pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The answer you've been looking for ($49 vs $79)  (Read 8038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 06, 2017, 09:24 »
0
Has anyone ever experienced a $79 purchase? I didn't think so. And you're just assuming 100% of all buyers buy a membership?

Nope.

If a customer buys a clip without becoming a member, they pay $79, but you still only get $49 (-PayPal).

Nothing wrong with that, but now I know that they pocket the extra $30 if they don't get a new member. Their business model makes a little more sense.


« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2017, 13:47 »
+1
I find VB incredibly fishy.
I don't believe a single moment that the sales they show me are real. But I do get some money from them every month, so until now I have kept uploading.
Still, there is something very weird going on with them

« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2017, 14:12 »
0
If this is true their marketing is incredibly misleading! They say all over get 100%

« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2017, 14:21 »
+2
I have never experienced a $79 purchase.
I have never experienced a 4k sale (I do get the occasional one elsewhere)
I have always sold 2 files per month for two years, every single month. Same when I had 60 files and now with over 2.000
My best month was the first one: 4 sales with about 30 files on, sort of welcome aboard pack
I have never sold one file more than once (opposite to other agencies, where sales tend to concentrate on best sellers)
The files I sell at VB are always the worst ones, the ones I am ashamed of, or uploaded by mistake

Very very strange place, if you ask me

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2017, 22:20 »
0

« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2017, 05:16 »
+2
Yes, there it is. A "test". A long test.

I guess anyone can claim 100% royalties if they just slap a "temporary fee" on top of the price. Haha.  :)

"No no, you're getting 100%, the price is $49. $30 is not the price, it's just a fee..."

In fact, it's great marketing. Why don't Shutterstock say that we get 100% royalties, set the price to $20 and just add a $59 "purchase fee"?

It's not 100% transparent, that's for sure.

I'm fine with it. I've just been curious about it since I've never seen a $79 sale before, and surely there must be some one-time customers who just need one clip without paying for the full membership. Their business model makes more sense this way, which is a good thing for sustainability.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 13:18 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2017, 16:30 »
0
I have never experienced a $79 purchase.
I have never experienced a 4k sale (I do get the occasional one elsewhere)
I have always sold 2 files per month for two years, every single month. Same when I had 60 files and now with over 2.000
My best month was the first one: 4 sales with about 30 files on, sort of welcome aboard pack
I have never sold one file more than once (opposite to other agencies, where sales tend to concentrate on best sellers)
The files I sell at VB are always the worst ones, the ones I am ashamed of, or uploaded by mistake

Very very strange place, if you ask me

I had only 1 4K purchase over the last 2 years. Even though I must say that it doesn't happen too often in SS or P5 as well...
But VB is becoming a good selling agency for me, with almost 80% of the leading SS, so no complains here...
But it's definitely not smelling good.


« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2017, 03:02 »
+1
Well, since the only few sales I get from VB come from my worst files, I should concentrate in doing a special collection for VB with incredibly bad footage.
Maybe I will start to see some sales there  :)

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2017, 07:32 »
0
I have never experienced a $79 purchase.
I have never experienced a 4k sale (I do get the occasional one elsewhere)
I have always sold 2 files per month for two years, every single month. Same when I had 60 files and now with over 2.000
My best month was the first one: 4 sales with about 30 files on, sort of welcome aboard pack
I have never sold one file more than once (opposite to other agencies, where sales tend to concentrate on best sellers)
The files I sell at VB are always the worst ones, the ones I am ashamed of, or uploaded by mistake

Very very strange place, if you ask me

I've had two 4K sales this year. Sometimes I sold 1 video a month, sometimes 2, 3, or even 6 videos (after several months).
I've sold several files multiple times.

Just to show that your experience differs from mine. Makes VB a little less strange.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2017, 04:32 »
0
I've sold one 4K clip. Or it could be two, I forget. And I get between 2 and 11 sales per month, usually about 7 or 8. Only had four sales last month and had two so far in July.

« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2017, 21:17 »
+2
If you don't like them "pocket" $30 out of $79 sale, you should delete your files there and only upload to sites that pocket $56 out of $79 sale so that you can keep $24 instead of $49.

« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2017, 00:38 »
+1
It's a trust issue. Imho it is very misleading to put it mildly

« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2017, 05:37 »
+1
If you don't like them "pocket" $30 out of $79 sale, you should delete your files there and only upload to sites that pocket $56 out of $79 sale so that you can keep $24 instead of $49.

You're missing the point. Congrats!

It's about transparency. Transparency always wins.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2017, 05:42 »
0
So iStock wins over Videoblocks?

« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2017, 05:46 »
0
No. A glass cube always wins.

« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2017, 14:34 »
0
If you don't like them "pocket" $30 out of $79 sale, you should delete your files there and only upload to sites that pocket $56 out of $79 sale so that you can keep $24 instead of $49.

You're missing the point. Congrats!

It's about transparency. Transparency always wins.

You just didn't know isn't transparency.  I already knew and have no problem about it whatsoever.
Congrats!

« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2017, 15:05 »
+1
You just didn't know isn't transparency.  I already knew and have no problem about it whatsoever.
Congrats!

I don't have a problem with them taking $30. But they try to hide it. That's the non-transparent part. You knowing about it doesn't make a difference...

This is what it says in their contributor agreement:

"For each Member that purchases the Content, we will pay you the amount that such Member paid us for such Content, less only third-party fees incurred by us for such transaction"

So far so good, because someone that has to pay $79 is not a member.

"You acknowledge and agree that we may charge a membership fee to gain access to the Platform and such a fee is not considered Revenue"

Wait now... If the buyer is charged a TEMPORARY membership fee, they must be considered a member, yes? Membership. Member.

The thing here is that the "membership fee" doesn't give the buyer ANYTHING else but the right to buy that one clip. And for a non-member the price next to the clips clearly says "$79". Only later do they claim the price is still only $49 but they charge a "temporary membership fee" which is complete nonsense of course since you don't get anything for that fee.

Doing it this way you can just set the price to $1, pay out $1, but charge a "temporary membership fee" of $48 that you see if you add to cart.

They can call it a "mouse click fee" or whatever they want, but as long as you only get the right to buy that one clip it effectively acts as that clip's total price. The price is $79.

They do their best to hide the $30 fee from contributors so they can claim 100% royalties, which is not true.

It's just a shady way of adding $30 while still claiming 100% on everything. That's that.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 15:54 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2017, 15:40 »
0
You just didn't know isn't transparency.  I already knew and have no problem about it whatsoever.
Congrats!

I don't have a problem with them taking $30. But they try to hide it. That's the non-transparent part. You knowing about it doesn't make a difference...

This is what it says in their contributor agreement:

"For each Member that purchases the Content, we will pay you the amount that such Member paid us for such Content, less only third-party fees incurred by us for such transaction"

So far so good, because someone that has to pay $79 is not a member.

"You acknowledge and agree that we may charge a membership fee to gain access to the Platform and such a fee is not considered Revenue"

Wait now... If the buyer is charged a TEMPORARY membership fee, they must be considered a member, yes? Membership. Member.

The thing here is that the "membership fee" doesn't give the buyer ANYTHING else but the right to buy that one clip. And for a non-member the price next to the clips clearly says "$79". Only later do they claim the price is still only $49 but they charge a "temporary membership fee" which is complete nonsense of course since you don't get anything for that fee.

Dong it this way you can just set the price to $1, pay out $1, but charge a "temporary membership fee" of $48 that you see if you add to cart.

They can call it a "mouse click fee" or whatever they want, but as long as you only get the right to buy that one clip it effectively acts as that clip's total price. The price is $79.

They do their best to hide the $30 fee from contributors so they can claim 100% royalties, which is not true.

It's just a shady way of adding $30 while still claiming 100% on everything. That's that.

True.
what if many (few dozens?) of contributors write them a letter about this matter?
You think they might consider either to change the agreement or change the "fee"?

« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2017, 15:56 »
+2
Let them make some money.  I don't want them to go out of business.  Without non-member $79 sales they keep $30 out of it, it's like they are volunteering for us for no reason.  I don't care how much they sell for those non-member sales.  They give us $49 (minus $1+ fee) for HD video and that's much more than any other sites.

« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2017, 16:05 »
+1
Let them make some money.  I don't want them to go out of business.  Without non-member $79 sales they keep $30 out of it, it's like they are volunteering for us for no reason.  I don't care how much they sell for those non-member sales.  They give us $49 (minus $1+ fee) for HD video and that's much more than any other sites.

The fuss is not about how much they make, but about the fact that they lie about it. That's all.

« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2017, 16:07 »
0
Let them make some money.  I don't want them to go out of business.  Without non-member $79 sales they keep $30 out of it, it's like they are volunteering for us for no reason.  I don't care how much they sell for those non-member sales.  They give us $49 (minus $1+ fee) for HD video and that's much more than any other sites.

If you read the posts you will see that that's not what we're talking about...

We are talking about hiding information.

« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2017, 18:09 »
0
easy way to test that theory is to have a "friend" (in another region) purchase your clip as a non-member, and record the process while on skype (let's say) if the royalties show up and all is there we're good, if only $49 shows up on contributor side then we prove the theory, if nothing shows up then we PANIC!

youtube and social media is a powerful tool, no agency would want that kind of stain on them.

PS. if contributor keeps "100%" -minus a dollar or so, then this experiment will cost very little
PSS. if anyone tries this please follow up in this thread.

Cheers,
Bart

EDIT: I believe the $30 non-member fee goes to agency not contributor, so we always get $49 for HD.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 18:16 by bart »

« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2017, 18:34 »
0
I don't even think they lied at all.  They said they'll sell for $49 (to paid members) and give us 100% royalty.  They're just doing that. 

« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2017, 02:24 »
0
isn't it funny, how many contributors justified their "100%" contributor commission system as a "right" way to go in stock industry... now it seems they earning the same as many other agencies  ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2017, 03:21 »
+3
now it seems they earning the same as many other agencies  ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

Really? I don't know any other agency where you'll make $47.16 per HD sale... aside from Pond5 or Elements where you can price your own content, Macro agencies or maybe Artbeats. I wouldn't really class those as 'many other agencies' though. Is anyone making $47.16 on a regular HD sale from SS, FT, iS, VH, DT etc?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2787 Views
Last post October 26, 2008, 13:17
by Perry
10 Replies
3814 Views
Last post December 10, 2015, 02:42
by Liorpt
1 Replies
1498 Views
Last post January 31, 2013, 06:32
by ShadySue
IRS 1099-K Answer

Started by Uncle Pete Shutterstock.com

3 Replies
2484 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 19:29
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
1334 Views
Last post August 19, 2017, 14:35
by JetCityImage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results