My apologies spaceman. By your remarks about prices being too high, and support of companies like Envato, I was assuming you were one of the $10 Pond5 club members. Still have no idea why you (seemingly) would be against this minimum price increase. I tend to agree on many of your points, defending bottom barrel pricing is not one of them. My remarks were intended to be more generic, but your sarcastic rewriting of my first comment in this discussion drew a direct response from me.

Would like to think there's some truth to alexzappa's theory. General customer perception of clip values will be forced to adjust closer to reality. It's a step in the right direction, without a doubt.

My overall point, regardless, is that we all should have the philosophy of keeping our prices fair (not outrageous, fair) and not supporting the garbage companies. There has never been a valid argument otherwise, only fear, gullible contributors who buy into the bs that companies like iStock feed them, and a general misunderstanding of marketing and value of their own product.

We need more input from top sellers like UKstock. We should all be vocal and keep pressuring bottom feeders to wake up, and thief companies to clean up their act. The fact that iStock still gets away with their crap shows there's way too many misinformed, scared, uneducated sellers out there.

Using reason, mathematics and common sense didn't work. Finally, Pond5 had to force you bottom feeders to raise your prices to (or closer to) a respectable level, and reduce contributing to the cheapening of our collected product. Thank you Pond5!

Now let's see if you stubborn $10 (now $25) clip sellers will be honest and report back when your monthly dollar amounts increase in the coming months and admit that those of us begging you to raise your prices were correct and trying to steer you the right way all along.

Then maybe even after that, you'll realize we were also right about dumping bottom feeding sites like Envato and artist-hating, commission stealing pieces of garbage like iStock/Getty. Time to start letting those companies adapt or die, and time to only support the fair(er) ones.

We all know you won't though.

The trials of a submitted image to Shutterstock in September 2016:

Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.

Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.

Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.

Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.

Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.

Attempt 6: Approved.

All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.

And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.

Fotolia. The most needlessly painful site to keyword. Among the worst in ridiculous file reviews and useless contributor support when trying to deal with stupid rejections. Now, instead of migrating everything over to the new parent company automatically, they make a post in a forum that you'd have to happen to stumble upon that suggests we "should probably log in and sync". Would sending out an email to everyone be too hard?

So then, we have to manually log into Adobe and "sync" to set up a duplicate account, for no clear benefit other than a vague "it's probably a good idea, otherwise you might be punished in the future with a rank drop" reasoning. Are you planning on closing Fotolia? If so, maybe just SAY that and give a deadline instead of beating around the bush. Opening a second site for uploads, selling the same product, with all sorts of bugs, while leaving the original as is, all "syncing" to each other. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Can't imagine it's not confusing to customers. Fotolia, always doing things the worst way possible.

Either just rebrand or migrate EVERYTHING over and keep logins intact. What's the point of this whole "log in and sync" process??

On top of that, tried logging into Adobe through the given link with my Fotolia username and password. Nothing. Email and Fotolia password. Nothing. So here I go, emailing what seems to be the only person that works for Fotolia to try to straighten it out...

I guess young, attractive girls, barely wearing any clothes, eating messy ice cream cones and rolling around on the ground for no clear reason, shot by a someone who apparently has Parkinsons, and heavily edited with an imitation lens flare filter, is what Stocksy is looking for. I can already hear them trying to explain how it's "artsy" and not a small step away from cheap amateur pornography.

So you're saying that removing all of my portfolio from Envato, will result in my sales tripling everywhere else?

This will never happen because too many of you have no self respect, little confidence in what you do, and no understanding of what "value" means, but it's quite simple:

Step 1: Stop bottom feeding and supporting companies that bottom feed and/or take too much %.
Step 2: Perceived value of product increases. Companies that gouge our earnings and bottom feed, fail.
Step 3: Profit.

Maybe they are just dealing with the world as it is rather than they would like it to be?

They are helping perpetuate a world of devaluing our collective products and encouraging low contributor %. Those of us that live in a world where food, housing, etc. needs to be paid for with real money understand why it's crucial to retain value in our work. You all must rely on someone else for financial support, have little experience with actual physical work, and probably also don't believe movies and music have any value because you can download them for free on a torrent. Is any of this making sense yet? Of course it isn't.

So who's gonna answer "no" to that question? 

The insane thing is, after reading all the short-sighted, mathematically blind, "I don't care what our percentage is" iStock-loving lemmings on this forum, a ridiculous amount of contributors will probably say "no". It really doesn't "matter" to them.

Quote from: Daryl Ray on June 03, 2016, 02:40

"you will see the real pix of P5 nonsense going around last 10 years of their existence."

So far I see their worse crime over 10 years is not delivering on a newsletter in a timely manner.

It's like you're living in house where most of your neighbors are stealing from you, throwing their garbage on your property, bringing down the property value. Yet you ignore those neighbors and take vocal action against a good neighbor with a house painted a color you don't like. It's insanity. You have a personal gripe, something personal went down between you and Pond5 in the past and your goal in life is to smear their name in revenge. There is no substance to any criticisms you've made so far. If there was, I'd be among the first to agree and call them out on it, and not anonymously either.

Why do I care? They are nearly 50% of my livelihood and have been treated me like a partner consistently for over 5 years. No other company has this kind of history. Between you and the iStock/Getty "I wouldn't car if I was making 10%" crowd, I don't think there's anything anyone can say to inject any logic in your heads.

Thanks for ALL your honest concerns, I will try and get an appointment with a shrink soon.

Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is: The membership program is a disaster for contributors. (PLURAL!!!)

I am very happy for your success and love for P5, BUT "One (or two) swallow doesn't make a summer!"

Also be careful with your prediction skills buddy as you failed with Revostock badly!
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/revostock-payments/msg391016/#msg391016

Not sure what your point is, but again, all you do is deflect from the fact you have cited ZERO incidents of Pond5 lying, or ripping us off.

Revostock WAS a good company, until they weren't. They paid 45%. I made a LOT of money from that company over the years they were around. Things changed, we were lied to and many were stolen from at the end, flat out. That's a whole lot different than LETTING a company steal from you on every sale and then bragging about it. (iStock/Getty) Also, I knew the ship was going down and got just about all my money from that dirtbag before he cashed out and split. So maybe you should trust my prediction skills.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/so-how-much-money-revostock-owe-you-let's-sum-up-the-total/msg453808/#msg453808

As to the subject of this thread, I am a contributor, so my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. No less valid that I don't agree with the misguided speculation and vague negativity being spewed on this and other near duplicate forum threads that have no basis in reality, dominated by the same handful of contributors, some just inexperienced, some with an agenda.

But I'm done here. I don't mind a healthy debate, but this is going no where.

Quote from: Daryl Ray on June 02, 2016, 10:13

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on June 02, 2016, 09:52

Quote from: Daryl Ray on June 02, 2016, 09:38

"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.

And I just did in my edit ...let me repeat it... where is the newsletter explaining recent reviews mess they promised us over a month ago?
:-)

p.s. plenty of folks not happy with P5, I just happen to be more direct.

That's all you got? A late arriving newsletter? You're kidding, right?

They never dropped royalty rates to an industry low and treated contributors like crap while doing it? (iStock) They never took our money and disappeared? (Revostock) They never added everyone's files to a badly planned subscription model and made it an issue to opt out? (Fotolia) Nope. Pond5 is much worse. They haven't produced a newsletter fast enough for your liking, one in which no timeline for release was ever given to begin with. How dare they. I totally see your point now. They're the devil.

Quote from: Daryl Ray on June 02, 2016, 09:38

"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.

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?

Sorry, but I have to add my two cents to this.

First off, having a skeptical, healthy amount of critical awareness of the worst parts and players in this business is generally a good thing. So I hope contributors keep poking at them and we always maintain a sustained push towards our side. The greedy ones reaching their hands deeper in our pockets should know we got our eye on them.

That being said, Dissolve isn't among the worst. They pay-out and price on par with Shutterstock, Fotolia. They have a major flaw in their policy of matching a contributors clip sale prices with Videoblocks, if one contributes to both, while still only paying out Shutterstock/Fotolia percentages on the back end. They refuse to recognize how this is a deal breaker for those of us with higher personal business standards, who are trying to keep a sustained income from this business.

The support and communication from them discussing their misguided policy was refreshingly warm and friendly. Although we never came to an agreement, I walked away without hating them. I have never had any affiliation with Dissolve, in any way, shape or form beyond those conversations.

Now, the individual who has been ranting and making all these duplicate posts about how awful Dissolve has been treating them, he has a history of odd forum behavior. On the Pond5 forums a while back, dozens of spammy, rambling, nonsensical rants about a variety of things, which frequently devolved into inappropriate attacks, from him, when challenged in any capacity. I was not personally involved in any discussions, but I saw them play out and this individual was always on the incoherent-screaming-guy-on-the-street side of things. So I'd take anything claimed here with a grain, er, a lot of salt.

Specific to this topic, let me see if I have this straight; Dissolve is a company doing business how THEY want to. You submitted thousands of clips to them, they communicated to you that they would like it done a certain way. You refused. They continued to communicate and try to work with you and specify how to get your clips up and selling to their standards, and all you did was attempt to argue that Dissolve should change the way THEY do THEIR business, how they should accept and organize content. Dissolve understandably freezes your submissions because of your refusal to follow their guidlines, but continues to communicate with you and I'm sure repeatedly explaining to you exactly what they are doing, why, and how to move forward. And then you go to a public forum and copy/paste what EVERYONE in ANY business should know is generally considered a PRIVATE correspondence?

Dissolve is 150% correct in this situation. Why would anyone want to work/deal with someone like that?