Just emailed this to Pond5 support and cc'd CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected]

Pond5 decision-makers,

As a long-time contributor to Pond5, I am writing in anger that you are cutting our profit share of non-exclusive sales by a massive 20%. Pond5 attracted artists in large part because it offered a fair 50/50 split, and now you�re lightly dropping that as �not competitive.� Let me ask, is management also taking a pay cut to stay competitive? Do you hire employees and tell them, �Work hard, do great, and maybe in a few years we�ll cut your pay by 20%�? You chose to take a huge amount of earnings away from the content creators in an effort to squeeze them into working for you exclusively. That is an incredible betrayal. On a basic human level you should be ashamed of your actions and greed.

Pond5 has repeatedly spoken against a race to the bottom in pricing. But by cutting artist pay, you�re pushing a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Did you really think it would be more acceptable because you simultaneously launched the 60/40 exclusivity offer? We see the earnings cut for what it is - a profit-grab out of the pockets of artists and an attempt to push contributors into exclusivity by making non-exclusivity less profitable. But for most contributors exclusivity would not cover the loss from leaving other sites, and so your greed is just part of a slow, inevitable disincentive for artists to create good work. Why would I sign exclusively with a company that betrays its contributors on the very day it launches the exclusivity program? You've just proven that contributors can't trust you to maintain commissions.

Quote from: KevinM on March 23, 2019, 16:55

Quote from: tickstock on March 23, 2019, 16:37

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.

Just because 30% royalty is terrible, that doesn't mean 40% isn't bad as well. ANY lowering of our cut is bad, it's all part of a race to the bottom in what we get paid for our work. So I agree that pressure should be directed to the lowest paying sites as well, but that doesn't excuse Pond5 from cutting our rate. The petition encourages buyers to buy from Storyblocks, which still has a 50/50 split.

It kind of does, doesn't it?  If contributors are willing to put the same exact clips on sites with 30% why should any site pay more?

When I sign with a company the deal is for a certain rate. Whatever that rate is, if the company lowers it, I push back. Both because they're taking earnings from me and because rate drops anywhere can feed an industry-wide race to the bottom. You seem to only want to empathize with the agency side, so tell you what, why don't you contact Pond5 and invite them to lower your commission to 30% because that's what other companies pay? Then if any other agency drops commissions further, be sure to update Pond5 about it so they can match it. If that sounds inane because it's lacking in rational self-interest, well then now you know how your posts sound.

Exclusivity benefits Pond5 while a contributor is sure to have an overall income loss. It�s an insulting smokescreen to offer such a lame deal while at the same time lowering our cut to 40% - a whopping 20% earnings cut. It�s a profit-grabbing betrayal by a company that has always marketing itself as artist-friendly, and it should to be called out as such.

Some asked, why call them out for cutting commissions when others pay even less? Because all of it is unfairly low � 30% is too low and 40% is too low. Pond5 says they don�t want a race to the bottom, but by cutting artist pay they�re participating in a race to the bottom in how much artists are compensated for their own work. Is the CEO getting a pay cut? Is any employee there getting a pay cut? So why . should the creators be OK with a 20% earnings cut?

The only good option here is to push back strongly against the commission cut. If Pond5 wants to go 60/40 for exclusive footage, fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what everyone else is paid. Stock companies can look to other areas of their business model for profit or accept the profit they're making, but they need to stop thinking they can take more money from contributors just because they want it.

Pushing back against Storyblocks worked because tons of people wrote emails and posted online. I wrote the petition against them and just created this petition against Pond5. Please sign this petition and share with everyone you know! https://www.change.org/p/jason-teichman-pond5-don-t-cut-the-already-low-compensation-for-stock-artists

And please contact Pond5 to let them know it�s not OK for them or any other site to cut our earnings for the work we create. Email is [email protected], and cc CEO Jason Teichman at [email protected].

I contacted Microstockr about the issue. We can't access Pond5 data through Microstockr anymore because Pond5 added a captcha requirement. Here is the full email I received from Microstockr. I've already emailed Pond5 asking them to fix this.

Pond5 introduced a captcha on their website effectively blocking us from logging in.

We've recently asked the agency for an API and the response was it's not on their priority list.
Perhaps they will change their minds if more people request it.

We encourage our users to send them an email at [email protected] with a message like the one that follows. Feel free to change it:

"Hi Pond5,

My name is ... and I'm a contributor to your agency. I also am a Microstockr Pro user which is an app that helps me track my sales and which I use regularly.
I've noticed you recently added a captcha to your login screen that blocks the app from logging in.
Since these statistics are very useful to me, is there a way you can provide an API the app can use to get the sales data?
I know you are concerned with account security but I've been using this app for a while now and I never had problems with it.

Please consider it as it would make our lives a bit easier.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks."

------------

If they send you a response, please let us know.
In the meantime we will try and see if we can open that captcha in a pop-up inside the app.
An API would solve this issue for both Microstockr Pro and Mobile.

Here is the response I got from Pond5: "This particular test will run for 8 weeks and the prices will be set back to their original amount when it's finished. What we learn with the test it will help us to make better recommendations to our artists about the optimal price of 4K content to help them to make the most revenue. We appreciate your cooperation and we're here to solve any questions that you may have."

And the response I sent to them: "Cristobal, that was a tone-deaf response that ignored the key point here - Pond5 should not be changing prices, even as a test for a couple months, without informing contributors and getting their permission. It is a violation of a core element in the contributor relationship, namely contributors having control over their own pricing. Pond5 should have contacted contributors about the test and asked them to either opt in or opt out. I read almost everything stock sites send to me for contributor communications, and I did not see any communication about this at all, much less an opt in/out element. What I want to hear from Pond5 is: 1) they recognize that setting prices is a key prerogative for contributors; 2) they admit communication here was extremely poorly handled; 3) they make a commitment that in the future they will not change prices, even as a test, without consent from contributors. Please make these points known to the decision makers at Pond5."

I do read almost everything the stock sites email, and I didn't see anything about a 4K pricing test. Did anyone receive advance notification of this? Were you allowed to opt out?

You can change the price in batch in setting. Account>Preferences.. most bottom column. by default web priced at 50% of your HD price.

Thanks for mentioning that! It's not an easily apparent feature, to access it you have to click the bottom box for "Customize down-converted price percentages."

It's a quick way to adjust the percentage difference between the 4K/HD/web prices. I compressed the price spread between 4K/HD/web. I think the default was something like 100%-50%-20%. I changed it to 100%-53%-33%. Then I went to my uploads and raised the price on all my 4K clips, so that the 4K and web versions are now more expensive but the HD price is where is was before.

Quote from: KevinM on August 09, 2018, 10:20

Their prices are now comparable to Shutterstock and they're paying a higher commission.

Comparable to Shutterstock? I'd say a heck of a lot better than SS. On average, my HD sales at SS have been around $17 - $22. And these days, people are getting a lot of $1.50 sales for HD and 4k clips through SS. I think VB blows SS out of the water when it comes to stock footage earnings.

The sales price is comparable to Shutterstock ($79). And then VB pays a higher commission, so yes, it's a better deal for us than SS.

Quote from: KevinM on August 09, 2018, 11:05

The original Storyblocks 100% commission rate was great while it lasted but ultimately unsustainable. Cutting commission by 50% but not raising prices was unfair to contributors and damaging to the market. By keeping commissions at 50% but raising prices to market standards, a balance has been struck and commission dollars are good.

So they got that huge amount of footage and contributors to become just like others right after.
That was for sure par of the plan since the start... anyways - 50% of 49$ is not cool... I get it now.
I just did not see that they were going to do that move.

... I don't want to make people angry... but I still feel that Storyblock has sucessfully stop giving 100% comission and contributors are happpy with that.
If they would decided in one day to raise the prices and then take 50% everyone would be pissed - but because they "negociated" you seems all proud of what you got. Foor me Storyblock just became like other companies.

So you think 100% commission forever is sustainable and they're wrong for stopping it? I have to disagree with that perspective, and I don't think they lied when they said 100% commission was unsustainable. If they had originally came to us as contributors and said they have to make a change to stay in business, I would be fine with it as long as the change was fair and not damaging long-term to the market (i.e. low sales prices AND lowering commissions). Their idea on how to change was bad, they got stung for it, and now they've adjusted to end up in a fair place. They should have done that from the start. Think about it - they're now selling at the same price as SS but with a higher commission rate. Frankly, let's hope that lasts, we'll see if they can pull it off.

Mods deleted other thread as a duplicate. It's OK, my point there was that we achieved success through speaking up! CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH HOW FANTASTIC IT IS THAT CONTRIBUTORS MADE THEMSELVES HEARD THROUGH WRITING EMAILS, DELETING PORTFOLIOS, REFUSING TO UPLOAD, ETC.! This is how we protect our interests as contributors and keep our industry viable. Great job, everyone!!

Let's not be short-sighted. Stronger sales at VideoBlocks is not a good thing, because that means sales taken away from sites that charge higher prices and/or pay us more in commissions. It means an overall devaluation in the market. This pushback against SB is not only about a massive commission cut, it is equally or even more about a race to the bottom in stock footage like we saw happen in stock photography. Anyone who cares about continually getting paid less and less for their stock footage work should be concerned about what SB is doing.

Secondly, it's incorrect to view our response in terms of meeting or not meeting a certain goal. It would be great if losing contributors and trust made SB decide that a smaller commission cut is a better idea long term, but even if they don't, it's still important for us to make their choice as costly and damaging for them as possible. The next time they - and any other stock company - considers such a move (and they will), they will absolutely think back to what the costs were for them the last time. What was the response? How many contributors were lost? How much content deleted from portfolios? What was the quality of content lost and were the new contributors as good? What was the damage to our reputation among contributors and how did that affect business? These are questions about "how much." Which means every email counts, every petition signer counts, every deleted portfolio counts.

Some people here are stuck in a mentality of "You won't get them to change their mind on this decision, so it's pointless to say anything." If that's your perspective, it's easy to see why you'd feel defeated. However, it's a flat-out incorrect perspective because this is not an "all or nothing" scenario, it's a matter or "how much." SB has acted against your best interest, and there is no escaping that you have a binary choice in how to respond. Silence is an invitation for them and their competitors to take more of your money in the future. Any action you take against them is a small dollar amount in their loss column and notice that future actions will bring more losses.

Quote from: lucagavagna on July 25, 2018, 04:45

Signing the petition is costless, if we are many contributors signing, SB will take the disturb to read about our disappointment.

True, but it's unlikely to make any difference to anything. I think it's highly unlikely they're sat at StoryBlocks HQ going "Strange, people don't like this change... we predicted that everybody would love it!". They will have expected this to be an unpopular decision. In fact, they're more likely to be sat there saying "Only 91 people have signed a petition regarding this?! That's fantastic, we thought the change would be a lot less popular! We should have gone for 60% to us instead!"

They're even more likely to say, "Look at the sheep contributors we have like SpaceStockFootage who never speak up against us and troll anyone who does. Let's take 75%." In the same paragraph you speak against the petition yet point out that not enough people are speaking up. People have signed the petition, people have deleted their portfolios, people have sent emails to TJ and the support staff telling them why their pay cut is a terrible idea. Is it a tidal wave of action? No, but it is something and it does show them they're losing contributors. What do you do to try to make the situation better? Nothing, you actively make it worse. Never seen anyone try so hard to convince himself and everyone else that no one has any power so we should all shut up. That's pathetic.

Did anyone make petition when:
- istock/getty started dumping prices on images and videos?
- when shutterstock invented $1.5 prices for stock clips?
- when Pond5 started offering membership?
- when Revostock closed down site and steal our money?
- when Dissolve threaten contributors with lower prices?
- etc...

why so much interest in dumping agency such as VB? Which lowered our value of footage from the beginning. You shouldn't even UPLOAD to such agencies.

You're highlighting the problem: stock agencies make moves that affect us negatively and we have no strong response. It doesn't have to be a petition, it can be a mass portfolio deletion, etc. - the point is that as the suppliers in the industry we have a right and duty to have some power in the relationship. Up to now we have been too disorganized to harness that power, so our response is scattered and weak. It's still too weak right now even with a petition, but this is a start in the right direction.