Agency Based Discussion > Pond5

Time to give up on Pond 5.....

(1/7) > >>

abcdstockshots:
Last year I had a huge row with Pond 5 because they would not accept broadcast standard 1080i video. To this day there is no warning on their site that they don't want 1080i and seem unaware that the paying customer can de-interlace this kind of material themselves anyway. I actually raised this issue with a colourist at major facility and he thought the policy was hard to understand.

A few weeks ago I uploaded nearly 200 1080p clips. After waiting for about three weeks I discovered that about 2% of what I uploaded was accepted.

The reasons for rejecting material was lack of focus and something they called 'smudge'. I looked at these rejected clips and saw that the chroma was damaged, the clips were crushed and they looked awful. They did not look like that after they had just been uploaded. This is an IT problem at Pond 5.

The other reason for rejecting clips was that the reviewer said that the site already had clips similar to ones I had submitted. I was also told that the variants on a theme I had submitted decreased the chances of a sale.

I had a lot of clips returned because I had helpfully stated in the descriptions that they were 25 fps 1080p.

The other reason given for rejecting clips was that Pond 5 is looking for material which is 'vibrant and original.'

I have written to a contact at Pond 5 to say that most of the material I shoot is establishing shots. By definition they cannot be vibrant and original but are intended to serve a need for somebody who wants to include them in their edit. Most film and TV is actually shot in quite a safe way and clips which are shall we say too Art House can't be used easily in an edits because they will not fit. Submitting clips of the same subject means that you give the potential customer a lot of choice and they might decide on a whim to pick one clip of the same subject and not another. A simple example is that a 10 second clip of Big Ben might be cheaper than a 20 second clip of it. It is entirely possible to sell both clips in time and this actually used to happen before Pond 5 started becoming prissy about what they accept.

My recent submission of a number of clips of The Little Mermaid in Denmark was intended to nail the subject on the head so that this would be a definitive collection. The limited collection already on Pond 5 were so obviously shot by tourists on non-standard equipment and looked dark and pretty awful for the most part.

Pond 5 do not seem to understand the notion of an electronic press-kit. I submitted a number of clips of people outside Abbey Road studios in London along with some establishing shots. The idea of such a collection is that somebody making a film or news item far away can pick and choose what they want out of a collection that is all shot the same way. The idea expressed by Pond 5 that fewer clips of the same subject will increase the chances of sales is contradictory. They are not even prepared to let the potential customer browse a variety of clips at the small expense of using up a bit more server space. I wouldn't mind if they had a cull of my clips that hadn't sold after a year, the process could be automated and I'd accept that that they weren't ever going to be saleable. The simple of idea of hanging them up and seeing if they sell or not doesn't seem to apply at Pond 5.

In short, the reviewer does not know what will sell or not. Their lack of understanding about what video editors can easily use in terms of bought-in clips shows because they confuse photography with video media, which are two different things. Establishing shots are not actually that interesting but they are a cornerstone of the stock shots market. For a curator at Pond 5 not to understand this and to exclude material that does not try to be Art is quite a concern really.  The practice of wholesale rejections is actually pretty grating and the reason given that the lazy curator doesn't find the material interesting enough doesn't mean that somebody out there might not want to buy it. 

Once again I have tired of having to deal with people who know so little about how video is actually used and what you have to give a video editor. A collection of breath-taking and Arty video clips is less likely to sell because such material has more limited uses when you try to combine it with other clips.

I'd be open to suggestions of alternative agencies. I think I have given Pond 5 the benefit of the doubt now and it hasn't worked out.

LDV81:

--- Quote ---My recent submission of a number of clips of The Little Mermaid in Denmark was intended to nail the subject on the head so that this would be a definitive collection. The limited collection already on Pond 5 were so obviously shot by tourists on non-standard equipment and looked dark and pretty awful for the most part.
--- End quote ---

Slightly off topic, but beware of the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen. Certainly not suitable for commercial use, as the descendants of the sculptor are very litigious and there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark. Editorial - maybe, but they might still claim that it is done "for profit".

abcdstockshots:
You need a release if you want to include most well-known privately-owned buildings in your commercial production, let alone works of Art, the Mermaid is no different. The clips of the Mermaid on Pond 5 are all awful, last time I looked. I am still quite surprised that reviewers who work for Pond 5 don't understand that simple establishing shots are the mainstay of the stockshot business. They aren't fascinating but they are a cheap way of scene-setting. It's irritating to have your work slung in the bin because the reviewer doesn't feel entertained.

Sean Locke Photography:

--- Quote from: abcdstockshots on April 30, 2016, 21:01 ---You need a release if you want to include most well-known privately-owned buildings in your commercial production, let alone works of Art, the Mermaid is no different.

--- End quote ---

Which is why stock sites won't host them, as they don't want the buyers to get burned for using unreleased content.

abcdstockshots:
Pond 5 accepted three of my Mermaid clips, which probably means that they don't know their stuff, though they are terrified that somebody you might video in public might sue, even though they have no legal recourse. They used to jump all over contributors about this but they seem to have forgotten about this and now seem to consider themselves as an Art House agency. If you search for abcdstockshots you will see the clips.

The point I tried to make to Pond 5 was that posting variants of the same subject means you can sell more clips of exactly the same thing and a decision to buy or not can depend on a small difference between clips, even just the length of the clip and not how arty and original you can be in your videography. Selling the same thing twice is great business, something Pond 5 doesn't understand and I'm sure the owners of the work would be delighted with the royalties.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page