pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: We need to help videoblocks to grow  (Read 21033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 14, 2015, 11:41 »
+4
I think videoblocks is once in a decade site that pays the contributor 100% from sales.
We need to put all the effort to make them grow so other sites will see that we the contributors are the most valuable assets for them and they must pay us much more than 20/30/50 %
Without us they are nobody.
I must say that i had untill now such a positive experience with videoblocks. The staff talk to you like ahunan been and not like anunber.
They pay your earnings on rhe 15th without deelays.
They are absolutely great.
Its anout time to say the big agencies like shutter/getty/pond5 "there's anew player in this game"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2015, 12:19 »
+2
Very slippery slope.

« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2015, 12:24 »
+6
Honestly you guys! Why support an agency which undercuts every single other. R u all wishing for video clips to soon be under $10 as you are supporting a pricing war???

You say wow u get 100% yippee the world is a wonderful place!...  but I say whats 100% of nothing???


« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2015, 12:44 »
+6
They have wholly owned content, so I don't really see how the two different models can be compared?  100% seems good but how does this work in the long term if they keep growing their wholly owned content?

I'm quite happy with Pond5, 50% and letting me set my own prices.

weathernewsonline

« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2015, 12:53 »
+4
I am doing my part by uploading new content constantly.  13,000 new clips and counting.

I am not so sure they are undercutting, they are offering customers a choice, I have my content on three sites at three price points and guess what, P5 and VB are doing fantastic, SS is still in third place.

Not everyone can afford to pay high prices but for me as a contributor the sales volume at VB plus the 100% commission makes it worth it and now I don't feel guilty about shutting out customers with smaller budgets.

I also think different customers go to different sites and stay with them, my P5 sales beat my VB sales 2:1 last month and those customers had no problem paying $200 per clip. 

Maybe all the agencies should raise the price to $200? I don't know. I'm dead against the race to the bottom but high volume of sales and 100% commission sure make it an easier pill to swallow.

I hope fixed rate agencies don't go any lower, the race to the bottom can be eliminated very easily by slowly....or not so slowly inching the prices upwards just like every other product these days.  We have to remember this is a business just like a grocery store and prices aren't going down there.


weathernewsonline

« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2015, 12:56 »
+2
They have wholly owned content, so I don't really see how the two different models can be compared?  100% seems good but how does this work in the long term if they keep growing their wholly owned content?

I'm quite happy with Pond5, 50% and letting me set my own prices.

I wonder if they are growing their wholly owned content though? or is that it and then customers wanting more choices need to click over to the paid marketplace.

I too like Pond5's model of allowing us to set our prices, it works, my problem was I was priced too low, sales were low in the $40-60 range, I raised my prices and sales and revenue went up right away.

« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2015, 13:38 »
+1
I am all for paying the creator for their work. But any business practices 101 course will tell you that 100% royalties is hard to maintain while at the same time damaging the overall business. Seriously, how do you help someone like this grow?


weathernewsonline

« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2015, 14:44 »
0
So maybe at some point they will have to change up or add to their content for the subscribers, otherwise people will subscribe, download everything and not renew.  Or rotate stuff in and out of the free marketplace with contributors permission of course? or buy some of our content for the subscriber marketplace to keep it interesting and attract more subscribers?.

Another option would be to raise prices to $200 a clip and then start taking a small commission. They have a few tools at their disposal if needed.

weathernewsonline

« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2015, 14:56 »
0
I am all for paying the creator for their work. But any business practices 101 course will tell you that 100% royalties is hard to maintain while at the same time damaging the overall business. Seriously, how do you help someone like this grow?

But I wonder if those $49 prices are damaging the business, I say this because with the volume of sales that VB contributors get it sure is making me money, a lot more sales than I get at SS which locks in at $79. 

When I had low $40 to $60 prices on P5 I was getting low sales, horrible spring and summer for me, massively in debt now trying to stay afloat, joined VB and very nice sales volume and revenue and then I raised prices on P5 to $200 and sales and revenue went up. 

So I am thinking there might just be some upward wiggle room for all agencies to move prices up for photo and video and get out of the race to the bottom, everyone is trying to compete with the sites that give away video and photos for free, those will fail, the only reason they are alive is investor funds and those sites can't turn a profit with the product being priced at $0.

So, we need ignore them, the free stuff for now is there but will not last, it is silly, it's no different than McDonalds giving away free coffee here for two weeks in November, Tim Horton's didn't drop prices to free and after two weeks McDonalds had to put the prices back up to normal.

Speaking of business 101, if we all filled out a business plan I suspect to cover our costs, equipment renewal and be well financed for emergencies in general as many of us are self employed we would need to set our prices in the $700 range and maintain steady sales volume.  Same for all these agencies, they have much higher costs than we do so I'd say at least $200 needs to be the new standard. 

No one and no business can be successful selling a product for less than it costs to make it.

If I have to go out and shoot new content....I am loosing money right now as soon as I fill up the gas tank.

« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2015, 15:30 »
+4
This is nuts. Why support a company  that gives content away for free? Let them sink. The sooner the better.

« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2015, 16:15 »
+1
Lets get real here.
Uploading to them is more than enough support and im not talking only about videoblocks.
Especially considering that this business is starting to look more and more like consenting on an (almost) blank paper.


weathernewsonline

« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2015, 16:32 »
0
This is nuts. Why support a company  that gives content away for free? Let them sink. The sooner the better.

I'm not so sure, the subscription marketplace, the one we like to call "free" as the content is practically free does get the customers in the door but I do find they are also clicking over the paid section and buying, pretty sure they look first in the free section and if I have better stuff in the paid they are buying my stuff.   They price a bit low at $49 but the volume is there and commission is good and the proof was in the sales reports.  If they sink....how you going to replaced those thousands in commissions?.   I am looking for a 4th site to host my content and haven't found a good one yet.....

Of course when I priced at $40-60 on P5 it was a disaster, low sales, thought maybe I have to go to $20 to get volume but I went to $200 for an experiment and so far it's improved things a lot.

How I could gamble on that price experiment? I had good sales that week at VB to cover me if it failed.

I suppose the subscription model could be cancelled an everyone pays full price on the product....all I know is if I didn't make the plays that I did two months ago I would be bankrupt and out of business.   The plays were joining VB and uploading a ton of clips and raising P5 prices.  I was about four days away from walking into the trustees office, gambled and a recovery is in progress, long way to go though...long way.

So I think I will sit on the fence on this one, actually no, gonna fire up the storage drives and upload more content tonight :)

« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2015, 16:42 »
+1
It is an interesting concept for the business. The big dogs like Getty, where I am,  do this all the time that is why I have a load of $1 sales for my HD and 4k content there. If the buyers spends x they give the x number of Dl's say at $3.00. With VB it is like Amazon Prime, you have to be a member to get the cheaper price, the good news for them is the 4k is not at a discount only HD, I could see them putting 4k at $150 and raising HD to $69  either way this is very interesting to watch on the business front. They are looking to grow the subscription base as that is how they make their money, nothing is free as you have to pay the $99.00 per year for access.  Time will tell. 

weathernewsonline

« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2015, 17:56 »
0
It is an interesting concept for the business. The big dogs like Getty, where I am,  do this all the time that is why I have a load of $1 sales for my HD and 4k content there. If the buyers spends x they give the x number of Dl's say at $3.00. With VB it is like Amazon Prime, you have to be a member to get the cheaper price, the good news for them is the 4k is not at a discount only HD, I could see them putting 4k at $150 and raising HD to $69  either way this is very interesting to watch on the business front. They are looking to grow the subscription base as that is how they make their money, nothing is free as you have to pay the $99.00 per year for access.  Time will tell.

I think as long as they have good stuff in that "free" marketplace then I think subscriptions will be renewed and they will get new ones which if course they need and last time I looked they had some decent stuff.  Here's hoping! 

I guess the other thing to boost sales and revenue is to learn how to promote our work in order to drive sales, just did a Google search and yes a lot of buyers use Google apparently to find this stuff and I used stock stock video as my keywords, P5 came up, and then some private non-stock agency sites came up that sell this footage directly an at more appropriate prices.   

I just went to another stock site in that search I just did and found clips very similar to mine for $9, not sure what cut the producer gets but I price clips like that at $200, would cost the customer a lot more to contract me to film the same blizzard for a day.

Only reason I accept VB's $49 pricing is the excellent volume of sales, it makes it worth it.

Let's hope for the best, gotta get those sales up, learn to code and do SEO and get into every corner of the internet.

« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2015, 22:38 »
+3
I'm treading pretty carefully with VB - uploaded 1000 of my most standard B-roll clips. There's no way I'll ever upload my premium clips which are priced at $199 - $299 over on Pond5.

I'm not sure how sustainable the VB model is and I'm not expecting these good times there to last long. If and when things start going wrong there (ie price decrease or they start taking a royalty cut) I'll pull my content.

And jjneff - yeah those nickel and dime Getty sales suck, wish there was a way to opt out of Premium Access.

« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2015, 02:21 »
0
i'm uploading there but i'm not certanly a big contributor

« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2015, 03:49 »
+2
To get 42$ per hd clip at vb is much more than the 23.7$ from shutter stock it is simple math thats why i work at first priority with vb and put aside ss and p5. Those agencies must see that we are working with agencies who apriciate us and pays us high royalties. Only then maybe ss will wake up and start paying here contributors at least 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2015, 05:24 »
+2
To get 42$ per hd clip at vb is much more than the 23.7$ from shutter stock it is simple math thats why i work at first priority with vb and put aside ss and p5. Those agencies must see that we are working with agencies who apriciate us and pays us high royalties. Only then maybe ss will wake up and start paying here contributors at least 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pond5 already do pay 50% and we don't have to compete with wholly owned content and we can set our own prices.  So they get my clips first.  SS will never pay 50%, just look at the over supply they have now.  What possible reason would they have to increase our commission?  It would be good if everyone stopped supplying sites that pay less than 50% but that's never going to happen,

« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2015, 05:42 »
+1
About pond agree. About ss, never say never.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2015, 05:44 »
0
Vb getting bigger every day. It will take months if not years to compete with ss but i believe that ss will need to change their thinking in the near future and to offer more to their contributors


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2015, 06:20 »
+1
... that is why I have a load of $1 sales for my HD and 4k content there. ...
Pardon me if I missed something during the discussion or if you mentioned anything relating to that statement quoted above in another thread but why would you work with any company that "sells" your content as low as $1 for HD or 4K?

« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2015, 06:28 »
+2
Is the other content wholly owned or is like their other sites where they paid the copyright holders some paltry sum (much less than an EL) to be able to sell the content in perpetuity without any further compensation?

I have just had a thought. Who thinks they will soon be approaching the best selling people on the PPD side with an offer to licence their portfolios in the same way as graphicstock (their other site)?

I think they are just using the set up to be able to chose only the people that sell to license to the sub site, so the quality of their subs offering will increase and PPD decrease until the opposite of the current situation is the case, best stuff on the subs side with no further compensation to contributors.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 06:34 by Justanotherphotographer »

weathernewsonline

« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2015, 07:06 »
0
Is the other content wholly owned or is like their other sites where they paid the copyright holders some paltry sum (much less than an EL) to be able to sell the content in perpetuity without any further compensation?

I have just had a thought. Who thinks they will soon be approaching the best selling people on the PPD side with an offer to licence their portfolios in the same way as graphicstock (their other site)?

I think they are just using the set up to be able to chose only the people that sell to license to the sub site, so the quality of their subs offering will increase and PPD decrease until the opposite of the current situation is the case, best stuff on the subs side with no further compensation to contributors.

I thought I heard they paid artists to shoot a lot of that content for them before they started up.....can't say for sure but I thought I read that somewhere.

weathernewsonline

« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2015, 07:08 »
0
To get 42$ per hd clip at vb is much more than the 23.7$ from shutter stock it is simple math thats why i work at first priority with vb and put aside ss and p5. Those agencies must see that we are working with agencies who apriciate us and pays us high royalties. Only then maybe ss will wake up and start paying here contributors at least 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I upload to VB/P5 at the same time and then SS, for me the sales just haven't taken off at SS, at VB and P5 things are much better.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle