|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Cider Apple
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12
226
« on: June 08, 2016, 18:10 »
Pond5 is just a tiny drop in the ocean. The market is so much bigger than one small to medium sized catalogue. Pond5 needs to adapt to compete in the larger market, this is just there strategy. It doesn't change a thing unless you are one of the unfortunate people who depend on their income.
227
« on: June 04, 2016, 10:26 »
When will stocksy accept video? I herd it's in the pipeline but that was said ages ago!
228
« on: June 02, 2016, 12:03 »
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
229
« on: June 02, 2016, 11:59 »
"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!
230
« on: June 02, 2016, 08:47 »
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.
231
« on: June 02, 2016, 03:52 »
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...
232
« on: June 01, 2016, 18:07 »
I had the same issue using chrome and firefox but I can log in fine with Safari.
Strange?
233
« on: May 23, 2016, 05:16 »
Great post Pablito, I agree with pretty much everything
234
« on: May 23, 2016, 05:07 »
Pond5 (video/audio/photo)
Shutterstock (video/photo)
Videoblocks (video)
Fotolia/Adobe (photo/video)
Alamy (photo)
The most disturbing thing I've learned from this thread is how many people still submit to iStock, even with all the crap they pull and the insulting smallest % in the industry they pay out. Yes, I realize this means they're a "top 5" income generator for so many, but at what cost in the long term? They're crooked, lying thieves, and perpetuate the weakening of our role in the partnerships we have with the stock companies. Anyone still submitting to them is contributing to the demise of all of our futures, doing what we do.
Oh please. Says the guy whose top site is Pond5, the site that's in the process of erroding the video market like. IS erroded the still photo market. Check out this thread:
www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/the-membership-program-is-a-disaster-for-contributors/msg454565/?topicseen#new
Also, FYI, Istock is one of my top sellers despite not uploading there for almost 2 years.
Pond5 pays out 50%, more than 3 times iStock's 15%. Some ridiculously simple math to overlook when evaluation of one's role is in a business situation, and what the company believes the creator of the content is worth to them. Claiming they're "erroding" the market in any comparable way to iStock is absolute nonsense.
A few cynical speculative opinions can't change the fact that Pond5 treats us like a an equal partner, while too many are perfectly fine being given ever shrinking scraps by a company that views it's contributors with contempt. iStock is only relevant and gets away with it what they get away with because people keep blindly uploading to them, no matter how bad the deal is.
I hear what you're saying Dayrl but you must remember that I make more money per sale on istock than most of all the other sites. There % is crap but then they sell clips for much higher. In fact they are helping us videographer's by keeping prices high. If you want more % from them then go exclusive. The sites that are negative for our industry are those selling clips for pennies. Getty and istock are keeping prices high.
235
« on: May 20, 2016, 17:58 »
Pond5 (video/audio/photo)
Shutterstock (video/photo)
Videoblocks (video)
Fotolia/Adobe (photo/video)
Alamy (photo)
The most disturbing thing I've learned from this thread is how many people still submit to iStock, even with all the crap they pull and the insulting smallest % in the industry they pay out. Yes, I realize this means they're a "top 5" income generator for so many, but at what cost in the long term? They're crooked, lying thieves, and perpetuate the weakening of our role in the partnerships we have with the stock companies. Anyone still submitting to them is contributing to the demise of all of our futures, doing what we do.
Ha ha, that's a bit overkill! In my case and I'm sure for many others too, 99% of my portfolio is in the signature collection and the royalties and price per clip is one of the most expensive in the industry. It's the smaller sites with HD clips for $10 and 4K for $25 that scares me. OK I'm not uploading content to istock now as your right the cut for non exclusives is shite, but I think they are changing this soon for the better.
236
« on: May 19, 2016, 06:03 »
Getty
Shutterstock
Fotolia
istock
Pond5
237
« on: May 16, 2016, 12:14 »
Any chance to get the video option working? There seems no link at the moment!
238
« on: May 15, 2016, 15:31 »
What about footage? Do agencies accept the quality from a phone?
I'm don't upload too much iphone clips as I love using my professional cam but in some instances mobile clips are great. Must have it in manual mode to stop the aperture from flickering and I also put it in manual focus. One of my best selling clips on Getty was filmed on my old iphone 4s quite a few years ago. Still sells today. As long as you use the equipment to its full advantage the content will sell the clip and do all the hard work for you.
239
« on: May 15, 2016, 15:25 »
Is it not automated?
240
« on: May 15, 2016, 14:48 »
Yes same here, been like this for 6 hours or so. I'm sure it will work it's self out.
241
« on: May 06, 2016, 17:58 »
I never said it's the most popular. The logical thing is to film in your native region. Especially for those starting out. It's a bit of a one sided coin though as the most important thing is what were filming.
242
« on: May 06, 2016, 17:03 »
For filming anything in slow motion you must use powerful continuous LED lights. They won't flicker at all. Turn off all other lights. The best light is the Sun of course:)
Professionals do tend to use 23.976 (24) Sharpshot. If you record at 25 but edit at 30 you're going from odd frames to even where as 24 to 30 is even to even - less of a kick.
The top videographers tend to film in the 23.976fps, the likes of SimonKR and viafilms. Granted not all the time but more than any other fps.
But like I said in the above post. Editors are looking for the right clip, not scrutinizing what fps it was filmed in. I consistently sell my clips at 23.976 to every corner of the globe. Not for the frame rate but because of what I filmed.
Timelapses tend to be filmed more by photographers and not the seasoned videographer so I wouldn't really go by those stats.
243
« on: May 05, 2016, 11:37 »
OMG Mirkic I wish I knew this a couple of months ago. Thanks so much for the tip though, I've still got over a 1000 to do!
244
« on: May 04, 2016, 16:32 »
I've just dropped exclusivity on istock after many years being exclusive and I must say uploading 1000's of clips to multiple sites is not an easy task. Also re-keywording and adding descriptions for all the files and saving them as a .csv file is the most boring thing I've ever done (and as summer jobs I've packed cheese in boxes coming off a conveyor belt's in 12 hour shifts).
I went non-exclusive as sales on istock were getting worse each month. My Getty sales were and have always been great but my istock sales have just been rubbish (to what I would expect).
I know signs are early but the selling power shutterstock has is just mind blowing. Royalties are a little lower but wow they sure sell in abundance!
To sum it up - I'm really going to miss Getty but the sites like Shutterstock and Pond5 - adobe(Fotolia) too although a little slower, have made a huge impact on my wellbeing as getting multiple daily downloads sure makes me feel better than a tiny triple from istock.
245
« on: May 04, 2016, 16:19 »
I've shot my entire portfolio at 24fps. It's easier to convert into both pal and NTSC.
I do believe that if the clip is the right one for the buyer then they probably wouldn't care less what fps it's in. Today's software makes it easy to convert instead of saving as an image sequence and re-processing it to a preferred fps as in the past.
I wouldn't worry about fps to much, just focus on concept / lighting / camera settings and content.
246
« on: April 29, 2016, 06:20 »
I always use paypal. Touch wood (knock knock) I've never had any problems and my money gets transferred into my back account within seconds after clicking withdraw.
My guess is that you haven't completed all the registration details with Paypal. Do you have a bank account setup with them?
I wouldn't worry. The money is there for u. Really bad they haven't contacted you back though.
Good luck!
247
« on: March 27, 2016, 16:35 »
As I mentioned earlier, I hope the rumors are true that Istock is feeling the pinch on video and changing their game later this year to be " a little bit "more equitable on royalties. If anyone follows the Istock forums feel free to post any news you find on this, if any. I browsed the forums but could only find that they are maybe going to build a CSV capability of ESPAWS, but nothing specific about the video program being re-engineered like someone said in another MSG thread.
Hi Mantis I think you probably mean me. I read on the forum that istock were going to change some of the exclusive contributors files around so some would end up in the Essentials collection. Another contributor then wrote does that mean the signature collection will be a Vetta like collection again and this was the response by a istock idmin... "As far as a more premium tier reminiscent of Vetta, we technically have a Signature+ collection for video, and we continually edit content into it just like we do for photos. The only difference being that we do not use it as a marker for mirroring to Getty Images and it is not flagged to customers. This may change and will play into the new royalties system that we going to be rolling out later in the year yes, that's a dropped hint to something big coming, and we're confident that contributors are going to like it."
248
« on: March 25, 2016, 07:04 »
Yesterday I had 712 videos accepted - none rejected and today 1042 accepted with none rejected.
I don't think my video's are amazingly special or anything. It took them 3 weeks to review. So I'm either very lucky or everything is normal? I'm hoping on the latter?
Hey Cider Apple, have you been selected for membership contributor? Maybe you guys gets priority now.
No I've just dropped istock exclusivity so just uploading my portfolio. I've had no issues as of yet. Maybe because I'm new?
249
« on: March 24, 2016, 15:24 »
Yesterday I had 712 videos accepted - none rejected and today 1042 accepted with none rejected.
I don't think my video's are amazingly special or anything. It took them 3 weeks to review. So I'm either very lucky or everything is normal? I'm hoping on the latter?
250
« on: March 18, 2016, 03:44 »
Does that only apply to being a direct contributor? I found my videos from IS ported to Getty, which are all RF at multiple sites.
[/quote]
Were you exclusive with istock at the time? That shouldn't happen if you have always been non-exclusive! If you were exclusive then the files you uploaded during your exclusivity will stay on Getty.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
