Ok, since you want to make this VH discussion about VB, I'll bite. The whole industry has flaws. No where is perfect. We choose degrees of acceptable or unacceptable situations. We can discuss SS's imperfections too, FT, P5, they all have them. But this was a VH topic, and you chose to pivot to VB. Alrighty.

If a customer goes to VB to buy one of my clips, it won't be through the sub program because I don't and wouldn't participate in that program. So they will pay $50. I know, you're saying that since VB offers a sub program that practically gives away other people's clips, that I'm being inconsistent by selling there. But since I don't participate in that program, I'm not. The value of my clip remains $50, regardless of whether a different clip sells for less. I'm personally being true to keeping video's value reasonable. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.

Quote from: Daryl Ray on February 21, 2017, 08:21

Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.

But, I thought your main concern was companies hurting the business. Videoblocks hurts the business more than Videohive. Why do you support them?

---

One might be led to believe you just care about your own bottom line. By uploading to VB you're supporting their business model by getting customers to sign up, download 1,000 clips for the membership fee and maybe 1 or 2 from you.

This is called pivoting. A common political debate tactic wherein instead of sticking to the relevant discussion, one brings up more topics and distracts from the a faltering position. But again, my clips are not available through VB's sub program, so the relevant comparison is $8/36% vs $50/100%. The choice is pretty clear, to me.

y the way, according to your logic the iPhone 7 (being the most expensive phone) is put together by Americans with a nice fair wage. We all know that is not the case, just like Ralph Lauren isn't sewing his own clothes...

That's no where near my logic. Some companies choose to inflate their prices, while exploiting vulnerable workers overseas, that's a whole different economic issue.

"If you are afraid of the business getting ruined by Videohive then you're not good enough."

Much like political discussion, there's always a point when it devolves into, "well you must suck." It's not a fear of the business being ruined by Videohive, it's choosing whether or not to contribute to going down a path to self-marginalization in general. Like I said, a few people littering won't make the world a dump, but if we all shared that lack of consideration things would start smelling rotten more and more. It's about choosing a philosophy. Do I do my part to keep this industry alive as long as possible, or do I see it as a sinking ship and poke more holes in the hull?

"People still buy jeans for $200 when you can buy jeans for $10."

Those $10 jeans were sewn together by 10 year olds in Bangladesh. So we have the choice to support child slave labor or pay workers a fair wage to make goods. Honestly, this strengthens my point.

Has been a slower month, but have had a reasonable amount of sales on VB. Then again, I'm not competing against myself, undercutting a $50/100% royalty rate company with an $8/36% company. Of course customers will spend as little as you give them the option to. If I could buy a car for $200 instead of $20,000, I would too. But then the car manufacturing industry would collapse...

Quote from: Daryl Ray on February 20, 2017, 06:29

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on February 09, 2017, 18:10

Quote from: Daryl Ray on February 09, 2017, 17:09

Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.

What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.

Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.

1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.

2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.

3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.

We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.

Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.

Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.

1. They've been around for ten years and it's not like there's been a massive rush at SS or iS to drop HD files to $8. The market is big enough for multiple sites to exist at multiple price points. 

2. The list price is the price that the item is sold for. The item price is the list price, minus the buyer's fee. It's not the clearest structure, but it's not exactly hidden either. The fact the pie chart shows $36 from a $100 sale demonstrates that. 'Confusing' would probably be more accurate than 'misleading', but all the information is there.

3. Maybe a valid point, but maybe a fresh start is what they needed. Their experiment with Unstock showed that a different approach could result in a massive increase in revenue per image, both for Envato and for the authors.

Ok, here's my thoughts again, with further clarification from a Videohive staff member's input applied:

1. They have been around for 10 years and still their only "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process. For example, Pond5 HAS introduced a membership program to counter the lowball companies like Envato. And while no, Pond5 does not favor those member clips, it's a clear response to the value of video being driven down.

2. They are intentionally misleading confusing potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.

3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library. This may result in a massive increase in revenue per image, for Envato, because unless you've been under a rock for the last 10 or so years, the stock companies (especially the less reputable ones) ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION tilt the scales only further in their favor, not ours. Because we let them and defend them without deeper thought.

There are good companies and there are bad. Some of us didn't educate ourselves before submitting to the bad companies in the first place, got into bed with them, and then become complacent seeing pennies pouring in from lowball sales or 15% commissions and became too stubborn to consider how this is affecting the market as a whole. Good for you. But being a PR rep for them and trying to dupe less savoy new contributors into buying into their BS, that's gonna make it necessary for me to continue to reply to that nonsense and clarify. For whatever little good that can do.

Quote from: Daryl Ray on February 09, 2017, 17:09

Envato is a garbage company. It's been fairly obvious for years. Even some of the voices here that shamelessly defended them in the past, their loyalty rewarded by having their image portfolios deleted and a middle finger. This is why it's bad to support garbage companies, even if you're making a few bucks in the short term. I don't think there's anyone not part of the Envato employees and volunteers team defending them anymore.

What's really sad is that tons of people will come right back to whatever the next pile of crap they try to pull happens to be.

Anything specific that makes you think they're garbage? Aside from the recent PhotoDune thing of course, as I'm assuming you felt that way before that.

1. Their "niche" (with Videohive) is undercutting the leading stock videos sellers, devaluing stock videos in general in the process.

2. They are intentionally misleading potential new contributors by first stating flat out that "Our author fee to non-exclusive authors is 55% of the item price." then going on to show a pie chart that shows "net author earnings" are actually as low as 36%. Working with a company that feels comfortable to unnecessarily convolute the math this way is certainly suspect.

3. Their method of dealing with their own failures in the stock photo business is to kick most of their loyal contributors to the curb, regardless of the time and effort put forth by those contributors. Again, just evidence of their lack of care towards the ones creating and keywording the content that makes up their library.

We all know iStock is a terrible company. We should know by now that Envato isn't much better, by their behavior and lack of ethics. Contributing to them as an individual isn't going to end the world, of course, much like throwing your fast food trash out the car window into a pristine forest isn't going to either. But both show a lack of respect for the greater good, your fellow humans, and should be discouraged.

Yeah, yeah, I know some people make a few bucks there. So do people that rob old ladies on the street. Doesn't make a * difference in determining if these companies are good or bad for the industry as a whole.

Encourage and promote the good companies, and let the bad ones fail. This is our only power.

They gotta pay for that second floor they just started renting in the Empire State Building somehow.

Could you imagine how great a company Shutterstock could be if they respected where their content came from as much as they indulge themselves? If only they chose to pay contributors fairly instead of blowing ridiculous amounts of their profits on excessive luxuries like some of the most expensive office space in the world...

Anyone know if it's a different staff of video curators reviewing the Adobe submissions or the same knuckleheads they have over at Fotolia? Was hoping they'd ditch those useless time-wasters with that "Denied - Lacks aesthetic or commercial appeal" button that they seem to love pressing on great shots that get approved 100% elsewhere and sell.

You asking for a step by step procedure for success. I'm giving an opinion on a philosophy. Yes, it is an ideal, a concept.

You want someone to tell you specifically how to price your product. I've explained that you have to make that decision on your own but you can get an good idea of how to do that by taking into consideration what the agencies have been doing. For HD: Shutterstock says $80. Videoblocks says $50. Fotolia/Adobe says $75. Average sold price on Pond5 $65. These are the top companies making real money doing this. They price these ways for a reason. So, we should really all agree that $8 is too low, that under $25 is too low. That's not really an opinion, that's what a sane, logical human would conclude by looking at those numbers. Beyond that, do what you need to do. If you create low quality content that has little value, more power to you. That's as specific as I can possibly get.

I don't price based on the fear that thieves would steal it otherwise. But that's a whole different topic.

And really, my sense of self importance? I'm freaking anonymous on here. I'm legitimately concerned when these forum threads are dominated by "sell cheap, let the agencies take all they want" and the pushing of self-destructive precedents that could be leading new artists down the path of further marginalization of our craft.

This is my last post in this thread. We're just going in circles.

All valid advice. I just found it slightly annoying that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all clips should be priced higher and everyone who prices their clips higher will automatically make more money.... whether it's an 8K aerial clip of New York or a handheld 720p clip of your cat shot in low light on an iPhone 4.

Some things aren't always worth $25, and pricing such stuff at $99 is highly unlikely to result in increased revenue!

Again and again, you completely miss the point. Trying my best to simplify this as much as possible: Collectively, as sellers of digital content, we should never allow a company to take more than 50%, and our content should be priced high enough for long-term sustainability. Both of these are fairly impossible to imagine right now, and that's only because too many of you don't get it.

So you feel ok selling clips for $8 now, next month someone else will feel fine selling clips for $5. Next year for $2. Buyers are lulled into thinking that those prices are where they should be. This is how the photo contributors of the past screwed us all by allowing an system where iStock gets away with lowering contributor percentage to 15%. Because you guys don't care about anything but your current bottom line and your limited experience. You just want to be right, you're not listening and thinking.

If you were a $10 seller on Pond5, and the same buyers now need to pay $25 for those same clips, you're making $12.50 on each sale rather than $5. $12.50 is more that $5. If that doesn't make sense to you yet, it never will.

That being said, no one can guarantee what kind of sales you're going to have day to day, month to month. This is business. And if you want guarantees, go work for someone. If you want freedom and to be your own boss, you gotta take risks, you gotta make smart decisions that keep the future and sustainability of your business intact. Otherwise, you ARE contributing to the marginalization of what we are ALL doing.

Besides, raising or lowering prices, giving it 2 weeks and then declaring any kind of conclusion is pure amateur activity.

Have had an image among "bestsellers" for the day more than a few times. Apparently, 2 sales in one day makes an image a "bestseller".  No need to go nuts thinking it means anything.

"If you could give me some kind of step by step guide on how selling lots of items at a low price for a decent overall revenue, will result in me no longer selling lots of items at a low price for a decent overall revenue... then that would be much appreciated."

"but there's nothing to say that's what will happen. My earnings could go up, they could stay the same... or they might go down. I don't know, and you don't know. Not for certain anyway....everyone keeps saying that you'll earn more if you increase the price of your clips, but will they? Is that certain?"

"Will the income be reliable income every month?"

Of course there is no perfect formula, or step by step guide, or we'd all be doing it. However, there's personal integrity. There's business ethics. There's doing the right thing for the sake of the very industry you're depending on, at the expense of some risk to yourself in the short term.

When I started in this business, I knew nothing. I was only selling SFX at iStock and was so impressed at making money doing something I considered a hobby for 20 years that I accepted anything they offered. I was even considering exclusivity. If MSG forums was around, I hadn't found it yet. When iStock took their arrogant step of reducing my share of the sales to 16%, I drew the same naive conclusions you guys are. "If I sell enough, and the dollars seem like enough each month, who cares about the details?" Fortunately, I started reading the iStock forums and some posts by sellers much more experienced and knowledgeable than myself inspired me to think a little deeper into it. I made the hard choice to seek out more fair, reputable companies, and started deleting my content from iStock. I lost money, at first, and was conflicted for a bit. But I know I was doing the right thing. And now there is no doubt that my risk payed off financially.

Unfortunately, I'm still naive enough to think we as contributors could act as a united front pushing back against such crap as taking 85% of sales of our product. But there's always too many frightened sellers. Unsure about how to proceed, but a little too confident in their narrow views. So here we are today, iStock still pays its contributors as little as 15%, Envato is selling HD vids for $8. Both with constant defenders in these forums.

We should never accept less than 50% of our sales. We should ensure our product is being priced fairly. How can these minimal standards be too much to ask? Why would any reasonable content creator argue with this?

What's pricing fairly? That's not up to me to decide for you. But take into consideration the consensus of your peers. Take into account what Shutterstock sells for, Videoblocks, the average sales prices on Pond5, Fotolia/Adobe, even iStock/Getty. How can you not conclude that less than $25 for any HD clip is absolutely ridiculous?