Author Topic: SS 4K price change to 199. (Read 25494 times)

gcrook · « **on:** June 24, 2015, 11:09 »

I actually expected this sooner wonder why it took them so long to justify.
This will only mean that other sites like dissolve with eventually need to lower 4K prices and as for pond5 the future of 4K there will depend on what the contributors will eventually do,
which goes without saying that few people will justify 4K price above 199.
Of course no mention of royalties change to video or the discarding of web and/or sd resolutions.
I quote from the email i just received.

Quote

Since we launched 4K at the beginning of 2014, we've been incredibly inspired by the quality and diversity of the videos our contributors have submitted to the collection. We know adjusting to the workflow and production demands associated with submitting 4K has involved a bit of a learning curve, and we are thrilled to see your wonderful work.

While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction.

The pricing for our 4K packs is as follows:

5 Clips $929
10 Clips $1,759
25 Clips $4,259

Our thinking is this new price point and package options will open the door to licensing your work to a wider group of customers, and we're excited to see the results in the weeks and months ahead.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2015, 14:42 »

I have to say I am disappointed and discouraged by this price change. This will devalue the whole 4K market. I know that Shutterstock price is often used as a guide in setting prices by other agencies and artists, myself included. And it just became 1.5 times lower overnight.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2015, 14:57 »

1.5 times lower is -150 dollar

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:05 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 24, 2015, 14:42

I have to say I am disappointed and discouraged by this price change. This will devalue the whole 4K market. I know that Shutterstock price is often used as a guide in setting prices by other agencies and artists, myself included. And it just became 1.5 times lower overnight.

Shutterstock seems to be synonymous with devaluing the whole market both photo and video.

gcrook · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:10 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 24, 2015, 14:42

I have to say I am disappointed and discouraged by this price change. This will devalue the whole 4K market. I know that Shutterstock price is often used as a guide in setting prices by other agencies and artists, myself included. And it just became 1.5 times lower overnight.

The 4K market value as you perceive it is a bubble slowly bursting like all bubbles.The electronics companies now offer 4k acquisition and projection many timer cheaper that in was 1 or 2 years ago and they will continue to do so (ask the gh4 owners for example and the new blackmagic 4k camera owners after July).
Im not trying to justify shutterstock in any way after all they have completely destroyed hd pricing (this month's hd and below commissions btw are completely laughable for me),now it is time for that to happen to 4k as soon as it becomes mainstream.

But they could at least have taken out the web sizes.It is only logical that when you send an email saying how mainstream 4K is becoming that you take out the smaller resolutions, (maybe not SD)
And good luck waiting to "market" our stuff.The only marketing they do is selling cheap and massively and boasting about it,some people should eventually realize that this is what marketing is all about,unless they fantacize that ss goes out to companies and says "hey we have a dude here that is creating awesome 4k clips of flowers,check out his stuff" .
I mean really...

fmarsicano · « **Reply #5 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:17 »

I truly believe that 299$ for one clip was way too high compared to 80$ full hd, I think that this new pricing will bring more sales to everyone and more buyers and will open the real 4k market, I am sure I sound not popular to most of you but I am realistic for microstock hopefully 4K will start to sell

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #6 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:22 »

Quote from: gcrook on June 24, 2015, 15:10

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 24, 2015, 14:42
I have to say I am disappointed and discouraged by this price change. This will devalue the whole 4K market. I know that Shutterstock price is often used as a guide in setting prices by other agencies and artists, myself included. And it just became 1.5 times lower overnight.

And good luck waiting to "market" our stuff.The only marketing they do is selling cheap and massively and boasting about it,some people should eventually realize that this is what marketing is all about,unless they fantacize that ss goes out to companies and says "hey we have a dude here that is creating awesome 4k clips of flowers,check out his stuff" .
I mean really...

well said!

gcrook · « **Reply #7 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:23 »

Quote from: fmarsicano on June 24, 2015, 15:17

I truly believe that 299$ for one clip was way too high compared to 80$ full hd, I think that this new pricing will bring more sales to everyone and more buyers and will open the real 4k market, I am sure I sound not popular to most of you but I am realistic for microstock hopefully 4K will start to sell

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

No i agree with you the price is beyond logical if not a bit high,it's the commissions,the web sizes (against our will) that completely ridicule our work, and the general discounted sales that work against us most of the times.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #8 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:44 »

Quote from: fmarsicano on June 24, 2015, 15:17

hopefully 4K will start to sell

It has been selling alright for me.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2015, 15:57 »

"While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction."

Lol, one of those things that makes no sense. "Things are awesome and only going to grow, so, we're dropping prices! Yeah!" Silly.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:03 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 24, 2015, 15:57

"While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction."

Lol, one of those things that makes no sense. "Things are awesome and only going to grow, so, we're dropping prices! Yeah!" Silly.

I think gbalex nailed it on the head in another thread, both of those statements can be true if it's about taking market share.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:33 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57

1.5 times lower is -150 dollar

1.5 times lower doesn't make sense and it certainly isn't $150.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:35 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 24, 2015, 16:33

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57
1.5 times lower is -150 dollar
1.5 times lower doesn't make sense and it certainly isn't $150.

I said minus 150 dollar. 300 dollar 1.5 times lower, isnt that 300-450?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:36 »

I'll see what other sites do, but I can see myself uploading only an HD file to SS and pricing 4k at $300+ on P5. This business of constantly pitting one site against with price reductions is killing us.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:38 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 16:35

Quote from: Zeus on June 24, 2015, 16:33
Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57
1.5 times lower is -150 dollar
1.5 times lower doesn't make sense and it certainly isn't $150.
I said minus 150 dollar. 300 dollar 1.5 times lower, isnt that 300-450?

That's the way I read it. A 1.5 x reduction is actually a gain.

KB · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:39 »

As the OP wrote, I also expected this to happen sooner (but am glad that I sold the ones I did at the higher price

).

However, I stopped uploading 4K content to SS a while ago, because while I have sold some 4K clips as 4K, I have not sold a single one as HD. SS claims that most buyers do not use the HD filter when searching for clips, but my sales anecdotally tell a different story. As long as my 4K clips are going to be filtered out of HD searches, I'm not going to bother uploading them to SS.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:48 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57

1.5 times lower is -150 dollar

$150 is two times lower.

300/2=150
300/1.5 = 200

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #17 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:50 »

Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 16:39

As the OP wrote, I also expected this to happen sooner (but am glad that I sold the ones I did at the higher price ).

However, I stopped uploading 4K content to SS a while ago, because while I have sold some 4K clips as 4K, I have not sold a single one as HD. SS claims that most buyers do not use the HD filter when searching for clips, but my sales anecdotally tell a different story. As long as my 4K clips are going to be filtered out of HD searches, I'm not going to bother uploading them to SS.

KBm that is a very important consideration. Does this problem exist on P5. I think the problem there is a price filter, where the HD file doesn't get considered if there is higher priced 4k attached even though it could.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:51 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 24, 2015, 16:48

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57
1.5 times lower is -150 dollar

$150 is two times lower.

300/2=150
300/1.5 = 200

No, that's 50% lower, i.e. 0.50 x Try buy a jacket for 150% off.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2015, 16:56 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 24, 2015, 16:51

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 24, 2015, 16:48
Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57
1.5 times lower is -150 dollar

$150 is two times lower.

300/2=150
300/1.5 = 200
No, that's 50% lower, i.e. 0.50 x Try buy a jacket for 150% off.

That is not 50% lower. It is 33% lower.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2015, 17:22 »

$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?

KB · « **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2015, 17:31 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on June 24, 2015, 17:22

$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?

30%

KB · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2015, 17:34 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 24, 2015, 16:50

Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 16:39
As the OP wrote, I also expected this to happen sooner (but am glad that I sold the ones I did at the higher price ).

However, I stopped uploading 4K content to SS a while ago, because while I have sold some 4K clips as 4K, I have not sold a single one as HD. SS claims that most buyers do not use the HD filter when searching for clips, but my sales anecdotally tell a different story. As long as my 4K clips are going to be filtered out of HD searches, I'm not going to bother uploading them to SS.
KBm that is a very important consideration. Does this problem exist on P5. I think the problem there is a price filter, where the HD file doesn't get considered if there is higher priced 4k attached even though it could.

As far as I know and can tell, P5's filters work correctly (i.e., they do what I'd expect and don't filter out my 4K clips if someone is looking for an HD clip at or above my HD price).

LesPalenik · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2015, 17:48 »

Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 17:31

Quote from: LesPalenik on June 24, 2015, 17:22
$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?
30%

So, we are talking about the following split:
$60 return for the movie concept and detail planning, driving to a location, shooting, editing, keywording, submitting, equipment depreciation and
$140 for adding the clip to an existing storage and display facility, some promotion, plus a few pennies to keep a 500MB file online.

Something doesn't seem quite right.

gbalex · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2015, 19:47 »

Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 17:31

Quote from: LesPalenik on June 24, 2015, 17:22
$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?
30%

Based on the last 10Q it would be 28%

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2015, 20:22 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 16:56

Quote from: Zeus on June 24, 2015, 16:51
Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 24, 2015, 16:48
Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 24, 2015, 14:57
1.5 times lower is -150 dollar

$150 is two times lower.

300/2=150
300/1.5 = 200
No, that's 50% lower, i.e. 0.50 x Try buy a jacket for 150% off.

That is not 50% lower. It is 33% lower.

Example given above, "$150 is two times lower. " 300/2=150

I still read that as 50% unless you have some new ultra new math for me

Mantis · « **Reply #26 on:** June 24, 2015, 22:02 »

Simply put, this is the beginning of the erosion of 4k, which will become $79 a clip when 5 and 6k are the next big thing.

cobalt · « **Reply #27 on:** June 24, 2015, 22:29 »

Is anybody here getting regular 4k downloads? According to the pond5 stats even there it is less than5%, no?

So how can it be severly impacting sales, if 4k is not selling?

And if 4k sales double or triple at the new price, wouldn't you make more Money?

I am still waiting for my first 4k sale.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #28 on:** June 24, 2015, 22:48 »

Only those who don't have 4K sales are happy. They think they need to lower the price to attract sales. Although it might be true to some degree I doubt it. Customers tend to choose what's popular. That is not going to change. Just the amount they pay. And 4K is still quite a niche product. Those who need 4K have proper budgets and are not that price sensitive.

cobalt · « **Reply #29 on:** June 24, 2015, 23:44 »

Then why is SS lowering the price? And on pond5 you can set your price to anything you like anyway, or are you only selling 4k on SS?

I fully agree if what you have is the right thing for customers with large budgets, you can charge more, but wouldn't it be better to keep it at pond5 with a 500 dollar price tag or more?

300 was too cheap for professional production costs anyway, so for 200 you should probably pull it and move it elsewhere.

KB · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2015, 00:04 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 24, 2015, 19:47

Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 17:31
Quote from: LesPalenik on June 24, 2015, 17:22
$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?
30%
Based on the last 10Q it would be 28%

They lowered it? Footage always paid 30% (at least, for cart sales).

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #31 on:** June 25, 2015, 00:11 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 24, 2015, 23:44

Then why is SS lowering the price? And on pond5 you can set your price to anything you like anyway, or are you only selling 4k on SS?

I fully agree if what you have is the right thing for customers with large budgets, you can charge more, but wouldn't it be better to keep it at pond5 with a 500 dollar price tag or more?

300 was too cheap for professional production costs, so for 200 you should proably pull it and move it elsewhere.

I would guess they need better growth numbers to impress the Wall Street.

I tend to match my prices at SS and P5. I'm afraid not many customers would want to spurge $500 on a clip if they can get it for $199. At the moment Shutterstock is my best earner and I can't afford to quit it. But this move sure made my think about diversifying my revenue base.

cobalt · « **Reply #32 on:** June 25, 2015, 00:20 »

Thank you for taking me seriously. Pond5 is still outselling SS for me, unless there is an extended license. I have had sales of files that offer 4k, but the customers choose hd instead.

Does pond5 even have extended licenses? They make a big difference on SS when they happen.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #33 on:** June 25, 2015, 00:39 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 25, 2015, 00:11

Quote from: cobalt on June 24, 2015, 23:44

I fully agree if what you have is the right thing for customers with large budgets, you can charge more, but wouldn't it be better to keep it at pond5 with a 500 dollar price tag or more?
300 was too cheap for professional production costs, so for 200 you should proably pull it and move it elsewhere.

I would guess they need better growth numbers to impress the Wall Street.

I tend to match my prices at SS and P5. I'm afraid not many customers would want to spurge $500 on a clip if they can get it for $199. At the moment Shutterstock is my best earner and I can't afford to quit it. But this move sure made my think about diversifying my revenue base.

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!

Ronib · « **Reply #34 on:** June 25, 2015, 00:44 »

Can someone please tell me how much ss will pay to contributors for selling 4k files? If i get 23.70$ for hd sell?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cobalt · « **Reply #35 on:** June 25, 2015, 01:12 »

they pay 30%, so if it is a normal sale you will get around 60 dollars.

gcrook · « **Reply #36 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:09 »

Quote

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!

Wow, did you really try that hard to come up with this reversed logic?
Seems like you actually condone SS for this.So they are the professionals who do what they need to do (simple market logic) while all the others
are silly kids fooling around?
Well done sir,well done.

Ronib · « **Reply #37 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:11 »

Thanks cobalt(:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #38 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:32 »

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 02:09

Quote

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!

Wow, did you really try that hard to come up with this reversed logic?
Seems like you actually condone SS for this.So they are the professionals who do what they need to do (simple market logic) while all the others
are silly kids fooling around?
Well done sir,well done.

You are welcome!

Noedelhap · « **Reply #39 on:** June 25, 2015, 05:44 »

Economy 101 teaches us that when the demand grows, you increase your prices. But no, Shutterstock uses flawed logic in their e-mail: "4K is going to be strong, so we'll be lowering our prices!"

At least they could've tried less sugarcoating and simply say: "we can't compete on price with (most of) our competitors, so we'll be lowering prices and you'll be getting lower royalties, suck it up."

From a business point of view, I do understand their move in the long term. After all, 4K is going to become a commodity anyway, so sooner or later, a price drop was unavoidable. I just didn't expect it so soon.

tickstock · « **Reply #40 on:** June 25, 2015, 06:03 »

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 02:09

Quote

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!

Wow, did you really try that hard to come up with this reversed logic?
Seems like you actually condone SS for this.So they are the professionals who do what they need to do (simple market logic) while all the others
are silly kids fooling around?
Well done sir,well done.

His name was SSArtist before he changed it to KnowYourOnions, it's no surprise really.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #41 on:** June 25, 2015, 06:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 06:03

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 02:09

Quote

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!

Wow, did you really try that hard to come up with this reversed logic?
Seems like you actually condone SS for this.So they are the professionals who do what they need to do (simple market logic) while all the others
are silly kids fooling around?
Well done sir,well done.
His name was SSArtist before he changed it to KnowYourOnions, it's no surprise really.

Totally wrong!
I was big fan of P5 but their management sadly sucks in making the great idea happen.
Sorry if it hurts.

P.S. My Username was and still is SSArtist, but has nothing to do with ShutterStock. For your info, Usernames can not be changed on MSG. I choose to publish posts with KnowYourOnions since Dec 2014, as it sounds more appealing. :-)
On MSG it's possible and legit to have different username and public name under one account.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #42 on:** June 25, 2015, 08:22 »

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on June 25, 2015, 00:39

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 25, 2015, 00:11
Quote from: cobalt on June 24, 2015, 23:44

I fully agree if what you have is the right thing for customers with large budgets, you can charge more, but wouldn't it be better to keep it at pond5 with a 500 dollar price tag or more?
300 was too cheap for professional production costs, so for 200 you should proably pull it and move it elsewhere.

I would guess they need better growth numbers to impress the Wall Street.

I tend to match my prices at SS and P5. I'm afraid not many customers would want to spurge $500 on a clip if they can get it for $199. At the moment Shutterstock is my best earner and I can't afford to quit it. But this move sure made my think about diversifying my revenue base.

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!

Based on my experience many buyers will happily pay $500 for a micro style image so why wouldn't they happily pay $500 for a 4k clip?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #43 on:** June 25, 2015, 09:56 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 25, 2015, 08:22

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on June 25, 2015, 00:39
Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 25, 2015, 00:11
Quote from: cobalt on June 24, 2015, 23:44

I fully agree if what you have is the right thing for customers with large budgets, you can charge more, but wouldn't it be better to keep it at pond5 with a 500 dollar price tag or more?
300 was too cheap for professional production costs, so for 200 you should proably pull it and move it elsewhere.

I would guess they need better growth numbers to impress the Wall Street.

I tend to match my prices at SS and P5. I'm afraid not many customers would want to spurge $500 on a clip if they can get it for $199. At the moment Shutterstock is my best earner and I can't afford to quit it. But this move sure made my think about diversifying my revenue base.

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get!
Based on my experience many buyers will happily pay $500 for a micro style image so why wouldn't they happily pay $500 for a 4k clip?

This has been my experience too when selling direct. Things are getting way too cheap but it's because it's being offered to the buyers so why wouldn't they want it?

The only reason cheap, and now cheaper, options exist is because we contributors gladly continue to support it. If nobody contributed to SS the company and others wouldn't exist. Instead SS has become insanely successful from continual contributor and image growth.

KB · « **Reply #44 on:** June 25, 2015, 10:11 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 25, 2015, 09:56

The only reason cheap, and now cheaper, options exist is because we contributors gladly continue to support it. If nobody contributed to SS the company and others wouldn't exist.

It isn't all about SS, though (I realize the thread is). If I search '4K' on P5 and put the price slider at <$99, I get 59,438 results. That's more files than > $99 (56,012). At < $49, there are still 15,451 results.

So your second sentence above is true, but not realistic -- because your first sentence above is even "more true".

KevinM · « **Reply #45 on:** June 25, 2015, 10:26 »

Like anyone else, I don't like to see price drops on my content. But my 4K clips on SS have never sold, not once, and I have only one 4K sale at P5. So I will reserve judgement until I see if this price drop affects sales positively.

And as others have stated, I have to guess the real reason for the SS price drop is because P5 and perhaps others (?) are selling 4K content much cheaper. I just looked through a random sampling of 20-30 4K shots on P5 - most were priced under $100 and only one was priced above $199.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #46 on:** June 25, 2015, 10:36 »

From buyers point of view 4K packs are just great and not to miss deal!
I suspect SS will flood existing and new buyers with this offer and many will go for it.

The pricing for SS 4K packs is as follows:
5 Clips $929
10 Clips $1,759
25 Clips $4,259

Time will tell ...

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

tickstock · « **Reply #47 on:** June 25, 2015, 11:44 »

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on June 25, 2015, 10:36

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

You need to get off your nutty campaign against Pond5, how would a pack work when all the files are differently priced? They also offer credit packs already https://www.pond5.com/index.php?page=credit_packages

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #48 on:** June 25, 2015, 12:12 »

Quote from: KB on June 25, 2015, 10:11

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 25, 2015, 09:56
The only reason cheap, and now cheaper, options exist is because we contributors gladly continue to support it. If nobody contributed to SS the company and others wouldn't exist.
It isn't all about SS, though (I realize the thread is). If I search '4K' on P5 and put the price slider at <$99, I get 59,438 results. That's more files than > $99 (56,012). At < $49, there are still 15,451 results.

So your second sentence above is true, but not realistic -- because your first sentence above is even "more true".

Yes that applies to all of these sites not just SS but SS is currently the dominant player. But now they risk pulling an IS by alienating contributors in doing whatever it takes to win more buyers in competing with Adobe. They most likely won't raise prices and they won't give anything more to contributors so what options are left? Exactly. Changing prices to their benefit and squeezing contributors.

And about my second sentence, just stating a fact. They clearly have some excellent business talent to get to where they are but without contributor content there would be no SS. Their success is in direct relation to contributor support and by their massive success and record level new file growth contributors are indicating we're overwhelmingly thrilled with the royalties and terms.

gcrook · « **Reply #49 on:** June 25, 2015, 14:35 »

Quote

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

I am convinced that you are not contributing to p5 in photos or video and yet you seem to know everything.
Nonetheless,p5 does discounts from time to time.I dont know if they work but regardless we always get 50% commission discounted or not.
I have my issues with them and i express them in public but as far as i know noone does what they do as far as commissions are concerned.

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #50 on:** June 25, 2015, 14:53 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 25, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on June 25, 2015, 10:36
P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?
You need to get off your nutty campaign against Pond5, how would a pack work when all the files are differently priced? They also offer credit packs already https://www.pond5.com/index.php?page=credit_packages

So what P5 can offer to buyers to divert them from SS?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #51 on:** June 25, 2015, 14:58 »

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 14:35

Quote

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

I am convinced that you are not contributing to p5 in photos or video and yet you seem to know everything.
Nonetheless,p5 does discounts from time to time.I dont know if they work but regardless we always get 50% commission discounted or not.
I have my issues with them and i express them in public but as far as i know noone does what they do as far as commissions are concerned.

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

Banned again and back within minutes with a new name and a rape reference. Charming.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #52 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:02 »

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 14:35

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

I never said that! Cobalt asked Q do they offer extended licenses and I just answered no.

All I am saying, with P5 current no strategy to increase sales and attract buyers, 50% is not going to help much to overtake "horrible" SS.

gcrook · « **Reply #53 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:10 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 14:58

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 14:35
Quote

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

I am convinced that you are not contributing to p5 in photos or video and yet you seem to know everything.
Nonetheless,p5 does discounts from time to time.I dont know if they work but regardless we always get 50% commission discounted or not.
I have my issues with them and i express them in public but as far as i know noone does what they do as far as commissions are concerned.

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

Banned again and back within minutes with a new name and a rape reference. Charming.

Havent been banned (yet) from this forum and i have never changed my nickname, you mistake me for someone else.
And please we are all adults here.Look past the vulgarity, im trying to make a point and there is no pretense or hidden agenda in my posts regardless of whether you like them,agree, or disagree with them.

gcrook · « **Reply #54 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:19 »

Quote

All I am saying, with P5 current no strategy to increase sales and attract buyers, 50% is not going to help much to overtake horrible SS.

I dont know about you but this 50% in revenue plus the freedom to price my clips surpasses the montly revenue of SS by a lot even on a lucky month there with 4K and el's.
By my stats in order for ss to surpass p5 it needs to make 2.5X times the sales because 30% there is never 30%.
And that wont happen even if ss starts selling editorials just like p5 does and stops rejecting clips for stupid reasons for example like every possible graffiti in walls (my latest example of utter ss stupidity)

gcrook · « **Reply #55 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:22 »

error.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:25 »

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 15:10

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 14:58
Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 14:35
Quote

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

I am convinced that you are not contributing to p5 in photos or video and yet you seem to know everything.
Nonetheless,p5 does discounts from time to time.I dont know if they work but regardless we always get 50% commission discounted or not.
I have my issues with them and i express them in public but as far as i know noone does what they do as far as commissions are concerned.

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

Banned again and back within minutes with a new name and a rape reference. Charming.

Havent been banned (yet) from this forum and i have never changed my nickname, you mistake me for someone else.
And please we are all adults here.Look past the vulgarity, im trying to make a point and there is no pretense or hidden agenda in my posts regardless of whether you like them,agree, or disagree with them.

It's a sad life you live, creating multiple usernames here because you know you'll be banned and are desperate to make obnoxious comments.

gcrook · « **Reply #57 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:32 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 15:25

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 15:10
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 14:58
Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 14:35
Quote

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

I am convinced that you are not contributing to p5 in photos or video and yet you seem to know everything.
Nonetheless,p5 does discounts from time to time.I dont know if they work but regardless we always get 50% commission discounted or not.
I have my issues with them and i express them in public but as far as i know noone does what they do as far as commissions are concerned.

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

Banned again and back within minutes with a new name and a rape reference. Charming.

Havent been banned (yet) from this forum and i have never changed my nickname, you mistake me for someone else.
And please we are all adults here.Look past the vulgarity, im trying to make a point and there is no pretense or hidden agenda in my posts regardless of whether you like them,agree, or disagree with them.

It's a sad life you live, creating multiple usernames here because you know you'll be banned and are desperate to make obnoxious comments.

You are apparently a bit confused thats why i wont take this "your life is so sad" remark personally.
Please do send a message to a mod or admin and ask him if i have ever changed my nickname or been banned or if i log with different nicknames.
And when you do i hope you are so decent as to apologise in public,although i doubt it from someone who takes words out of context to tell us how offended he/she feels by them.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #58 on:** June 25, 2015, 15:47 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 15:25

Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 15:10
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 14:58
Quote from: gcrook on June 25, 2015, 14:35
Quote

P.S. why P5 doesn't offer packs?

I am convinced that you are not contributing to p5 in photos or video and yet you seem to know everything.
Nonetheless,p5 does discounts from time to time.I dont know if they work but regardless we always get 50% commission discounted or not.
I have my issues with them and i express them in public but as far as i know noone does what they do as far as commissions are concerned.

And about the other thing you said earlier that you dont support p5 due to the absense of the extended licences,well let me put it this way about ss.
A rape is a rape regardless of someone passing a bottle of lube and giving a hug every now and then (pardon me for being so colorful)

Banned again and back within minutes with a new name and a rape reference. Charming.

Havent been banned (yet) from this forum and i have never changed my nickname, you mistake me for someone else.
And please we are all adults here.Look past the vulgarity, im trying to make a point and there is no pretense or hidden agenda in my posts regardless of whether you like them,agree, or disagree with them.

It's a sad life you live, creating multiple usernames here because you know you'll be banned and are desperate to make obnoxious comments.

http://learning.innerchildfun.com/2013/07/sandbox-social-skills.html

gbalex · « **Reply #59 on:** June 25, 2015, 16:13 »

Odd, the chap joined in 2014 and you are accusing him of getting a ban and joining under a new name - Date Registered: August 08, 2014

Shelma1 · « **Reply #60 on:** June 25, 2015, 16:33 »

He gives himself away with his second-language English and his references to rape, "sl-uts," other derogatory words for women and general female-bashing. He tried to control himself for a bit as "gcrook" but couldn't help himself. A few minutes after being banned today, for at least the second time, he popped up again with a username he registered a while back.

tickstock · « **Reply #61 on:** June 25, 2015, 16:38 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 16:33

He gives himself away with his second-language English and his references to rape, "sl-uts," other derogatory words for women and general female-bashing. He tried to control himself for a bit as "gcrook" but couldn't help himself. A few minutes after being banned today, for at least the second time, he popped up again with a username he registered a while back.

He's using his actual contributor name, you're confused. Maybe it's time to move on from this distraction?

gcrook · « **Reply #62 on:** June 25, 2015, 16:42 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 25, 2015, 16:33

He gives himself away with his second-language English and his references to rape, "sl-uts," other derogatory words for women and general female-bashing. He tried to control himself for a bit as "gcrook" but couldn't help himself. A few minutes after being banned today, for at least the second time, he popped up again with a username he registered a while back.

Are you serious right now?Do you honestly realize what you are accusing me of in public?
English is my second language,Greek is my native one,and it isnt even difficult to google search me on pond5 to see who i am or what i post.
Did i ever refer to women in any post here in a derogatory manner?Did i call anyone a slut?Whats wrong with you honestly,and where did this completely personal attack come from anyway?

I really hope this is a huge misunderstanding from your part,could you at least tell what was the username you are accusing me of being banned by?

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #63 on:** June 25, 2015, 17:36 »

gbalex · « **Reply #64 on:** June 25, 2015, 18:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 24, 2015, 16:03

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 24, 2015, 15:57
"While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction."

Lol, one of those things that makes no sense. "Things are awesome and only going to grow, so, we're dropping prices! Yeah!" Silly.
I think gbalex nailed it on the head in another thread, both of those statements can be true if it's about taking market share.

Agree, they have openly admitted that they maintain low pricing to gain market share.

They completely ignore how this will affect the livelihoods of their contributors.

gbalex · « **Reply #65 on:** June 25, 2015, 18:53 »

Quote from: KB on June 25, 2015, 00:04

Quote from: gbalex on June 24, 2015, 19:47
Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 17:31
Quote from: LesPalenik on June 24, 2015, 17:22
$199 wouldn't be bad, if the authors got 50 or 70% of the proceeds.
Remind me, how much are they getting now?
30%
Based on the last 10Q it would be 28%
They lowered it? Footage always paid 30% (at least, for cart sales).

They publicly state the the royalty is 30%, but when you look at the actual payout figures in the quarterly report the pay out to contributors is closer to 28%.

I will point it out next quarter, I don't feel like digging today.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #66 on:** June 25, 2015, 19:00 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 25, 2015, 18:41

Quote from: tickstock on June 24, 2015, 16:03
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 24, 2015, 15:57
"While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction."

Lol, one of those things that makes no sense. "Things are awesome and only going to grow, so, we're dropping prices! Yeah!" Silly.
I think gbalex nailed it on the head in another thread, both of those statements can be true if it's about taking market share.

Agree, they have openly admitted that they maintain low pricing to gain market share.

They completely ignore how this will affect the livelihoods of their contributors.

They completely ignore how this will affect the livelihoods of their contributors... Or is it the contributors completely ignore how this will affect their livelihoods? SS does not care how it affects your livelihood so they don't really need to ignore the fact.

"Silly" is submitting your work to sites that devalue your work to gain market share.

gbalex · « **Reply #67 on:** June 25, 2015, 19:01 »

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-payout-$83-605-000-in-2014

Quote from: Pickerell on March 10, 2015, 10:43

Shutterstock’s report yesterday of paying out $83,605,000 in royalties in 2014 raises a few interesting questions. While it is a lot of money it is only 25% of $328 million. Shutterstock has said they paid out “about 28%” of revenue collected in three of the four quarters in 2014 and “about 30%” in the Q3 2014.

It turns out that the $83,605,000 only includes Shutterstock sales. It does not include Bigstock, Offset or Weddam. If the $83 million is really 28% of revenue total Shutterstock sales would be about $298 million, not $328 million, or a $30 million difference. “About” can mean a lot, but I think it is safe to say that the combined revenue of Bigstock, Offset and Webdam was in the range of $30 million. It might even be more if the average payout was above 28% (remember that 30% quarter).

Based on everything they have been saying, I think they are earning very little from Webdam so about $30 million is split between BigStock and Offset. Any guesses as to which generates the most?

I also understand from Shutterstock PR that “royalty rates for Offset are higher than our norm, due to the unique content – somewhat above 40% on average.” Also, they say they haven’t broken out the royalty rates for Bigstock which indicates they might be lower than 28%.

Any thoughts?

gbalex · « **Reply #68 on:** June 25, 2015, 19:18 »

Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Snip

Now shifting to the cost side of the business, total operating expenses were up 35% excluding stock-based compensation with the primary driver being higher contributor royalties associated with growing revenue. Contributor royalties represent approximately 28% of our revenue relatively consistent over many quarters.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript

KB · « **Reply #69 on:** June 25, 2015, 23:49 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 25, 2015, 19:18

Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Snip

Now shifting to the cost side of the business, total operating expenses were up 35% excluding stock-based compensation with the primary driver being higher contributor royalties associated with growing revenue. Contributor royalties represent approximately 28% of our revenue relatively consistent over many quarters.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript

But that's obviously a mix of all media types and sales types. Some are above 28%, some below, and it averages to 28%.

I forget whether they've said that footage sub sales get 30% of the price paid or not, but I know they definitely said that about footage cart sales. I don't believe they'd state that and not do it. At least, I certainly hope not.

gbalex · « **Reply #70 on:** June 26, 2015, 12:44 »

Quote from: KB on June 25, 2015, 23:49

Quote from: gbalex on June 25, 2015, 19:18
Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Snip

Now shifting to the cost side of the business, total operating expenses were up 35% excluding stock-based compensation with the primary driver being higher contributor royalties associated with growing revenue. Contributor royalties represent approximately 28% of our revenue relatively consistent over many quarters.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript

But that's obviously a mix of all media types and sales types. Some are above 28%, some below, and it averages to 28%.

I forget whether they've said that footage sub sales get 30% of the price paid or not, but I know they definitely said that about footage cart sales. I don't believe they'd state that and not do it. At least, I certainly hope not.

When they talk to contributors they tell us all of our media earns 30%. When they talk to the investment community they report it at 28% with the exception of Offset which they say is roughly 40% and bigstock which they keep hidden.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #71 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:05 »

Well...while SS is actually pushing for 4K sales, the competitor P5 is just bragging about their huge collection without any plan how to monetize that.

"At Pond5, we've always strived to stay at the forefront of new technologies and trends in video production," said Pond5 cofounder and CEO Tom Bennett. "We've made sure that we offer the largest collection of 4K+ resolution video clips in the world, and as consumers and video producers grow to expect the highest quality video available, 4K will remain a top priority."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/biggest-stock-video-company-in-the-world-sees-growth-of-4k-video-surge-300106806.html

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #72 on:** July 02, 2015, 17:47 »

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on July 02, 2015, 01:05

Well...while SS is actually pushing for 4K sales, the competitor P5 is just bragging about their huge collection without any plan how to monetize that.

There are 4K sales at Pond5, isn't that monetizing?

Rinderart · « **Reply #73 on:** July 03, 2015, 13:18 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 24, 2015, 15:57

"While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction."

Lol, one of those things that makes no sense. "Things are awesome and only going to grow, so, we're dropping prices! Yeah!" Silly.

What do they care. it's not there work.

gcrook · « **Reply #74 on:** July 06, 2015, 09:42 »

Just got a 59.70 sale of a 4K clip although im not sure if this is the 4k commission or an HD sod/el or whatever.
Has anyone else got such a commission since the price change to verify this?

Mantis · « **Reply #75 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:45 »

Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 09:42

Just got a 59.70 sale of a 4K clip although im not sure if this is the 4k commission or an HD sod/el or whatever.
Has anyone else got such a commission since the price change to verify this?

SS is 30 percent which is 59.70 of $199, so very likely a commission for 4k.

gcrook · « **Reply #76 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:52 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 06, 2015, 11:45

Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 09:42
Just got a 59.70 sale of a 4K clip although im not sure if this is the 4k commission or an HD sod/el or whatever.
Has anyone else got such a commission since the price change to verify this?

SS is 30 percent which is 59.70 of $199, so very likely a commission for 4k.

Yes.Remains to be seen whether 4K sales will grow and whether the growing of discounted 4K sales will yield a better revenue in total.I have my doubts.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #77 on:** July 06, 2015, 13:54 »

Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 11:52

Quote from: Mantis on July 06, 2015, 11:45
Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 09:42
Just got a 59.70 sale of a 4K clip although im not sure if this is the 4k commission or an HD sod/el or whatever.
Has anyone else got such a commission since the price change to verify this?

SS is 30 percent which is 59.70 of $199, so very likely a commission for 4k.

Yes.Remains to be seen whether 4K sales will grow and whether the growing of discounted 4K sales will yield a better revenue in total.I have my doubts.

Congrats and l am positive you will get more of these.

Mantis · « **Reply #78 on:** July 06, 2015, 16:49 »

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on July 06, 2015, 13:54

Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 11:52
Quote from: Mantis on July 06, 2015, 11:45
Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 09:42
Just got a 59.70 sale of a 4K clip although im not sure if this is the 4k commission or an HD sod/el or whatever.
Has anyone else got such a commission since the price change to verify this?

SS is 30 percent which is 59.70 of $199, so very likely a commission for 4k.

Yes.Remains to be seen whether 4K sales will grow and whether the growing of discounted 4K sales will yield a better revenue in total.I have my doubts.

Congrats and l am positive you will get more of these.

Yea, same here. Congrats. I only have a few 4K on SS but glad they are starting to "maybe sell" on a recurring basis. All I need is 50 4K DL's a month and I will be happy

gcrook · « **Reply #79 on:** July 06, 2015, 17:03 »

Thank you, but the thing is i already had at least 1-2 4k sales a month there since i started uploading,and i was kind of counting on those 90usd commissions because sod's and el's lately (last 2 months) are nonexistent.Dissolve sells the same if not more 4K for me with the old ss commissions.
Two or three 4K sales a month at ss to me financially is still a major fail,(not to mention close to what i get for selling hd at p5) ,and i dont see why 4k sales should grow anyway.4K is still irrelevant pretty much and price is still high.
And if the price gets even lower the same principle applies,let alone a very likely price restructure on hd.Catch 22, but i like the enthusiasm.
Oh boy, i love stock.

Mantis · « **Reply #80 on:** July 06, 2015, 18:14 »

Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 17:03

Thank you, but the thing is i already had at least 1-2 4k sales a month there since i started uploading,and i was kind of counting on those 90usd commissions because sod's and el's lately (last 2 months) are nonexistent.Dissolve sells the same if not more 4K for me with the old ss commissions.
Two or three 4K sales a month at ss to me financially is still a major fail,(not to mention close to what i get for selling hd at p5) ,and i dont see why 4k sales should grow anyway.4K is still irrelevant pretty much and price is still high.
And if the price gets even lower the same principle applies,let alone a very likely price restructure on hd.Catch 22, but i like the enthusiasm.
Oh boy, i love stock.

My concern is that everyone else will now do the same price cutting to compete. Same mentality that drove images into the tank.

gcrook · « **Reply #81 on:** July 06, 2015, 18:42 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 06, 2015, 18:14

Quote from: gcrook on July 06, 2015, 17:03
Thank you, but the thing is i already had at least 1-2 4k sales a month there since i started uploading,and i was kind of counting on those 90usd commissions because sod's and el's lately (last 2 months) are nonexistent.Dissolve sells the same if not more 4K for me with the old ss commissions.
Two or three 4K sales a month at ss to me financially is still a major fail,(not to mention close to what i get for selling hd at p5) ,and i dont see why 4k sales should grow anyway.4K is still irrelevant pretty much and price is still high.
And if the price gets even lower the same principle applies,let alone a very likely price restructure on hd.Catch 22, but i like the enthusiasm.
Oh boy, i love stock.

My concern is that everyone else will now do the same price cutting to compete. Same mentality that drove images into the tank.

Thats everyone's concern and it shouldn't be really because it's inevitable one way or another.It may take a different form (like at pond5 for example where a lot of people willingly lower their 4K prices including me lately) but ultimately thats how business is done in this world and we all go with it one way or another.
Still, being enthusiastic about it in public and cheerleading these practices is my major issue (not talking about you of course) because it avoids the detrimental question of "what is success and for whom exactly" .

If i was in stock and wanted to draw people by my side and not become a hypocrite at the same time (ie:"dudes if we lower your prices more sales will come man,no, for real, -in that tone-") i would do a price drop on 4K and raise the commission (only for 4K) so there is the same earnings for sellers.I would keep this raised commission for as long as necessary until it becomes clear that 4K has indeed started to become relevant in this world.We would see then if the "more sales more growth for both" argument holds water.
Plus it would make every other agency who drops prices with the "it's good for both" argument look like a clown,and set an example.
Am i dreaming?
Yes.
Is it doable though?
Yes.
Then why?
Thats the real question.