|
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
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
« on: May 23, 2019, 15:11 »
Not a sham....but not explained very well either. By having "exclusive" clips Pond5 is able to distribute them to partner agencies while controlling the prices. Based on what P5 told us, they have contracts with partner agencies where the partner will have to sell at/around the price YOU set for your exclusive clips on Pond5.
And say you make a sale on Adobe with one of your P5 "Exclusive" clips. Do you still retain 60% of the royalties of the price you set, or 60% of what's leftover after Adobe or Vimeo take their cut?
Pond5 said that based on their model we should expect to get around the same or more than we would get if we had placed the clip directly with the partner. That, of course, remains to be seen as from what I can tell the exclusive footage hasn't been placed with any of the partners yet. So I guess we'll have to wait and see.
2
« on: May 23, 2019, 13:32 »
"Based on what P5 told us"
That is a lie.
Then don't participate.
3
« on: May 23, 2019, 12:42 »
Not a sham....but not explained very well either. By having "exclusive" clips Pond5 is able to distribute them to partner agencies while controlling the prices. Based on what P5 told us, they have contracts with partner agencies where the partner will have to sell at/around the price YOU set for your exclusive clips on Pond5.
Also, on the occasion that a customer wants a truly exclusive license (should be a huge sale price) P5 would be able to remove those clips from the partners site. This can only work with exclusive clips that P5 can control and again depends on the contracts negotiated with partner sites.
From what I'm seeing, MANY exclusive contributors are leaving their pricing the same or even lowering their prices below industry standards. 60% royalty is nice but it will never make up for lost sales on other sites unless contributors also raise their prices. This is an opportunity for contributors and P5 to increase prices for exclusive content. If you're not going to raise your prices on your exclusive clips to above industry standards, there is no sense in having exclusive clips.
4
« on: May 23, 2019, 10:58 »
I'm seeing some of my non-exclusive clips on Vimeo Stock and Adobe Stock but am not seeing any of my exclusive clips in either place.
5
« on: May 02, 2019, 18:21 »
Adobe's got what it takes but their lawyers are too scared to allow them to accept editorial. They can't take over till they do.
They dont take editorial images or video from contributors because they have previous arrangements for editorial images. Nothing to do with scared lawyers.
Sorry but not true. I've spoken to their content manager and it's the lawyers who won't let individual contributors submit editorial. They have deals with some news agencies for editorial for sure but's that's not why they won't let individual contributors submit. My guess is that the contracts with the news agencies call for the news agencies to take the brunt of any lawsuits. If they start taking editorial from individuals, adobe is left holding the bag in a lawsuit as they are the only big fish.
6
« on: May 02, 2019, 17:49 »
Adobe's got what it takes but their lawyers are too scared to allow them to accept editorial. They can't take over till they do.
7
« on: April 18, 2019, 11:06 »
This is a fast cash grab. I have no doubt he will make a bunch of money in the short term but he's sinking his (and our) long term prospects in this industry.
8
« on: April 04, 2019, 18:12 »
Yes, Keep your HD at $79 like other sites and your 4k double that or higher. We don't need to create a race to the bottom ourselves. You need those prices as that is the only place you are selling your clips so don't sell yourself short!
My personal opinion/experience is that if you feel your work is of average quality you should keep your exclusive HD at $79 minimum (industry standard). If you feel your work is better than average raise your prices...maybe even by a lot. No matter what, don't undercut other agencies prices. You will not make it up in volume.
9
« on: April 04, 2019, 17:20 »
All an agency needs to do is give their contributors a royalty raise.
Then the exclusive/non exclusive argument would be a mute point.
The first agency to do such a thing would cause massive waves throughout our industry.
Disagree. Pond5 gave a royalty rate raise right from the beginning offering 50% and most everyone still uploaded everywhere. Even to those places with a MUCH lower royalty rate.
and everyone earned more money with no thoughts of being exclusive!
and now Shutterstock is selling video licenses where contributors get $1.50! Getty sells video licenses where contributors get .60 cents or less. It's time for a change.
10
« on: April 04, 2019, 16:13 »
All an agency needs to do is give their contributors a royalty raise.
Then the exclusive/non exclusive argument would be a mute point.
The first agency to do such a thing would cause massive waves throughout our industry.
Disagree. Pond5 gave a royalty rate raise right from the beginning offering 50% and most everyone still uploaded everywhere. Even to those places with a MUCH lower royalty rate.
11
« on: March 09, 2019, 18:31 »
Im on iOS but I cant log into canstock or Pond5. Frustrating when Im paying the annual subscription fee.
12
« on: January 02, 2019, 23:28 »
I apologize for the delay with the implementation of this feature. We're focused on the Microstock.Plus right now, but we'll do our best to implement the spell checker soon 
Niakris thank you for your quick reply! I checked out Microstock.plus earlier today and it is awesome! Saves me a bunch of time and bandwidth. I'm still a bit confused as to what the difference is between Stocksubmitter and Microstock.plus as it sounds like once you build MP out a bit more it could completely take the place of Stocksubmitter. Am I missing something?
13
« on: January 02, 2019, 17:35 »
Any update on the spell check feature? I just started using Stocksubmitter and am really surprised this feature doesn't exist. It's seems to be a great program but I can't accept all the spelling errors and typos I create
14
« on: July 18, 2018, 10:36 »
I sent an email saying that I can't accept both the cut and the low price of $49 HD clips. In the reply I was told they had no plans to change pricing at this time.
I've made pretty good money with videoblocks up until they changed their name. Now it may be time to head to the door. I've stopped uploading and will see what the next couple of months hold before I make my final decision.
15
« on: July 16, 2018, 10:36 »
The only way I could accept the low $49 price for video was because I was getting 100%. At 50% commission the price for an HD clip is WAY too low. I guess my uploads to VB will have to be cut by 100%. Too bad.
16
« on: September 11, 2017, 14:40 »
The marketplace on graphicstock isn't live until I think the 18th? of this month. Having said that, I was part of the beta launch to a small group of customers. I had about 1,000 images online with them for the beta and haven't had a sale. They did say tho that it was a very small beta group of customers so hopefully things will pick up when they actually launch to the public.
17
« on: August 24, 2017, 13:27 »
I've only sold a handful of 4k at VB in the last 1 1/2 years. Sure is nice when it happens tho.
18
« on: August 04, 2017, 11:45 »
Received an email from Deposit Photos this morning asking me to re-activate the partner program on their site because GraphicStock wants to include my images from DP.
I'm already submitting directly to GS so it is a bit concerning to hear they are going after third party suppliers. Especially ones like Deposit Photos. Disappointing if direct submitters at GS are going to be swamped by images from 3rd party deals.
As an aside, I can only assume that a $3.99 sale at GS becomes a .33 cent payout on DP.
19
« on: June 15, 2017, 13:58 »
I'm more interested in this change from a legal standpoint. If it's up to us to mark our work as editorial or not who bears the legal responsibility when a client uses a clip that is marked incorrectly as commercial when shouldn't be? Ultimately it should always be the legal responsibility of the client to determine if their use of a clip is correct or not but I suppose it depends on how the Videoblocks license agreement reads.
20
« on: June 13, 2017, 14:02 »
So basically nothing for most of us and a split of a split for Stocksy contributors.
21
« on: June 12, 2017, 18:10 »
People come to this forum to try to share and receive actual, real information that can help them run their business. Replies like this just muddy the water. Nothing wrong with having a bit of fun here but your post was written as a factual statement rather than a tongue in cheek joke.
Weeding through this forum to find the nuggets of gold is difficult enough without people purposefully posting false information with the intention to mislead. Just saying...
22
« on: June 05, 2017, 10:38 »
I've been looking for a good backup solution to use without a laptop and came across this one a few days ago: https://www.gnarbox.com/Looks good and has great reviews.
23
« on: June 04, 2017, 19:37 »
We absolutely need to be able to select a thumbnail for Adobe to be considered a real player in the video space.
24
« on: May 25, 2017, 18:44 »
As I understand it, Getty recently announced to many of their 3rd party providers that if they want to keep their content on the Getty site they will have to accept a 15% royalty from Getty. A place like Eyeem, I'd imagine, would have pretty low bargaining power and would fall into this category. So assuming this is true, your 50% from Eyeem could actually be more like 7.5% of the actual sale price.
If Getty's as deep in debt as has been reported over the last few years, offering these sh*ty royalty rates may be their only chance to stay alive but it doesn't mean you have to accept their terms. As for Eeyem, Getty is the only real way they have to make any money. 7.5% of all sales might be good from their point of view because they aren't creating the product. They just collect the images that people give them, send them to Getty and then collect the payments.
At some point photographers need to be willing to step over the pennies and start looking for the dollars...if you know what I mean.
25
« on: May 15, 2017, 14:41 »
We simply want to do a bulk purchase and have the right to use the videos in our software, where our customers can use them to display on our screens and media players, but cannot download or re-use them outside of our software. It is display only. Could you please email me a quote for 50 or 100 clips?
This is a resale/distribution type license as the company is licensing your clips and then wanting to distribute them (for display only) to their customers to use on their device. There should be extended licenses involved that drive up the price considerably which is probably what they were told by whatever agency they found them on. They're hoping to do an end run around the large price they were quoted from the agency and get them on the cheap from you. Don't license them too cheaply and don't forget to value your time which will be greater than you might think. Also, in my experience, it is often the case that after exchanging many emails with the buyer and spending a great deal of my time, the customer just disappears and the deal never happens. Not trying to be a dark cloud, just trying to interject some reality. Good luck!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
