pond. If you take away the bad ones, you are left with less than a million good quality clips. If you take away the repetitions, than you have about that number of good, non-duplicated clips. Basically the membership area is all a customer needs, plus it is much easier for them to find what they want, avoiding repetitions.
I am pretty much sure that in a couple of month, once all customers will be aware of the scheme, there will be no more sales outside the memberhip. At the same time a lot of customers will move from SS, FT and VB to this place and sales will dry up for all of us. All sales will be in the membership area where royalties to artists are not paid.
I guess SS, FT will have to react to this state of things very quickly and bring their prices for clips to single digit. They just have no choice, they cannot compete selling clips at $70 against $6.
Probably P5 will be the first to die in this war price, as they rely only on clip sales, while the other also have photo.
I know that artists cartels have never worked before, but such a dumping never occurred before, even in still images, the prices dropped at a much slower pace, not from $70 to $6 overnight.
And in this case all is needed is that artist get their clips back from the membership. Then we can probably enjoy a few more years doing what we like

First of all thanks for a well constructed resume of how you think things could pan out.
Yep, lots to agree with there - logic stacks up pretty well IMHO. Except logic often doesn't come out in the wash - but there again it might.

A couple of points you made are not quite correct:
<<<All sales will be in the membership area where royalties to artists are not paid.>>>

I don't repeat what's in a contract except Pickerell stated this in another thread here (on P5 membership) so this is only a repeat of what's out there already. Participating artists will be paid a 50% cut once a certain threshold is reached. This may or may not be significant - but in the "worst case scenario" you're portraying, then it would be.

<<<but such a dumping never occurred before, even in still images, the prices dropped at a much slower pace>>>>

Yes it has.
Photographers were earning large amounts regularly (over 4 figures was largish, 3 figures average) and absolutely no very small amounts ($50 was a small amount) and along came RF where sales were by the pound (or pixel) and prices dived. That was nothing compared to when microstock arrived - contributors actually accepted amounts less than $1 for a sale (or download as they called it) I was earning on average $100 per sale and microstockers were getting less than a $1. Now that's dumping. But we still had editorial sales - many into 3 figures - then along came microstock editorial - you guessed it - contributors accepting less than $1 per download when US textbook sales were going for $250. Now that's dumping. I sure hope you're not accepting 25c or 38c for a download whilst many full-timers at other agencies are still looking to $100 from a sale.

You're gonna have to explain to me why 25c/38c is not wrecking the market.

Could it get worse for the macro photographers? Could anything force prices down more? Oh yes it can. Alamy are soon to open the way for microstockers to pile in by starting an RF editorial collection. Actually anounced by Alamy here on MSG - here's where I found out - they didn't say a dickie bird on their own forum until a guy from here innocently brought it up there and all hell broke loose.

Did I whinge when all this first started to happen years ago? You bet and big-time. We had a lot to lose - like a good living for a start. The professional RM guys have spent a not inconsiderable time in the past on the telephone into the small hours to each other wondering what the heck we could do about it all. As it turned out there were three things to be done: plod on, retire or join in.

So to the here and now - after considerable reflection on the membership scheme - my advice is to either: plod on, retire or join in.






« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2016, 15:33 »
0
Microstock worked because in the beginning there were just 1 million files and the whole world was looking for an easy and affordable download option to serve global internet needs.

Supply and demand, the internet gave us a plattform and we made crazy money.

How big is the online video stock market?

Is it just as big as photos? Then maybe we really should all price our files cheap and enjoy the flow until we reach 60 million clips and 1 million files are uploaded every week.

With photos the pendulum is swinging back, a lot of people are moving into walled gardens or into macrostock, including all the top former micro artists.

Was pond5 right to crash the party so soon?

Well, if what we hear from the sales on envato is true, people reporting up to 5 times higher income than on the pond with cheap files, then maybe it really is the right time to go for micro pricing in video.

I really dont know, I am simply not seeing the same high volume in video sales, at least compared to photos.

It is a very different market. I also think you need a lot more variations with video to give the customer the best options from a story or scene.

« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2016, 15:35 »
+1
ALL SIMILAR BUSINESS MODELS SINCE BEGINNING OF TIME:

1. MONOPOLY. CHARGE HIGH PRICES AND GIVE THE LEAST POSSIBLE

2. COMPETITION. BRINGS PRICES DOWN

3. BUY USING CREDITS. BUY MORE CREDITS FOR A DISCOUNT

4. SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. PAY MONTHLY RATE FOR ACCESS TO COLLECTION

5. AD SUPPORTED SERVICE. PAY NOTHING FOR CONTENT, SHARE AD REVENUE WITH CONTRIBUTORS.

it ain't going to get any better. stock footage companies will all eventually movie to monthly subscription plans, and then to ad sponsored sites whereby customers will get all the videos for free and contributors will get paid a share of ad revenue. people will flock to those services once the quantity and quality of content grows, and put all other business models out of business.

« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2016, 15:41 »
0
There is nothing wrong with that.

As long as you recognize which stage of the market you are in and what is the best approach.

I wasnt expecting video to crash so fast, but we will see. They still need people who will regularly supply them with membership content.

If you want to sell 6 dollar files, you can do it yourself and get paid for every sale. Youll also get the data and can use that to identify trends much faster.

« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2016, 18:59 »
+4
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 01:53 by Brightontl »

« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2016, 19:38 »
+2
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 (can I call them the fuckers or p5?) have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?


How about Wendy's?  Burger King?

« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2016, 03:40 »
0
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?

Before you blame the new management, let's not forget that ex CEO is still there working as "Executive Chairman", meaning old management is still there telling current management what to do but with much much thicker wallets than before!  8)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 18:19 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2016, 04:05 »
+3
my video sales have dropped significantly on P5, i am not in the member program

« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2016, 04:10 »
+1
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 (can I call them the fuckers or p5?) have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?


How about Wendy's?  Burger King?

Sorry, both those establishments have a full complement of staff due to applications from RM "macro" photographers 5 years ago - who are now living happy and fulfilling lives flipping burghers after microstock takeover. 
Microstockers complaining about microstock prices - I just love this business.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 07:05 by Pablito »

SquirrelPower

« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2016, 07:37 »
0

Before you blame new management, let's not forget that ex CEO is still there working as "Executive Chairman", meaning old management is still there telling current management what to do but with much much ticker wallets than before!  8)
[/quote]

Question:  What then do you think they need to do in order to increase sales?  Just going through your posts it's clear you, like many are not happy with Pond5 and presumably because your sales are low.  What would you do to change that if you ran the company?.


SquirrelPower

« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2016, 07:51 »
+1
I am not so sure it's the membership program that's killed sales.  Could it be the new slower website that doesn't work on mobile?, SEO problems?, other?.

Videoblocks has a massive collection for their membership program and charges what around $99 for a year of unlimited downloads?, Pond5 charges a lot more per month for a lot fewer downloads from  a lot smaller library.  I just can't believe that many buyers would pay so much more to be members of pond 5 when they can get so much more content for so much less at Videoblocks.

And videoblocks hasn't killed the market yet, I am sure they have taken a huge bite out of it though, you have to have something very unique to sell that is not in membership these days.

At the end of the day I do agree that we are done, this is happening to every worker in every industry these days, tech jobs by the thousands being outsourced to India, manufacturing to Mexico, taxi driving to Uber, it goes on and on and no job is safe including ours and for those joking about fast food jobs, no joke, they are automating as well an laying off workers.  Currently they are automating the ordering system, you tap and place our order at a touch screen and pay with credit card and the kitchen makes your order, all but one of the cash jobs is gone in the restaurants that have converted, next comes automating the kitchen.

So it's no surprise that the big companies in this industry want to put us out of work.


« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2016, 08:33 »
0
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 (can I call them the fuckers or p5?) have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?


How about Wendy's?  Burger King?

Sorry, both those establishments have a full complement of staff due to applications from RM "macro" photographers 5 years ago - who are now living happy and fulfilling lives flipping burghers after microstock takeover. 
Microstockers complaining about microstock prices - I just love this business.
And the lunch is free...
Don't worry, we'll keep a place for you :-)

« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2016, 08:48 »
+1
Well guys, you are probably right: p5 (can I call them the fuckers or p5?) have killed this market.
So it is over, let's all get a job at Mc Donalds. I just thought that the video clip market coud have kept us going for another few years and slowly decade.
Instead it has been stubbed on the back by the new p5 management.
Can I just wish that p5 will suffer a very slow and utterly painful death?


How about Wendy's?  Burger King?

Sorry, both those establishments have a full complement of staff due to applications from RM "macro" photographers 5 years ago - who are now living happy and fulfilling lives flipping burghers after microstock takeover. 
Microstockers complaining about microstock prices - I just love this business.
And the lunch is free...
Don't worry, we'll keep a place for you :-)
Cheers mate,... pass the vinegar - I only need a narrow seat as I'm just a shadow of my former self ;-)

« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2016, 11:17 »
0

Cheers mate,... pass the vinegar - I only need a narrow seat as I'm just a shadow of my former self ;-)
[/quote]
Plus, as a bonus, we'll have plenty of chances for video clips of food...

« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2016, 11:33 »
0

Cheers mate,... pass the vinegar - I only need a narrow seat as I'm just a shadow of my former self ;-)
Plus, as a bonus, we'll have plenty of chances for video clips of food...
[/quote]
I'll whisper this 'cos you and I know it - but I don't want it common knowledge fast food sells; it makes you fat but also rich

« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2016, 03:14 »
+2
What we need is a Union! Those agencies do whatever they like without asking those that provide them the content to sell.

« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2016, 03:52 »
0
This thread really makes me laugh. Just because one average performing stock video site is exploring a new market people are jumping on the fear and panic train. The market is not about to burn up beause of a small site like pond5 wishes to explore. Worst case they will just implode.
My Getty sales are as strong as ever - had best month last month with 84 video sales.
Shutterstock is growing rapidly -well above my expectations.

Pond5 is realativly a small player and they can't perform against the likes of Getty and Shutterstock, Adobe too. So they are looking at options.

I'm really sorry for the people who may be reliant on pond5 but seriously they are not a big player in the market. Maybe in your universe but not in reality. Just look at new options and if your content is good it will sell anywhere.

Content is king people, if yours is good then you will be fine.

Now stop panicking and adapt to the situation and move on...

« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2016, 03:54 »
0
Unfortunately for contributors the stock photo/video market is an almost perfect example of supply and demand and increasing ease of entry ......to try and stop  it is a denial of reality best to work out a way of profiting

« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2016, 05:39 »
+3
This thread really makes me laugh. Just because one average performing stock video site is exploring a new market people are jumping on the fear and panic train. The market is not about to burn up beause of a small site like pond5 wishes to explore. Worst case they will just implode.
My Getty sales are as strong as ever - had best month last month with 84 video sales.
Shutterstock is growing rapidly -well above my expectations.

Pond5 is realativly a small player and they can't perform against the likes of Getty and Shutterstock, Adobe too. So they are looking at options.

I'm really sorry for the people who may be reliant on pond5 but seriously they are not a big player in the market. Maybe in your universe but not in reality. Just look at new options and if your content is good it will sell anywhere.

Content is king people, if yours is good then you will be fine.

Now stop panicking and adapt to the situation and move on...

Been having such a different experience. Pond5 is, and has consistently been, the most profitable stock agency I've worked with over the past 5 + years. Particularly in video. To me, and a lot of other video creators, they are a massive player in the market.

Out of curiosity, what's an average Getty video sale to a contributor? 84 sales in a month sounds pretty good if we're talking $25+ a pop. But if you're seeing just a few dollars a sale, that could mean a substantially different thing. Knowing how little of the actual sales price Getty has traditionally offered it's contributors (15%?!), and the blatant lack of disclosure of their terms and "commission" rates for video on their website, including the deceptive omission of the word "exclusive" from their insincere little cut/paste email invite to their club, I never took them seriously.

Since Getty is an exclusive deal and strict with similars, how is it that you can know that those videos you have there wouldn't be doing just as good or better spread around to P5, SS, FT, VB?

« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2016, 08:47 »
+2
This thread really makes me laugh. Just because one average performing stock video site is exploring a new market people are jumping on the fear and panic train. The market is not about to burn up beause of a small site like pond5 wishes to explore. Worst case they will just implode.
My Getty sales are as strong as ever - had best month last month with 84 video sales.
Shutterstock is growing rapidly -well above my expectations.

Pond5 is realativly a small player and they can't perform against the likes of Getty and Shutterstock, Adobe too. So they are looking at options.

I'm really sorry for the people who may be reliant on pond5 but seriously they are not a big player in the market. Maybe in your universe but not in reality. Just look at new options and if your content is good it will sell anywhere.

Content is king people, if yours is good then you will be fine.

Now stop panicking and adapt to the situation and move on...

Been having such a different experience. Pond5 is, and has consistently been, the most profitable stock agency I've worked with over the past 5 + years. Particularly in video. To me, and a lot of other video creators, they are a massive player in the market.

Out of curiosity, what's an average Getty video sale to a contributor? 84 sales in a month sounds pretty good if we're talking $25+ a pop. But if you're seeing just a few dollars a sale, that could mean a substantially different thing. Knowing how little of the actual sales price Getty has traditionally offered it's contributors (15%?!), and the blatant lack of disclosure of their terms and "commission" rates for video on their website, including the deceptive omission of the word "exclusive" from their insincere little cut/paste email invite to their club, I never took them seriously.

Since Getty is an exclusive deal and strict with similars, how is it that you can know that those videos you have there wouldn't be doing just as good or better spread around to P5, SS, FT, VB?

Getty is by far the biggest earner for me. A typical sale is $80+ some way more than $150 and that's my money after Getty has taken their 80%.
Not all sales are in the typical range tho, some sales can net me $5 as Getty offer some kind of large discounts to the big purchasers.

Getty is still the main power horse for video sales (and images) and thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market. My thoughts anyway.

« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2016, 09:38 »
+4
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 09:42 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2016, 09:52 »
0
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.

 ::)

Pond5 Customer Service email template from April 2016: "...Among other things, were working on a new artists newsletter where well be communicating needs on a regular basis....."

Honest company that never keeps a promise!  ::)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 10:11 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2016, 10:03 »
+4
15-20% for EXCLUSIVE material is a horrible, horrible, shameful even, deal. Even for non-exclusive it is seriously bad.

Surely, Getty is a big player, but I have found that I increase my earnings 4-5 times by spreading out my material. This is also a good safety net for dips and close-downs (hello Revo). You place high in the search engines at some sites, lower on others, but you never know until you try.

In some fields, like selling Wordpress themes at Envato, exclusivity pays off (70% cut, huge customer base), but in most cases it doesn't.

As you said, content is king, which means that good content will most likely sell well everywhere. Which it usually also does, with natural variations.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 10:20 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2016, 10:13 »
+2
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.

 ::)

I'm someone that actually does appreciate it when contributors are putting on the pressure and keeping their good eye on stock companies, including Pond5. And I don't know what happened with you and Pond5 to harbor such constant resentment and criticism. However, I haven't once read where you actually were able to explain a single thing they've said or done that exposes dishonesty, unfairness to the contributor, or anything as bad as you're trying to make them out to be. Plenty of sarcasm, vague negativity and only getting specific with personal swipes at management. You really do usually just come off as someone with a personal gripe, that is trying to exact "revenge" any way you can from some bad experience you have trouble getting over. Criticism with a little substance might hold more weight.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 10:32 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2016, 10:32 »
0
This thread really makes me laugh. Just because one average performing stock video site is exploring a new market people are jumping on the fear and panic train. The market is not about to burn up beause of a small site like pond5 wishes to explore. Worst case they will just implode.
My Getty sales are as strong as ever - had best month last month with 84 video sales.
Shutterstock is growing rapidly -well above my expectations.

Pond5 is realativly a small player and they can't perform against the likes of Getty and Shutterstock, Adobe too. So they are looking at options.

I'm really sorry for the people who may be reliant on pond5 but seriously they are not a big player in the market. Maybe in your universe but not in reality. Just look at new options and if your content is good it will sell anywhere.

Content is king people, if yours is good then you will be fine.

Now stop panicking and adapt to the situation and move on...


Do you have to be an exclusive to sell at Getty?  You sell at Getty not iStock, right?  Can anybody sell there or invites only?

« Reply #46 on: June 02, 2016, 11:59 »
+1
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.

 ::)

I'm someone that actually does appreciate it when contributors are putting on the pressure and keeping their good eye on stock companies, including Pond5. And I don't know what happened with you and Pond5 to harbor such constant resentment and criticism. However, I haven't once read where you actually were able to explain a single thing they've said or done that exposes dishonesty, unfairness to the contributor, or anything as bad as you're trying to make them out to be. Plenty of sarcasm, vague negativity and only getting specific with personal swipes at management. You really do usually just come off as someone with a personal gripe, that is trying to exact "revenge" any way you can from some bad experience you have trouble getting over. Criticism with a little substance might hold more weight.

Sorry are you quoting yourself? and having a conversion between the two you's?

If you're implying me then let me remind you that I've never spoken negative or critisized anything. That's not the way I roll baby!
Think you need to get some facts right!

« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2016, 12:03 »
0



Do you have to be an exclusive to sell at Getty?  You sell at Getty not iStock, right?  Can anybody sell there or invites only?
[/quote]

No you don't need to be exclusive - just clip exclusive and you kind of have to be invited (found). They have many different collections for different types of material. Also if it's RM or RF. I'd send them an email if I were you and send them a link to an online showreel or something. Don't ignore Getty as it has buckets full of potential and you can get incredibly high royalties. RM go for $1000's

« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2016, 12:12 »
0



Do you have to be an exclusive to sell at Getty?  You sell at Getty not iStock, right?  Can anybody sell there or invites only?

No you don't need to be exclusive - just clip exclusive and you kind of have to be invited (found). They have many different collections for different types of material. Also if it's RM or RF. I'd send them an email if I were you and send them a link to an online showreel or something. Don't ignore Getty as it has buckets full of potential and you can get incredibly high royalties. RM go for $1000's
[/quote]


That's a good idea, thanks!  Yes, percentage of royalty doesn't matter.  Only thing that matter is how much we get in $.  If they sell for $1000 and give us 10%, it's $100 royalty per clip which is much higher than SS and others.

« Reply #49 on: June 02, 2016, 12:13 »
+1
You're getting a little confused. I clearly didn't quote you, and wasn't referring to you at all, in that comment. There is a sarcastic emoticon comment in between my comments which you quoted that has since been edited with more text from its author.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 12:16 by Daryl Ray »

ShadySue

« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2016, 13:14 »
+4
...percentage of royalty doesn't matter.  Only thing that matter is how much we get in $.  If they sell for $1000 and give us 10%, it's $100 royalty per clip which is much higher than SS and others.
<sigh>

« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2016, 13:43 »
+1
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.

 ::)

I'm someone that actually does appreciate it when contributors are putting on the pressure and keeping their good eye on stock companies, including Pond5. And I don't know what happened with you and Pond5 to harbor such constant resentment and criticism. However, I haven't once read where you actually were able to explain a single thing they've said or done that exposes dishonesty, unfairness to the contributor, or anything as bad as you're trying to make them out to be. Plenty of sarcasm, vague negativity and only getting specific with personal swipes at management. You really do usually just come off as someone with a personal gripe, that is trying to exact "revenge" any way you can from some bad experience you have trouble getting over. Criticism with a little substance might hold more weight.

And I just did in my edit ...let me repeat it... where is the newsletter explaining recent reviews mess they promised us over a month ago?
:-)

p.s. plenty of folks not happy with P5, I just happen to be more direct.

« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2016, 13:59 »
+6
...percentage of royalty doesn't matter.  Only thing that matter is how much we get in $.  If they sell for $1000 and give us 10%, it's $100 royalty per clip which is much higher than SS and others.
<sigh>

Yeah, I hear ya.  Sigh.  Reading this thread is exactly like the same discussions about photos from a couple years ago.   And here we are now with the stills market tits up, just like the 'alarmists' and 'complainers' predicted.


« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2016, 14:51 »
+1
...percentage of royalty doesn't matter.  Only thing that matter is how much we get in $.  If they sell for $1000 and give us 10%, it's $100 royalty per clip which is much higher than SS and others.
<sigh>

Yeah, I hear ya.  Sigh.  Reading this thread is exactly like the same discussions about photos from a couple years ago.   And here we are now with the stills market tits up, just like the 'alarmists' and 'complainers' predicted.
Good point: there are a lot of similarities with what happened with the still market a few years ago, but also some differences.
The video market is a much smaller one and most of the customers are professionals (production, Tvs, media, advertising) who really don't care if they pay a clip $79 or $400 or a few 000 like in Getty's case, as long as they find what they want. At the bottom of the market there are maybe the bloggers, but they are only a small part and again they prefer to buy a good clip at $70 than a bad one at $10.
In the still market there are also a lot of individual customers, buying maybe something to post on FB, so lowering the prices to a couple of dollars opened a huge market.
In video prices could have stayed around the $50-100$ per clip for at least a couple of years and then gradually lower to reach single digit in at least 5 years.
P5 membership program is a dumping of unprecedented dimension, bringing overnight the market price for a clip from $70 to single digit. Such a crazy sudden price war never happen in the still market

« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2016, 16:36 »
+5
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.

 ::)

I'm someone that actually does appreciate it when contributors are putting on the pressure and keeping their good eye on stock companies, including Pond5. And I don't know what happened with you and Pond5 to harbor such constant resentment and criticism. However, I haven't once read where you actually were able to explain a single thing they've said or done that exposes dishonesty, unfairness to the contributor, or anything as bad as you're trying to make them out to be. Plenty of sarcasm, vague negativity and only getting specific with personal swipes at management. You really do usually just come off as someone with a personal gripe, that is trying to exact "revenge" any way you can from some bad experience you have trouble getting over. Criticism with a little substance might hold more weight.

And I just did in my edit ...let me repeat it... where is the newsletter explaining recent reviews mess they promised us over a month ago?
:-)

p.s. plenty of folks not happy with P5, I just happen to be more direct.

That's all you got? A late arriving newsletter? You're kidding, right?

They never dropped royalty rates to an industry low and treated contributors like crap while doing it? (iStock) They never took our money and disappeared? (Revostock) They never added everyone's files to a badly planned subscription model and made it an issue to opt out? (Fotolia) Nope. Pond5 is much worse. They haven't produced a newsletter fast enough for your liking, one in which no timeline for release was ever given to begin with. How dare they. I totally see your point now. They're the devil.

« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2016, 16:37 »
0
$400 clips seem to be selling just fine (at Pond5 and elsewhere) and many sites have been selling $8 footage for years already. Sure, I would rather have Pond5 remove the membership too but I don't think it's the end of the world...

At VB it works really well pulling in lots and lots of customers (they now have about the same traffic as P5) who don't seem to mind at all paying $49-200 for marketplace clips.

« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2016, 20:29 »
+1
Well after my disastrous start to the year at Pond5, March in particular, things have picked up there. I honestly don't think it's the membership program sales themselves that have screwed a lot of people this year but more the dramatic change of the website itself, confusion amongst buyers re: membership etc.

Some saying Pond5 are small player, I'd disagree, they were consistently my best performing agency until things went wrong. Getty seems to be getting stronger but they're royalties can have a huge swing. March I had two clips net me 4 figures each (my share,) April was a big run of $2 - $4 royalties - it all averages out pretty decently there though.

In the future it's going to be increasingly hard for people to make any decent money off standard, easy to replicate footage like cloud timelapses or city skylines. Anyone can shoot that low cost. However find your niche, difficult or tricky shots and there's still decent income to be made and always will be.

Talking of $400 clips, sold one on Pond5 this morning!

« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2016, 00:46 »
0
"thank god for the high clip prices and keeping the market relatively stable. Think what you want about Getty (horrid low % paying co-corporation) but we need the big players to keep prices high and to stabilize the market."

Interesting. Considering you could set your own prices on Pond5 to whatever mystery price Getty decides, or even higher, then take 50% of the sales rather than 20% (is it 20%? who knows?) so, not sure how your point makes sense.

Never netted a $5 video sale on Pond5.

I don't know how many times I've read someone saying how awesome their exclusive deal with iStock seemed to them, until they dropped exclusivity and spread their work around and saw their profits go way up from the terrible % they were getting (even for exclusives it's lower than most). There's just no way to say for sure, without simply assuming, that you're getting the best deal when the terms of the exclusivity of your deal prevents you from putting those same clips, or anything even similar, elsewhere to test the waters.

Think what you want about Getty. They're still greedy, lying thieves. Thank god for honest companies like Pond5 keeping their contributors as equals to the agency and paying us 50%.

 ::)

I'm someone that actually does appreciate it when contributors are putting on the pressure and keeping their good eye on stock companies, including Pond5. And I don't know what happened with you and Pond5 to harbor such constant resentment and criticism. However, I haven't once read where you actually were able to explain a single thing they've said or done that exposes dishonesty, unfairness to the contributor, or anything as bad as you're trying to make them out to be. Plenty of sarcasm, vague negativity and only getting specific with personal swipes at management. You really do usually just come off as someone with a personal gripe, that is trying to exact "revenge" any way you can from some bad experience you have trouble getting over. Criticism with a little substance might hold more weight.

And I just did in my edit ...let me repeat it... where is the newsletter explaining recent reviews mess they promised us over a month ago?
:-)

p.s. plenty of folks not happy with P5, I just happen to be more direct.

That's all you got? A late arriving newsletter? You're kidding, right?

They never dropped royalty rates to an industry low and treated contributors like crap while doing it? (iStock) They never took our money and disappeared? (Revostock) They never added everyone's files to a badly planned subscription model and made it an issue to opt out? (Fotolia) Nope. Pond5 is much worse. They haven't produced a newsletter fast enough for your liking, one in which no timeline for release was ever given to begin with. How dare they. I totally see your point now. They're the devil.

Spot on! Well said.

Trust my words....Comparing them with the worst options around is not going to help them much!
Bro, put your hopes higher than Revo, IStock or Fotolia, and you will see the real pix of P5 nonsense going around last 10 years of their existance.   8)




« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2016, 00:47 »
0
Well after my disastrous start to the year at Pond5, March in particular, things have picked up there. I honestly don't think it's the membership program sales themselves that have screwed a lot of people this year but more the dramatic change of the website itself, confusion amongst buyers re: membership etc.

Some saying Pond5 are small player, I'd disagree, they were consistently my best performing agency until things went wrong. Getty seems to be getting stronger but they're royalties can have a huge swing. March I had two clips net me 4 figures each (my share,) April was a big run of $2 - $4 royalties - it all averages out pretty decently there though.

In the future it's going to be increasingly hard for people to make any decent money off standard, easy to replicate footage like cloud timelapses or city skylines. Anyone can shoot that low cost. However find your niche, difficult or tricky shots and there's still decent income to be made and always will be.

Talking of $400 clips, sold one on Pond5 this morning!

Sincerely happy for you!

« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2016, 02:40 »
+4
"you will see the real pix of P5 nonsense going around last 10 years of their existence."

So far I see their worse crime over 10 years is not delivering on a newsletter in a timely manner.

It's like you're living in house where most of your neighbors are stealing from you, throwing their garbage on your property, bringing down the property value. Yet you ignore those neighbors and take vocal action against a good neighbor with a house painted a color you don't like. It's insanity. You have a personal gripe, something personal went down between you and Pond5 in the past and your goal in life is to smear their name in revenge. There is no substance to any criticisms you've made so far. If there was, I'd be among the first to agree and call them out on it, and not anonymously either.

Why do I care? They are nearly 50% of my livelihood and have been treated me like a partner consistently for over 5 years. No other company has this kind of history. Between you and the iStock/Getty "I wouldn't car if I was making 10%" crowd, I don't think there's anything anyone can say to inject any logic in your heads.

« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2016, 03:13 »
+1
"you will see the real pix of P5 nonsense going around last 10 years of their existence."

So far I see their worse crime over 10 years is not delivering on a newsletter in a timely manner.

It's like you're living in house where most of your neighbors are stealing from you, throwing their garbage on your property, bringing down the property value. Yet you ignore those neighbors and take vocal action against a good neighbor with a house painted a color you don't like. It's insanity. You have a personal gripe, something personal went down between you and Pond5 in the past and your goal in life is to smear their name in revenge. There is no substance to any criticisms you've made so far. If there was, I'd be among the first to agree and call them out on it, and not anonymously either.

Why do I care? They are nearly 50% of my livelihood and have been treated me like a partner consistently for over 5 years. No other company has this kind of history. Between you and the iStock/Getty "I wouldn't car if I was making 10%" crowd, I don't think there's anything anyone can say to inject any logic in your heads.


Thanks for ALL your honest concerns, I will try and get an appointment with a shrink soon.

Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is: The membership program is a disaster for contributors. (PLURAL!!!)

I am very happy for your success and love for P5, BUT "One (or two) swallow doesn't make a summer!"

Also be careful with your prediction skills buddy as you failed with Revostock badly! :-\
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/revostock-payments/msg391016/#msg391016

« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2016, 03:46 »
+3
"you will see the real pix of P5 nonsense going around last 10 years of their existence."

So far I see their worse crime over 10 years is not delivering on a newsletter in a timely manner.

It's like you're living in house where most of your neighbors are stealing from you, throwing their garbage on your property, bringing down the property value. Yet you ignore those neighbors and take vocal action against a good neighbor with a house painted a color you don't like. It's insanity. You have a personal gripe, something personal went down between you and Pond5 in the past and your goal in life is to smear their name in revenge. There is no substance to any criticisms you've made so far. If there was, I'd be among the first to agree and call them out on it, and not anonymously either.

Why do I care? They are nearly 50% of my livelihood and have been treated me like a partner consistently for over 5 years. No other company has this kind of history. Between you and the iStock/Getty "I wouldn't car if I was making 10%" crowd, I don't think there's anything anyone can say to inject any logic in your heads.


Thanks for ALL your honest concerns, I will try and get an appointment with a shrink soon.

Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is: The membership program is a disaster for contributors. (PLURAL!!!)

I am very happy for your success and love for P5, BUT "One (or two) swallow doesn't make a summer!"

Also be careful with your prediction skills buddy as you failed with Revostock badly! :-\
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/revostock-payments/msg391016/#msg391016


Not sure what your point is, but again, all you do is deflect from the fact you have cited ZERO incidents of Pond5 lying, or ripping us off.

Revostock WAS a good company, until they weren't. They paid 45%. I made a LOT of money from that company over the years they were around. Things changed, we were lied to and many were stolen from at the end, flat out. That's a whole lot different than LETTING a company steal from you on every sale and then bragging about it. (iStock/Getty) Also, I knew the ship was going down and got just about all my money from that dirtbag before he cashed out and split. So maybe you should trust my prediction skills.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/so-how-much-money-revostock-owe-you-let's-sum-up-the-total/msg453808/#msg453808

As to the subject of this thread, I am a contributor, so my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. No less valid that I don't agree with the misguided speculation and vague negativity being spewed on this and other near duplicate forum threads that have no basis in reality, dominated by the same handful of contributors, some just inexperienced, some with an agenda.

But I'm done here. I don't mind a healthy debate, but this is going no where.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
49 Replies
9333 Views
Last post March 05, 2016, 04:12
by KnowYourOnions
29 Replies
22111 Views
Last post March 08, 2016, 05:11
by KnowYourOnions
45 Replies
20531 Views
Last post May 18, 2016, 03:10
by increasingdifficulty
8 Replies
5379 Views
Last post May 25, 2016, 00:57
by BlackJack
10 Replies
6372 Views
Last post January 31, 2018, 06:42
by Pablito

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results