|
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 - Uncle Pete
4026
« on: April 02, 2019, 13:43 »
And yet...I sell, nearly every day with only 1400 photos and 800 videos online and sometimes I dont upload for weeks or months.
There must be something to their software that seems to be able to present content that buyers really need or prefers portfolios with a healthy sales to upload volume.
One thing that sometimes gets overlooked is the simple fact buyers will only ever buy what they need despite all the conspiracy theories. I'm surprised my sales hold up as well as they do. I only regard myself as reasonably competent but in the last few years the standard of what now gets accepted is risible.
I suppose I shouldn't make it look like my sales have gone dead or that making a note of 10 million new images, is any kind of comment on my personal sales. What I have that sells, continues to get downloads. The Crapstock that used to get downloads in the Golden Era   doesn't get much activity. In other words, my better images, still sell, my junk and marginal efforts, are getting what they should = little or nothing. I don't understand why some people think that just because they upload some snapshot, they should get downloads. Or if they make 10,000 snapshots, they should make more money. There are still people with portfolios in the 200-300 range of video, that are making over $1,000 a month from those. Quality still sells. Maybe the buyers have to work harder to find the best images, but it seems they do, and they aren't downloading spam or video turned into backgrounds frame by frame, or terrible blurred images, just because they see them first. Let me put this another way. I don't think that 10 million new images every 90 days has hurt the sales of my good, interesting or unique images. Sure there's much more competition. But as long as the competition keeps making what's most popular and what I don't, and the competition is uploading walkabout snapshots, I don't feel threatened. (I also don't rely on this income, so of course I can be less tense about market swings and changes.) So if you please my posts about the numbers are mostly just notes about the numbers. If I hadn't tracked down the year by year, someone would be asking "How many images did SS have in 2010?"  That and to answer the never ending questions about, what happened and why doesn't the market stay the same as it was for many people? Competition
4027
« on: April 01, 2019, 12:19 »
At this rate (10 million images accepted average every 50 days), in just over 10 years there will be 1 billion images on there :/
Yes and this one was late because I made a note and forgot to post the Feb. 14th milestone.
70 Million new images in 2018. I don't know if the limit has been reached and the exponential growth will stop. We'll see in about 45 days on April 1st. April Fools Day
Tried to sneak another one by me eh? March 31st, 2019 260 million images available on Shutterstock. I'll be back around May 15th... for another 10 million images. And just because I sometimes like being redundant for the obvious. As many people noticed Microstock had stopped the rapid growth of the previous years, roughly in 2012. February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months) June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months) That's right, every month and a half, we are competing with 10 million new images, which back then took 2 1/4 years to add 10 million images. Competition is what used to take five years to be uploaded, then 2 1/4 years, when Microstock was new and growing, is now uploaded every month and a half. Every 90 days we get more new images as competition, than there were total on SS in 2012.
4028
« on: April 01, 2019, 08:23 »
Disappointed. I do not want to see my best sellers. I want to see what is selling. I have been getting one email with image of one photo only though sold more which I can tell through total $$ figure. I like to see what particular images are selling.
I liked getting indovidual emails. Sure would be nice to get that option back even if it is opt in.
Daily digest of what sold, not top seller of the day.
It would be easy to list sales in the email and not make us click a link to go see the rest. As far as useful, I can click a link every day, on my own, without an email that shows one image and a number.
4029
« on: March 30, 2019, 10:42 »
Curious - for anyone that was actually submitting images in 2008/2009...
What was the income like then? I know right now it is often $0.30-$1/image... But what was it like then? Were you getting regular $200 sales/image, so maybe $5k/month in sales? Or..... what?
EDIT: Now that I realized some people are also replying about "RPD" - I am also curious as to sales volume/portfolio sizes. I.e., say you had 1000 images, how much would you have made $$$ wise say in 2005, 2010, 2015, etc? Thanks!
RPD lower, Volume Lower, Income Lower. Competition higher, much higher. February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos Feb. 14, 2019 - 250 Million images on Shutterstock Don't do percentages or times higher, the answer is, competition was 10 million images, now the competition is 250 million images. We can also see that over the years SS have paid about 33% commission. Lots come and go promising more but eventually fail or bring commissions to similar levels. Many hugely underestimate the cost of running a sustainable agency. Marketing is probably the most important and expensive thing. It is not in the agencies interests to reduce prices.
If I remember the annual reports, the share SS paid to contributors is more like 22% Jo Ann reads more carefully she will know. Marketing for a successful agency is a big expense, and the reason why the small ones stay small or will close. Without marketing and new customers there is no growth. On the other side, iStock lost their market share because of competition from new agencies advertising and price cutting. Holding the buyers you have is also important for any agency. On the positive, my sales did get a bump up when I added 3,000 Editorial images in January 2012. If I'm only comparing photos and illustrations to the same photos and illustrations, and new photos and illustrations, excluding Editorial content, a fair description would be income implosion.  iStock RPD is easily 1/3rd of what it used to be. (unfortunately all my Editorial is gone from there, so not a totally fair comparison) Alamy is about 28% of what it was early on 2010 and before. FT/AS has increased for me, now at .87 RPD and I have nothing much there or exceptional. SS is at .70 RPD, which could be up due to better content and different images. SS did not increase prices and ELs are actually lower, but OD and S&O are better. I can't compare years to modern because my content changed. The above is the best I can offer. Pond5 is new, doesn't count. I dropped DT, went back, no fair data there either. And the other 10-15 or maybe 20 places I tried and dropped, my sales are 0, my RPD is the same and I'm happy as can be, to be done with them. Hey FOAPers, RPD was $5 and always the same (just a bit of sarcastic enlightenment. If I remember, seven sales in two years) Also dropped.
4030
« on: March 30, 2019, 10:04 »
If all your content is the exact same as everything else you'll struggle exclusive or not.
Another simple fact that so many miss. But I could repeat the basics and still it seems like I'm speaking to a rock wall. Stock is all about what the images are. Useful, unique, needed, original, diverse, and essentially that buyers want. Selling recycled same old, same old, that won't matter what agency or what license, destination = failure. Yes I changed to P5 exclusive for video, I'm tired of supporting low paying, ineffective, waste of my time, agencies. And if I sell the same or a little less, that's fine with me. I won't be promoting lower commissions and taking advantage of artists. Not that I expect any agency cares what I do.
4032
« on: March 29, 2019, 17:03 »
I can't figure it out, does anyone know how a you tube video can be posted on the forum and show a thumbnail instead of just a link?
Nope? (875) <iframe width="1248" height="702" src=" https://www.youtube.com/embed/s_NIAln2LJg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
4033
« on: March 29, 2019, 16:59 »
Except I really think you are taking this unique subject theory to the extreme. A buyer would need that unique subject and then a very special video, only available on P5 of that very unique subject. Yes they could sell, but not often.
The example I used was of a non-white family in front of the Eiffel Tower. Is that an extreme view of uniqueness? Would it be very special? Seems like a very simple idea that would have a lot of sales potential but just isn't covered now. I've said it a few times already but a unique clip or image doesn't need to be anything extraordinary, a great piece of art, a subject no one ever thought of before just something in demand that hasn't been covered (or a better take on something that has been covered). There are still a lot of possibilities out there especially for video.
Easy, something that nobody every thought of before. Or I can just fly over to Paris, gets some models of not white and shoot some video of them
There are no short cuts or surefire get rich quick tricks out there. If you are doing this full time it's a job like any other. Sorry Paris isn't closer to your house but to be fair I wasn't trying to give you guidance on what to shoot. If you just want stuff you can shoot around your house with your cellphone I don't think this is going to work out for you. But seriously the example wasn't so crazy and is probably applicable to places near where you live.
I never thought of shooting cell phone video, good idea. If you knew where I lived, you wouldn't be saying that about places near where I live. I mean, here's the view East. In four miles there's nothing but lake for the next 90 miles. North is hardly different, except no giant lake, but less populated. Only 18 miles West and there's some four lane highway?  5 miles to the ghost town they call a city, 4 miles South to the "Big City" 11,642, and 2 1/2 miles to the village that has Marshals instead of police. Just having some fun. I like the rural life, all the neighbors have dogs and are armed, but no one shoots each other. Certainly nothing like the city. In fact I do agree with you that people can probably find something good or unique, without traveling far or going to France. Some places are just a bit more difficult.
4034
« on: March 29, 2019, 16:39 »
Why do I want free storage? I can understand I want to upload, but after that, I don't need to keep my files on your server? What am I missing?
There are two main use cases.
1. Some contributors (studios, most often) prefer to describe their content in advance and upload it to stock sites by degrees, according to the internal schedule. Of course, until that moment its more comfortable to keep files directly in service.
2. Many people usually keep their data in the cloud to avoid losing it. So, we give our users the possibility to save them content inside the Everypixel DAM storage after uploading on stock sites.
I'll assume anyone who has any business or uploads will want the $34.99 plan (why not just say $35? This isn't a Walmart) which is for how long? Expert plan doesn't have a time limit?
All plans are active for a month.
Thank you
4035
« on: March 29, 2019, 16:15 »
I disagree about video - I think it's a trendy fad that will quietly go away sooner rather than later. Those investing time and money into it are going to be very disappointed.
I think you are right about most things but I disagree with you on this one. I am a complete amateur with video and I have uploaded a small portfolio to a few sites. The sales are reasonable and the commissions are good. It is worth getting in to, have a look at the number of sales some people are getting, I was surprised. Wont most advertising be moving images in the future? Print is dying, everything is moving to the internet and screen advertising. I see more and more moving images taking over from stills. I still prefer stills but what do the advertising people think?
None of us can predict the future with any real accuracy and I think it is sensible to diversify in to footage, there is a chance it wont pay off but it is just as likely to be the next big thing. I also like the fact that it isn't as simple as taking a photo, most people can master that now. Footage has a steeper learning curve and at the moment it isn't as easy to upload 500mb files. There is less competition at the moment, that will probably change in the future.
I agree, keep producing good quality niche photos, a much better option than video IMO
Or both? I'm just starting into video and my observations are from friends who were and are heavily in photos who started adding many videos the last couple years and found that video is holding up or increasing where photos have been losing. In the end, video will be just like photo and illustration and whatever the next hot area is, when the producers start to make so much that anything easy or common, will start to wither. 100% behind you and everyone who continues to point out that niche subjects, unusual, or find something that's in short supply. I think I've been promoting that theory for about seven years. That doesn't stop me from making some of the worst Crapstock some days, but I know you are correct.
4036
« on: March 29, 2019, 15:51 »
It's hard to get past the raw idea stage when just the mere mention of contributor empowerment triggers a bunch of defeatist negativity. What is your goal, exactly? Again, you guys don't think it will work, you think it's been tried as best as it's ever been tried and that's all the proof you need. Good for you. Will you be happy once everyone that has a glimmer of hope is knocked down to your level?
I'm not saying either side is right or wrong in their OPINIONS, but those trying a little too hard to pick apart the IDEA of a pushback against the stock companies towards fairness is either a company troll or drank a little too much of the corporate BS koolaid. Maybe since a lot of the naysayers are admitted former iStock exclusives and current iStock contributors, that they're afraid of losing all those shrinking pennies if there's an effective movement away from the worst companies.
Maybe those that were fooled by iStock in the past, and still supporting them, aren't the opinions anyone should take seriously. You obviously couldn't make good judgements then, why should anyone think you could now?
izzikiorage, don't let the constant barrage of negativity ruin the concept for you. They think that since they cannot conceive the idea of contributor empowerment, that it's impossible and no one else should even consider it. Again, either they're just trolling or they can only be described using words that would come out as asterisks on this forum.
Good Luck I hope you find something that works. If anyone is a willing victim, as I have called this business, I'm pointing at myself as well. Otherwise I'd leave and stop. My choice. If I wasn't at least having some fun and making some returns for what images I do upload, I'd also quit. But since I enjoy my time and the small returns that I do get, I'm fine with things as they are. Of course I'd like a better share.
4037
« on: March 29, 2019, 11:40 »
What freaking harm would come from supporting the simple CONCEPT of contributor empowerment of any kind?
You don't think it'll ever work? You think past efforts are proof it can't be done?
1) You have my support, good luck 2) It's not a knee jerk negativity it's years of experience and the same ideas, over and over. 3) Nope I don't think it will work or anyone will go past, "Hey I have an idea..." 4) Nope I don't think that because it's never happened, that nothing ever will. So here goes, you and everyone else who thinks you can form a union or association or somehow fight the agencies, when you have no power or negotiating point, no leverage. Go for it. If you can come up with a plan, I'm in. What's your specific plan and how are you going to take action, to force agencies to make the changes and meet your demands.
4038
« on: March 29, 2019, 11:15 »
I don't want to pick on anyone, because who knows what I would have said, or what I did on other threads. But a couple had me laughing. Some were right on. Some editing was done on the quotes to make them shorter, no words were changed. Video is just a passing fad? And, I think Video is the way to go in microstock.
I think Warren had it right, that video was the next opportunity. Call me a pessimist, but I think microstock is drying up for individual contributors. The agencies are laughing all the way to the bank, as the microstock market is (and will be) very strong for years to come. The problem is that there is just too darn much competition between the contributors, and our individual slice of the pie is getting smaller and smaller each day.
Think about what Shutterstock is doing at the moment: 100,000 new images every week! Five years from now, my individual portfolio will have increased by 5000 to 7000 images. But the large agencies are growing at a substantially much higher rate and it will be very difficult for individual contributors to get noticed in a sea of millions and millions of images.
Sounds like he was right? I think that in 10 years 3D technology will have reached the point where realistic people can be dialed up in an application and eliminate the need for 'real' models in 'real' situations completely. 3D animators will become the major content producers.
Or maybe it was eight years? But so far not easy or replacing real people, still a good prediction. I think most people will find that eventually their sales and income will stabilise and then gradually start to slip downwards as the market matures.
The growth in new images will continue to increase and no individual contributor will be able to maintain their own share of the marketplace __ just as they haven't been able to for the last few years.
Yeah we see that now, he was right. What I don't think anyone saw coming was, agencies declaring "Unsustainable", cutting levels, combining tiers, or removing potential for higher percentage based on performance. Dropping nearly all referrals for artists but also limiting them to two years and new buyers for shorter terms. Changing percentages down. Dropping prices so our smaller percentage was of a smaller number. Some cut commissions in half, by the way. Higher quotas were set. Some saw the increase in new artists from countries that had a lower cost of living. In 2010 illustrators were on top of the heap. In demand, as fast as they could make something, there was a sale and more demand. Photographers were already on the down trend. By 2012 we saw that photography had hit the wall, competition exceeded the capability of individuals to keep up and no number of new buyers would ever balance for the losses in market share. Photos had become a commodity for most content. Sure there are still areas and ideas that are unexplored and with room to make some gains, but nothing of the easy subjects, like it was in 2010. Optimists were predicting that they could go for five more years and see. I don't think anyone saw that 2010 was already the beginning of the end, or that in two years, almost everyone would see the growth and early entry profits, were over. I'll admit I thought that the need and demands and ability to build a collection that would bring some return on the investment, was more possible. I was too shallow and it was too easy, not big waves or running against the tide. Once that changed, and the ship hit the rocks, I figured it was time to do what was best for myself, because bailing and hoping wasn't going to make Microstock float again. With that, I'll answer the OP. Yes there will be Microstock in 5, 10, and beyond. No I wouldn't count on income growth like most of us did in 2010. What I'm not seeing, like what happened with computer makers, software companies and other recent technology is the big sorting out where over 80% of the contenders are forced out of the market, bought or merged. Maybe that's for "old timers" but there were an easy 50 computer makers, and everyone with a bit of software, became a software company. The only reason I can see that the weak and lame Microstock agencies have been able to hold off their own demise for so long, past the usual business adjustments and market weeding is the unfairly low percentages that they pay for the supply of images and products. There you go, global economics, anyone with a camera, anywhere, can sell their photos for a small commission. Good news, that's not going to change. We have the whole world as competition, not many new areas to be jumping into the business.  Hopefully the business will go so flat some day, so that new people will seek some other new "gold rush" or fad for making money, and we can have some stability. That's next, even without new entry stopping altogether. Microstock will reach a stable point or plateau, and the extreme growth and change will be much less. Our earnings won't be as high or low or as unpredictable. Income might not be good or great, but it will be more predictable.
4039
« on: March 28, 2019, 16:35 »
Q How do we push agencies like SS, istock, getty to offer a fair share of royalties
A We cannot
Q How do we work with the agencies to prevent the race to the bottom
A We cannot
Q What agencies are inherently unfair - low pricing, very low royalty, that should be boycotted
A We cannot
Q How can we create enough of an impact to make the agencies correct this
A We cannot
Amazing how self-defeating some people are, so incredibly lacking in vision. Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean that it cannot be done. It's common sense that a large collective response will have some impact - indeed it already has in the past with the Dollar Photo Club and then recently with Storyblocks. So many losers said nothing could be done to affect Storyblocks when they cut commissions, and then days later Storyblocks doubled its sale prices. Contributors en masse told Pond5 that exclusivity shouldn't have to necessarily include existing clips, and Pond5 responded by allowing for separate accounts. Nothing is fixed in stone, it's a matter of organizational work. A huge task to be sure, but to simply say "cannot" is plain stupid and pathetic.
Maybe its because all of us stupid people have heard this many times before over the past 15 years we have been in microstock. If it could be done, surely someone would have done it by now? People come here and TALK about it, but no one ever does it. Why do you think that is? BECAUSE ITS JUST TALK. This is a forum, people like to talk. I am sure if someone had a plan, had the money to back the plan, and did it, and proved it was worthwhile, everyone would jump on board.
The first idea I just read was to create a website. OK good idea. Somebody has to pay for that. Do you think people here should just trust someone who pops in here and asks for money to build a website? Of course it CAN be done. I bet it WONT be done though. But please, somebody prove me wrong.
I won't prove you wrong I'll prove you're right. Without power and leverage, something that we can hold back or hold over the agencies, a union will be powerless to make any demands or changes. That and "Herding Cats" Does anyone remember the stock photographers associations? There might still be one. Private businesses, that are supposed to be protecting us and representing us. Pay your dues, because you are actually jst paying the officers and the people who own the website. When someone comes up with something real, that's not just about petitions and imaginary victories, I'll join. DPC got knocked out by Adobe. Pixel whoever didn't go away because of a lack of artists or protests it was business and possibly financial or a legal challenge. I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was a non-compete or artists lists, protected data, didn't have something to do with it. There's no proof that any protest or movement changed anything at IS, because it was Getty and bad management that screwed them up. If we don't have the power and some bargaining chip to hold over the agencies, we have nothing.
4040
« on: March 26, 2019, 09:11 »
Don't know if it's bad enough, but the thread reminded me of shots I took, when I was doing something else, and they have sold. Working at an event, I took a break for lunch. Put the Brat in the Sun with a carefully designed squiggle of mustard. Snap, and it's gone before it got cold. Quick edit when I got home.  Has sold enough times to pay for itself. "Free Lunch"
4041
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:29 »
Look at what you've been selling in the last couple of years as a guide for what subject matter might be useful for you to resubmit.
The only point in uploading rejects would be if you believe there's real sales potential that's been missed. With two years sales to look at you have some data that can help.
The other thing would be if all agencies rejected an image, don't bother resubmitting. It's less and less likely to be a random reviewer error the more and more rejections you have received for that image
I originally missed the all agencies part of your reply. By all means, yes, if the rejections are from a number of different places, that's a message that, most likely, the photos aren't worth the time, to re-edit or re-upload. And also, yes, if the subjects are something that's selling, then there's earnings potential. Otherwise just more padding that's doing nothing in the collection.
4042
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:19 »
I had all my ELs on Fotolia set to 100, but now on Adobe Stock they are set to 63.99.
Is there an option to change that back to 100?
I don't see anything to set any prices on AS anywhere. That was FT. Mat will eventually arrive and give a clear answer from the source. But I think the answer is, we can't do that any longer.
4043
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:16 »
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47708144
"The new rules include holding technology companies responsible for material posted without proper copyright permission"
What this means?
Watch and see. I think if it passes, the problem is, how does a website control what a user uploads. What does responsible mean? Article 13 holds larger technology companies responsible for material posted without a copyright licence.The Tech Companies would need to prove: it made "best efforts" to get permission from the copyright holder it made "best efforts" to ensure that material specified by rights holders was not made available it acted quickly to remove any infringing material of which it was made aware Sounds very much like DMCA? Just can't wait for another toothless watchdog, that doesn't even bark. File a claim, file a claim, whack a mole provisions, but how do we ever get paid for these violations. So far we get nothing... and this one: Article 11 states that search engines and news aggregate platforms should pay to use links from news websites.News sites don't want their headlines listed on search engines, and don't want people to be given links to their news? They want to be in a dark hole, and not seen? Something sounds wrong with that. Search engine paying for finding things for us?
4044
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:00 »
Alamy
LOL that's a good one. I never considered until @indust asked. Is that absolute, none of the better sites, midstock or whatever term people use, will accept anything, except exclusive.
4045
« on: March 26, 2019, 07:54 »
For me, I'll stop uploading to other sites and put everything up exclusively with Pond5. I was leaning towards doing that before this change. It's not that I want royalty rates lower it's that it seems inevitable if people put the same work on different sites. The value will move towards the worst place. Sites that pay lower royalties can use that money to market more or make the site nicer and in turn sell more content. From the agencies' side if contributors are happy accepting less then why should they pay more, what's the benefit for them?
Same here. Can you explain how encouraging people to buy clips with a 30% royalty because P5 is giving 40% makes any sense? Seems to me that the anger should be directed towards the sites with lower royalty rates.
I can't and I'm going exclusive with Pond5 for almost everything from now on. I won't upload to the 20% sites.
That too, I'm not so desperate that I'll take crap percentages of low prices, just for some more minimal income. Then people complain about the percentage drop, and upload to places that pay lower commissions on lower prices. Where's that outrage? I am happily going as a Pond5 Exclusive now! Yep all my choice and I know the risk.....Here we go.....
Going, Going, here's hoping this works out for all of us who choose this path. In my case, small numbers, I just need to decide 100% or all new? Being the lazy type, I think I'm just going to convert and have only one video stock site for now. I can change my mind later. Yeah I suppose that means I am greedy, I like 60% of something over 20% of nothing. GONE
4046
« on: March 26, 2019, 07:46 »
Data is loading over here...
Woo hoo!
Surprise or disappointment? Good luck, everyone.
Worst Ever. RPD has been dropping and now at .41, time for me to collect and request close in October, so downloads will have time to clear accounting. Why does this remind me of last year? Why didn't I do that?  Oh yeah, free money. Not going to hurt me like it might others, but for what I get, the whole let it ride, take the money, is getting to be a pathetic scheme to observe from month to month. Reminder, best plan is leave images up and ignore, take the money for doing nothing. Except I flip flop when I see the amounts and the RPD. Expect that next month I'll get a couple good licenses and decide to stay and do nothing. I think it's down to, do I want the piddling income and torture or just say farewell? I will say, no .04 downloads this month. One for 12 and one for 10 whoopee! Worst of anywhere.
4047
« on: March 26, 2019, 07:29 »
AI-keywording its not human substitute, its a helper. The final decision about the content description still belongs to the person. Somebody can agree with proposed keywords; somebody can edit a couple of them; somebody can delete them all.
We admit that auto-keywords may be not enough relevance for you. Thats why our neural network continues to training so far. But an overwhelming majority of Everypixel DAM users satisfied with AI-keywords and slightly adjust them in some cases. Combined with the ability to upload content on several stock sites at the same time, its really perceptible time savings compared to manual tagging.
Why do I want free storage? I can understand I want to upload, but after that, I don't need to keep my files on your server? What am I missing? I'll assume anyone who has any business or uploads will want the $34.99 plan (why not just say $35? This isn't a Walmart) which is for how long? Expert plan doesn't have a time limit?
4048
« on: March 25, 2019, 16:03 »
Let me narrow this down a bit in relation to the upcoming conversation with Jason Teichman. My specific grievance is the 20% rate cut for non-exclusive contributors. I hope that exclusivity helps maintain value and pricing in the market overall (as Pond5 expects), and certainly it warrants a higher royalty percentage than non-exclusive clips. But that does not have to coincide with lowering the commission on non-exclusive clips, which is unjustified and grossly unfair to content creators. Since going the exclusive route would be a net loss for many contributors and therefore a non-starter, all Pond5 is really doing is taking money from our pockets and lowering the incentive for people to create quality content.
I contend that if Pond5 thinks exclusivity is going to be fantastic, they should do it without penalizing non-exclusive contributors with a rate cut.
I also contend that their concerns about stock footage pricing collapsing the way stock photo pricing collapsed is not a wholly accurate comparison. The markets are different, the uses and buyers in many cases are different, and I would simply point out that the HD single clip price at Shutterstock has been $79 since at least 2012. That has become the market norm adopted as well by Adobe, Storyblocks, and many users on Pond5. To maintain that, the big agencies need to go to war on bargain sellers like Bigstock, and also make it unprofitable for the irresponsible people who contribute to sites like that. It's already in Pond5's user agreement that we cannot sell the same content for a substantially lower amount on other sites. I'm all for enforcing that for the good of the industry. If someone is selling an HD single clip for a few dollars, Pond5 should match and lock the clip price on their site, hopefully encouraging that user to abandon those bargain basement sites that hurt the whole industry.
Any thoughts specifically about the 20% rate cut for non-exclusive contributors?
It's a 10% rate cut right? Or are you referring to the usual argument that 10% commission cut from 50% means a 20% cut in earnings? What then of a 15% level that some sites pay to start with? Is that a voluntary 25% discount over what we have on Pond5 or does that get ignored, when someone uploads to some cheap site, intentionally, that pays 35% less than Pond5 did until now? Then people need to be warned that the 10% increase in commissions is only a 8.3% increase in earnings. We have a choice, same as we do if supplying cheap race to the bottom sites. You can upload exclusive to P5 for 60% or not for 40%. You can upload to places that pay 15% and cut your own commission also.
4049
« on: March 25, 2019, 15:55 »
While I agree with most of what you have written on this thread, I will disagree about the buyer searching for the perfect image. They don't care if it's "The One" and only one, they want something to illustrate, as a side, as a background or something other than the main point of their use.
...
But buyers don't shop for identical video by price, they shop by price, for what they need, just like consumers. And if they are looking for the subjects and the video that makes up most of Microstock, if they can't find it on one site, they will look on another. I don't think P5 is going to corner any market for Exclusive video, only available here, the only shot of something... that will benefit most artists. The plan would work for someone new maybe?
The point is that buyers don't necessarily need the perfect image but they can't use images of apples to sell oranges and many can't use a bad image of an apple to sell apples. There are lots of subjects out there where there are no good images or videos and a buyer can't really just use something close.
The reason having exclusive content is beneficial is that the more times a buyer can only find what they are looking for on P5 the more likely it is to be a buyer's first choice when looking for any content.
I like the second part. Except I really think you are taking this unique subject theory to the extreme. A buyer would need that unique subject and then a very special video, only available on P5 of that very unique subject. Yes they could sell, but not often. Which is also similar to my, shoot things that aren't well covered and you might get a download. Ignore most popular, because that's already been down and there are way too many very good examples available. Somewhere in the middle is probably best? But I wouldn't bank on a one of a kind shot as the path to greater earnings. The first sentence is the theory of keyword spam, that if someone uploads apples and uses flawed tags, a buyer will buy their oranges image, because they saw it, and not because they wanted apples. Microstock is so full of fallacies and tricks, which make no sense and don't work. At least we can be amused by the means some people will try to play the system to make some pocket change? With the whole choice at P5, two accounts, not much of an issue anymore is it. I can upload my best and unusual, which can bring the highest return to the exclusive account, and upload the scraps and out takes to Microstock. I also agree with not competing with myself and not supporting the race to the bottom.
4050
« on: March 25, 2019, 11:51 »
I received a personal response from CEO Jason Teichman, and we will have a phone conversation soon to discuss the matter. If contributors would like me to ask certain questions to him or make a certain point beyond what I've expressed above, please let me know.
Just for the thread and the other thread. "...if you wish to have only selected content (especially new content) listed exclusively with Pond5, you can do so by creating a new, separate account."Which must be invisible to everyone except me? Translation, you can have exclusive video on Pond5, based on which account you put it into.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
didn't work. Now I see why it did, he is the Admin on his site.
