|
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 - stockmn
51
« on: June 08, 2016, 17:06 »
...and they pay no royalties to artist.
The video stock market is dead, P5 killed it, no more sales to be had. So now I even consider uploading to istock or Envato.
Dude, you are just plain wrong. You apparently have an axe to grind and trying to convince everyone in every post you write that video clips are now worthless does a disservice to the entire video community.
52
« on: June 07, 2016, 13:00 »
Videoblocks show me 0$
They just cant fix the problem for some users. I gave up
Same problem here. I gave up too.
53
« on: June 01, 2016, 15:28 »
After a couple less than stellar months at P5 I raised my prices this month and had a very good month.
To what level? I'm experimenting a bit myself.
Not sure if this is the right price for me or not yet but I raised prices for all my newest 1080 to $159. I raised the price of one of my better sellers to $199 and it sold. I know others are raising prices as well and still selling. I figure that since P5 doesn't have an additional extended license and it's all included in the one price that prices should be higher than elsewhere. I'm also uploading prores versions to p5 and .h264 to all the others.
54
« on: June 01, 2016, 15:01 »
The damage is already done. After the bloody membership thingy the market is already gone.
The new normal is single digit for a clip. No more sales on p5 and SS and FT will have to react and lower hte prices.
Talk about a huge overreaction! After a couple less than stellar months at P5 I raised my prices this month and had a very good month. Seems some artists are quicker to panic and lower prices than the agencies. Jeez! As for istock, I won't be uploading any new video until they are offering a minimum of 30% royalties.
55
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:38 »
My video sales thus far have been at $28 for HD1080.
56
« on: April 15, 2016, 11:28 »
I did not receive any email from paypal that means that pond5 didn't send the money to paypal at all
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Same here but my Pond5 dashboard shows a payment then an "undo payday". Now I see they just added another line for "payday paypal" so maybe it's going through now.
57
« on: April 05, 2016, 19:24 »
Got e-mail this morning asking if I'd like to re-enable my store on Marketplace as a customer wanted to license an image. I replied that if the royalty cut to 30% had gone into effect today as planned, then no, I wouldn't. I haven't heard anything more 
And if I were a conspiracy buff I'd speculate that they'd been queueing up those requests until the cut took effect. But I'm not, so I won't.
I don't think so because I received my first sale and not even an hour later I got the email telling me they were slashing the royalty rate 
58
« on: April 01, 2016, 13:00 »
Photo sales seem to be picking up a bit. Video not so much. I didn't have any video sales this month with over 1,000 videos. I had two sales last month which was better than nothing but not great by any means. Overall for me, Fotolia doesn't compare to SS in terms of sales as of right now.
59
« on: March 26, 2016, 17:39 »
I have a photodeck account with several thousandd videos up. It's cool but expensive at $79 a month plus extra storage. I've been thinking of discontinuing it because it isn't paying for itself. I'm a generalist however and it might work out better for someone with a real specific niche.
I'd rather sell with others through a Vimeo or YouTube (if they had the capability). With low or no upfront cost and a 70/30 split favoring the contributor. I like what ccbcc said above about letting 3rd parties curate collections and giving them a 10%-20 commission if a sale is made through their link.
That's crowdsourcing that works for us!
60
« on: March 26, 2016, 12:04 »
If you look on the Pond5 forum you'll see that it wasn't just this week (it's been the whole month) and that you definitely aren't the only one.
61
« on: March 26, 2016, 09:29 »
I checked this out about a year ago but found it wouldn't work for me at that time. Vimeo's selling program is designed for selling, renting or subscribing to on demand content (ie. short films, video tutorials, etc.) This sounded okay but when I contacted them I learned that the downloaded file was compressed by vimeo. There was no way to allow buyers to download the original uploaded file.
A few small changes for stock footage producers and Vimeo could instantly become a viable alternative for licensing stock footage. Youtube as well for that matter.
62
« on: March 25, 2016, 21:25 »
Interesting but I can already submit to Adobe, Shutterstock, Getty Images, Dissolve and Pond5 without a middle man.
63
« on: March 17, 2016, 19:09 »
I've had 2000 videos on Alamy since the beginning. I've sold maybe 2 or 3 that whole time. It may be too late but I wish Alamy would get serious about video. We need another good 50% commission place.
64
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:55 »
I receive this e-mail today : "Our system had an issue with all Payoneer and Paypal payments this month. We are looking into the issue immediately and will provide you an update as soon as we have information about when your payment will be issued."
I received my VB payment yesterday without problems. So not ALL Paypal payments had problems.
65
« on: March 12, 2016, 18:16 »
I don't want to labour the point about Envato potentially being less terrible than everyone makes them out to be... but I've had 180 Ultra High Definition sales (2K, 4K etc) there, which has netted me about $2,000 in the last 15 months. My UHD sales on every other site may result in a much higher income per sale, but my total net from all the other sites combined, over the same period, is $480.
Yes, Envato (or VideoHive) isn't for everyone. After Effects projects sell better than motion graphics clips and motion graphics clips sell better than stock footage... but I really feel people should ignore the 'sticker price shock' when it comes to the low prices and focus on how much they have in their pockets at the end of the month. Would I rather be trotting down the high street with $480 in my pocket, over the moon and safe in the knowledge that my 4K clips sold for $99 or $199... or would I rather the doing the same with the considerably higher amount of $2,000 in my pocket... even if my clips only sold for $8/$20/$25? I know what I'd prefer.
I hear what you're saying but the problem with Videohive is that the high volume of sales are only happening because of a low number of contributors and clips overall. Down the road the number of clips will increase and your volume will fall leaving a loosing situation of poor prices AND low volume. This affects all other contributors. Even ones who've chosen to never licensed their footage through Videohive.
66
« on: March 12, 2016, 16:29 »
IS is just trying to build up some contributor excitement for whatever half-as*ed plan they've got cooking that will moderately placate us until they're in a position of strength again.
I hope that's not the case but history says otherwise.
67
« on: March 08, 2016, 17:17 »
New update today fixed pond5 stats but app seems to be crashing a lot now.
68
« on: March 04, 2016, 18:13 »
One thing everyone seems to be missing here is that there is a Royalty element in this membership program. Everyone is guaranteed $0.50 per month per clip even i8f they are never downloaded. That $6.00 per-year per-clip for no downloads.
Once they collect $100,000 a month (200,000 images in the collection) then the rest of the revenue (minus their 50%) is paid out to the contributors whose images are actually downloaded. Thus, if your images are used your likely to make much more than your $0.50.
In addition, the way search is structured this 200,000 image collection is likely to get much higher attention than the rest of the images on Pond5. And the non-subscription clips of the videographers whose clips are in the subscription collection are likely to get much more traffic than those of videographers without any subscription clips.
At least that's how they explained it to me for my story for my Selling-Stock.com newsletter. http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/pond5-introduces-improved-search-and-membersh
It may not be a great deal, but it is very different and a lot better than other subscription offerings. I'm amazed that Pond5 didn't clearly explain the royalty aspect of this subscription model to those of you who have clips in the collection.
What you are missing is that our issue is with those who are not part of that program and how it may cannibalize sales for uninvited contributors. I think we get it that those specially selected contributors will benefit, it's the ones not selected that makes this a real issue.
My understanding is that this is basically a beta test. If P5 can make this work and get the membership levels that they desire, the program will be opened up to other contributors. At this point they have committed to paying contributors a minimum of 50 cents per clip per month for clips in the program and those payment begin immediately. You have to remember that they currently have very few, if any, people who have signed up for this (ie no real income from this program yet). It wouldn't make sense to pay out on more than the initial 200,000 clips (that's $100,000 a month) until they know if this works. They are going out of pocket to try something that could be more beneficial to contributors than a standard "stack'em high and sell'em cheap" subscription program that pays contributors pennies. I don't know if it will work out but I commend them for trying something outside the box that doesn't outright scr*w contributors from the get go.
69
« on: March 04, 2016, 10:24 »
Well since I increased my video prices to $79 as advised, not one single sale 
You increased your prices sometime on March 1st......today's the 4th! Perhaps some patience. At your lower prices were you selling video everyday at P5?
70
« on: March 01, 2016, 13:43 »
I will try it and report back after some time although when uploading footage the Pond5 average guide is telling me the trend is for around the $59 mark.
If it helps, I ignore the P5 average price guide completely. Personally, I think their guide does a disservice to their contributors by encouraging contributors to price their work too low. Their are many contributors who price their work higher on P5 than it is priced elsewhere and do quite well.
71
« on: February 29, 2016, 23:28 »
There are 4-6 clips in a package.
A HD package is $199. We receive 70% for the first two years and after that 55%.
A 4K package is $299. We receive 70% for the first two years and after that 55%.
Considering the effort involved in making the packages this is not worth it.
4-6 4K clips for $299 is nuts.
I've been wanting to spend a bit of time to learn more about b-rollstock but if this sums up the deal....it's a deal breaker. Save's me some time though. Thanks!
72
« on: February 25, 2016, 13:58 »
I thought they were going to fill this up with clips that weren't selling well? If not, this is alarming.
That was my understanding.
73
« on: February 22, 2016, 14:35 »
Maybe this is why the metadata for all my image uploads is screwed up today. The captions and categories for most images were replaced with the info from one of the images in my submission. Ugh! Glad I caught it but it took some time to fix.
74
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:56 »
Only problem is that Adobe is publically traded and we know what kind of behavior that produces.
Yeah, that might be the fly in the ointment. Publicly traded companies aren't generally known for making decisions that benefit their long term at the cost of the short term. If ever though, now is the time to do it.
75
« on: February 22, 2016, 01:25 »
I wrote Adobe. and said Thats great your doing EL's and all. Then I said...."Wanna Take control Of microstock and Be #1"? All Ya have to do is announce your giving 50% commission to everyone. Then I said why Not. It's Pure profit. You don't have to produce a * thing...You get all your Product for free, Same as Shutterstock who does nothing but exploit our work and walk away with 70%+ I think the time has come to have a serious discussion as to why.
Adobe is already a Much Bigger and much More profitable company Than SS, They could easily in 30 days take complete control of Microstock if they wanted and did this. and giving us 50% right off the top On every sale.........For every Member and stop the stupid High school color, Gold and yellow and green Levels for gods sake.Feels Like being a cheerleader. "Wow, Im gold now" whoopee.
if any company on the Planet can't make a decent Profit of 50% of a product they have nothing to do with producing. Then . with it. I mean seriously. These comments are aimed at all the sites. I would Pay to hear an explanation from any site as to why this can't happen. And I think It's time we Demand an explanation. There is Not one agent,Manager,or company that takes more than 50% of any artist commissions in any segment of the arts.
It's Adobe's for the taking. If they did this, they would be getting ALL of the images and a high percentage of them would be exclusive by default. They could afford to do this even more because the stock photography side of their business isn't where their profit center is. If they controlled most of the images and sold them primarily through their products it could only solidify their core business.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
