moral rights is the right of an author or other creative artist to protect the integrity and ownership of their work

Are you sure about that, or is that just what you're inferring from the text? And what do you mean by the integrity of their work?

Is this just like when Twitter, Instagram and Facebook said they could use your images however they wanted and then everybody thought that meant they were going to start selling their work?

The more I hear it, the more I'm convinced that people really have no idea what they're on about when they're consistently talking about sustainable prices, the long term and valuing our work. It seems like some kind of ideal, a concept that people have signed up for, where they are the masters of the universe because they own a half decent camera or a reasonable spec comouter and they actually know how to use them... but they have no real clue exactly what any of it all means.

If somebody would like to explain it to me, then I'd be happy to listen. Or you could just say something along the lines of because I don't get it now I never will... and thus reinforcing your sense of self importance, belief that you're right, and avoidance of the fact that making stock isn't exactly rocket science.

Guys if you think thay the only way to sell is lowering price i suggest to invest more time in shooting something new that stands out...i don't see a reason to sell at 25$ since i'm selling well at higher price...so again if you don't get sales at higher price you should improve your skills and shoot better...
Here it seems that the only way to sell is undercut other artists...i think the only way to sell is create something that stands out....and it's not all about price....

I think you might have put two and two together and got a bag full of cats. If you're on about me, anyway! I've never lowered my prices and I'm very happy with my sales. And I also sell at more than $25 on Pond5 and am selling well at those higher prices.

I agree that quality is the key, I just disagree with the blind arrogance that every single person who sells stock should price their clips as high as humanely possible as they will automatically make more money as a result. Nobody has said exactly that, but it's being heavily insinuated here and there.

The next time when all other agencies dump their prices to match VB's, because of loosing customers, you'll get less than $23 (like it happened on istock), your sales on Pond will dry out. At that moment the allmighty VB will drop prices further... where? Maybe you will get 100% of $25. Will you be happy with it? Thinking further than yesterday is part of being professional.

Has anyone even doubt marketing strategy with 100% commissions? No?

Yeah, because that's what every agency does, right? Every single agency drops their prices to match the lowest priced agency. That's why Artbeats dropped all their $299 clips to $8 to match VideoHive. Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia... they're all selling their clips at $8.

Come on, it's been over a year and nobody has dropped their prices to match Videoblocks. And it's been ten years and nobody has dropped their prices to $8 to match VideoHive. If they've not done it by now, I can't really see it happening.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 21, 2016, 10:05

All valid advice. I just found it slightly annoying that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all clips should be priced higher and everyone who prices their clips higher will automatically make more money.... whether it's an 8K aerial clip of New York or a handheld 720p clip of your cat shot in low light on an iPhone 4.

Some things aren't always worth $25, and pricing such stuff at $99 is highly unlikely to result in increased revenue!

Again and again, you completely miss the point. Trying my best to simplify this as much as possible: Collectively, as sellers of digital content, we should never allow a company to take more than 50%, and our content should be priced high enough for long-term sustainability. Both of these are fairly impossible to imagine right now, and that's only because too many of you don't get it.

So you feel ok selling clips for $8 now, next month someone else will feel fine selling clips for $5. Next year for $2. Buyers are lulled into thinking that those prices are where they should be. This is how the photo contributors of the past screwed us all by allowing an system where iStock gets away with lowering contributor percentage to 15%. Because you guys don't care about anything but your current bottom line and your limited experience. You just want to be right, you're not listening and thinking.

If you were a $10 seller on Pond5, and the same buyers now need to pay $25 for those same clips, you're making $12.50 on each sale rather than $5. $12.50 is more that $5. If that doesn't make sense to you yet, it never will.

That being said, no one can guarantee what kind of sales you're going to have day to day, month to month. This is business. And if you want guarantees, go work for someone. If you want freedom and to be your own boss, you gotta take risks, you gotta make smart decisions that keep the future and sustainability of your business intact. Otherwise, you ARE contributing to the marginalization of what we are ALL doing.

Besides, raising or lowering prices, giving it 2 weeks and then declaring any kind of conclusion is pure amateur activity.

"Collectively, as sellers of digital content, we should never allow a company to take more than 50%"

Why should you not allow them to take more than 50%? Why not 49% or 51%? Is it just that it happens to be a nice round number that you feel is fair... or is there anything a bit more concrete to it?

"and our content should be priced high enough for long-term sustainability"

What do you mean by this, I must be missing something? Does setting prices high quarantee losts of sales over an extended period of time?

"So you feel ok selling clips for $8 now, next month someone else will feel fine selling clips for $5. Next year for $2."

You probably would have said that back in 2006 when Envato started. Or in 2010 when I started selling stock there. Where are these $5 and $2 sites? Surely if next month it will be $5 and the month after it will be $2... there should be a bunch of $0.01 sites out there? But on a side note... HD was $6 when I started at VideoHive... they went up to $7 in 2012 and $8 in 2014. 

"Buyers are lulled into thinking that those prices are where they should be."

Maybe they'd be right. Are they wrong? If so, where should the prices be? Have you done the research and the math or have you decided on a price that just happens to be the same as one of the sites you sell on... maybe it also happens to be the site you sell the most at? The site I sell the most at is Envato, so maybe their prices are where they should be?

"Because you guys don't care about anything but your current bottom line and your limited experience."

If I shouldn't be caring about my bottom line that has been doubling year on year since 2010, then what should I be caring about?

"You just want to be right, you're not listening and thinking."

The same could be said for you. What makes you right? What stats and facts and evidence do you have that $8 HD clips will result in the end of civilization as we know it?

If you were a $10 seller on Pond5, and the same buyers now need to pay $25 for those same clips, you're making $12.50 on each sale rather than $5. $12.50 is more that $5. If that doesn't make sense to you yet, it never will.

I thought we'd come to the consensus that as there's now less of a gap between the $25 clips and the $35/$45/$55 clips (since they increased from $10) then people will go for the more expensive clips and not buy the $25 clips. So yes, $12.50 per sale is a lot more than $5, but not if you're not selling any.

If you want freedom and to be your own boss, you gotta take risks,

So you're going to take a risk and give VideoHive a try?   

"you gotta make smart decisions that keep the future and sustainability of your business intact."

I still don't get this. I must be stupid. Low prices don't automatically result in an unsustainable business. Budget airlines, dollar stores, instant noodles, McDonalds, Walmart... there's quite a few billionaire CEOs out there that might disagree with you.

Besides, raising or lowering prices, giving it 2 weeks and then declaring any kind of conclusion is pure amateur activity.

I know, I was being facetious... all the people saying "yeah, even though you don't have any clips under $25, the minimum going from $10 to $25 will mean you'll make more money!" And then I made less. But yes, I know such things take time... but I can pretty much guarantee that it's not going to happen! Do I have facts and figures to back that up? No. But you don't have anything to base your opinions on how my approach isn't sustainable either. Any increase in my earnings from now on will be due to me uploading new content. And possibly a growth in the customer base, but that'll probably be offset by all the new content.   

All valid advice. I just found it slightly annoying that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all clips should be priced higher and everyone who prices their clips higher will automatically make more money.... whether it's an 8K aerial clip of New York or a handheld 720p clip of your cat shot in low light on an iPhone 4.

Some things aren't always worth $25, and pricing such stuff at $99 is highly unlikely to result in increased revenue!

Hello

currently a seller on pond5 ss and fotolia, also for approval at istock but heard there not so good so not uploaded there as of yet.

I put a few videos on video blocks but stopped as i heard they not 100% safe site? is this true? is it ok to put content there or are they unknown new site and should be wary before putting all my content on there?

Not entirely sure what you're asking when you say "is it safe?", but I've not had any problems. Reasonably decent sales which have been gradually increasing, decent prices, excellent commission rate and pretty easy to submit content/quick review etc. No complaints!

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 18, 2016, 00:25

Quote from: obj owl on October 17, 2016, 07:15

Get over it, move on does not add to our knowledge or understanding.  Some people seem to want to put a full stop to a thread that appears to have no relevance to them, why?

They're just trying to make sure the people who think it has relevance to them, understand that it might not actually have all that much relevance to them.

That sounds patronising to the point of being insulting, not only are our images crap, but we are that stupid we need to be told to upload quality, find a niche and, be positive and stop discussing this subject.  I don't think the thread is relevant to video, not yet anyway, but if you have any personal experience as to why new images don't sell I really would like to here it.

Well at the risk of sounding more patronising... if you had a friend who bought stocks in a company, and that lost him money, and he said that stocks are for losers and there's no point of investing in any companies ever. .. what would you say to him?

If it's one extended license and then you can sell as many templates as you want, I'd bite thir hand off. That's a good deal! One extended license every time you sell a tempt is maybe a bit excessive though.

Obviously it depends on the specific site and the license in question, but my understanding is that selling wall art is a bit different. You're essentially making a new end product using that image. If it's a template then you're giving away the stock item as is. If you sold a service where people choose a template, give you all the details, and you then create a non-editable end product that contains that image... then an extended license probably wouldn't be required.

But yeah, I'm no API wizard, but what everyone has said sounds good!

I think you need to work on the whole concept and direction of the business first. You could get 1m potential customers tomorrow from somebody here, but if they don't like what they see, they probably won't be back. It would be better to have 10k potential new customers who are more likely to buy something, and keep coming back.

Putting everyone's excellent advice aside for one moment, think about 'the math'...

$100 over two years is about $4 a month. So even if the other agencies had the same kind of sales figures as SS, you'd only be expected to get about $4 per site in the month you've had your stuff there. And as $4 and $0 are very close in the grand scheme of things, it's not that out of the ordinary that you've not had any sales from them. Yet.

But as SS is, on average, the highest selling site, I would expect you to get less sales at other places than you would there.

Combine that with the general consensus that on most sites sales take a while to get going, I don't think you're doing anything wrong, compared to the $100 over two years that you were doing right.

But yeah... give it a bit of time. Follow the fine advice from the people above and hopefully your SS sales will increase and your other sites will too. Upload more stuff and better stuff... I think nobody will argue with that!

Get over it, move on does not add to our knowledge or understanding.  Some people seem to want to put a full stop to a thread that appears to have no relevance to them, why?

They're just trying to make sure the people who think it has relevance to them, understand that it might not actually have all that much relevance to them.

Absolutely. But it is a bit strange that images that most of us think are pretty bad, are top sellers. Maybe a bunch of people are writing books on how not to take photos, and they needed some suitable imagery to stick inside.

Always amazes me that considerably less than 0.1% of a site's contributor base, complain about a drop in sales in a forum, and they all see it as a worrying trend or the beginning of the end.

Then the inevitable response is 'well where are all the people having great or steady sales?' Well the main reason is probably that they're not actively seeking out threads about bad sales. Also, they're probably too busy sipping cocktails on the beach and buying swan-skin jackets and drinking bottles of vintage champagne with all their bundles of cash. Or something like that.

I had my BME at SS last month, just so you know. It was about 50% more than August.... so by my calculations, SS is experiencing a 50% increase on sales month on month. Those are the stats... they don't lie!

I'm not sure about here, but I know other forums where such threads have been going on for the last seven years. If everyone is to be believed, then the entire stock industry would have been dead and buried a long time ago.

And what are all these people going to do when they have their BME next month? Are they going to rush back here to report in? Probably not... as somebody who is doing well is less likely to be concerned about a thread on people not doing so well.

Unless their reports are fabrications, Shutterstock is making more and more money year on year. It just happens that not every contributor is making more and more money year on year. These things happen.

But how do you explain a 50% drop over a period of a couple of months? That's just variation. A drop of 50% from one day to the next isn't rare, these things happen, especially on a weekend. The same drop over a week, a month, two... it gets rarer and indicates more of a trend as time goes on, but it's still an exception rather than the norm. There will probably be somebody out there that was getting $1000 a month until June and then they've got $100 a month since. That's going to be very rare... but seeing as we make up less than 0.1% of the total, that could happen to all of us and it would still be an outlier rather than a tend or a worrying pattern.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Although I do agree with the whole content saturation, more providers, less slice of the cake etc thing.