No name producer. Hey Bill did you see film hero? .. I sure did... go ahead and get the 6 month sub at $179.00 and download all the clips he has... sure thing boss we gotta love guys like him who doesn't know the value of their work! Hey boss we don't need all those...take them anyway who knows what we will need in the future and be sure to cancel the subscription when you are done! We can check back in a few years to see if we want to do this again.

If you want to make your own site then do so! at least charge $49.00 per clip which for your quality will still bring you a lot more money then your sub. program! Also most buyers need more options so the subscription will not have a lot of value in a couple of months.

Hello,

I'll come out from under my rock if you promise not to pelt me with Rice Crispie.

Yes I'm responsible. I started FilmHERO.com 2 years ago.  It started as an idea with my partner in crime Helen Fields. We wanted to become more independent. The idea grew and evolved from there as the industry changed over that time.  I'm not an agency that's supporting other artists.  We run an expensive business, as you all know, video is not cheap to produce and it's become unsustainable.

The cut that all agencies take from us leaves us too little to secure our futures.  We had to move into a different model with better control over our assets, that would be more effective going into the future. We're not the first. Others are already doing it - take a look at Storyblocks. Nothing we do is designed to impact anyone else, but this was the only business model that showed ongoing promise rather than slow decline, and believe me, we spent years studying it. Subscription is coming - the larger agencies are already discussing it - and when that happens the cut we get is likely to drop dramatically. So we invested . in ourselves, in our own site. We spent years working 12 hour days, saving money, busting ourselves to provide for our family.  Us sitting around moaning about the decline of the industry wasn't an option.  We're happy to answer any (polite) questions.
 
Thank you

David Baumber

Quote from: jonbull on March 21, 2019, 15:02

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on March 21, 2019, 14:57

This is a race to the bottom - of contributor share percentage.

They have seen that the others get away with 30% and people still happily send their stuff in, so they think "what the heck, why not go to 40%, then in a while, 30%".

This means a MAJOR upswing in earnings for them. 20% up on April 8th in one easy move. That is an ENORMOUS increase in earnings for a company. They know people aren't going to leave, just be angry on the forums for a while, and then it all goes back to normal. Well, except for 20% higher earnings for Pond5.

i agree. it's a ended business for 99% of contributor soon in little time..hope many won't based their   earning and life on micro and have a family too i won't literally was to be in their pants...sonn they will go 30 225 20 15 and 10...i'm still surprised ss is at  38% but s soon as they will lose royalties be sure they will cut royalty.
the only ututure in photography is talent and commission. stock are less profitable than staying outside a shop and asking for a dollar to the customer who enter.

Shutterstock is not at 38%, where did you get that idea?

It would be cool/funny to see what is your ugliest picture that sells a lot.

This is mine:

I hate it. It's terrible in any sense and idek why it sells

I checked it again - and here it's completely the same!!!

I had three commission-reductions (28,04 -> 3,50 � 16 -> 2 � 26,4 -> 3,3) � always exactly 12,5% � if it�s true that the error was that they paid us mistakenly the total sales price first, then we got really 12,5 % for these sales!!!

I did screen shots �