-
Anybody here selling stock footage? Either as a sideline or a main business….
-
Robin,
Ask as many questions as you like. Most stock sites will let you pick a subject and then rank it in best seller order. Then you know what footage like yours is selling the best and for what price. I found if your footage looks better. You can ask for more and you will get it. If you fell your shot isn’t more unique and better then I would lower the price a little.
When I personally look for stock footage to purchase for my project I don’t look at the price. I only look at what image is the best. The only times I don’t get the image is when it is an outrageous price like $300. In that case, I’ll go with the clip I thought was the second best for $75.
Stephen Smith
Check out my Vimeo page
-
Steve and I talk about this topic on the latest podcast recorded today:
https://www.thedvshow.com/the-dv-show-podcast-for-july-11-2017/
Thanks for joining us Steve!
Brian Alves
Listen to the new podcast
for DV creators- The DV Show!
https://www.thedvshow.com -
Ok great, thanks for both replies ..will check out the pod cast too
-
I’ve sold my footage through most of the sites: from Getty and Corbis (when it was around), to the “lower tier” companies, including Pond5. Pond5 is by far the best. I think they are close to taking most of the business away from the other stock houses (even Getty) – and, in my opinion, they would definitely succeed if they introduced an “exclusive” clause for their footage, which they currently don’t have. I love setting my own prices. I have a couple of clips priced at $290 that sell a couple of times a year. The pricing for my various shots goes all the way down to $25. But folks that believe you can make a living only selling stock footage are just hoping and wishing, in my opinion (unless you are the owner of the company). I don’t see how that can ever happen. It will always be a side business (i.e. “beer money, as mentioned earlier). If people are making rent and mortgage payments from stock footage, I’d love to hear about it and be encouraged by that. I find, having working in advertising over 3 decades, that footage of visuals that can be used as metaphors sell the best and are used most often (i.e. flowers blooming = life, waves crashing = turmoil, young hands holding = puppy love, etc.). Footage with people in it can sometimes be a problem because the images are too “specific,” often being too time, age or location specific (except for babies, scientists and engineers). I can’t count the number of times I had to remind production companies NOT to include ANY palm trees in the shot when shooting national commercials.
-
Pond5 have just rejected two clips of mine that were taken in historic Cathedral Square in Christchurch, New Zealand before the devastating earthquakes that changed the Square forever in 2010.
And the reason the clips were rejected? Because the audio track was “distracting and not useful”.
I find this absolutely laughable as the shot features pictures and sound of a streetcar (tram) wiping through frame to reveal the Cathedral. Theres no other audio other than street atmos, and tram sound. Theres nothing distracting at all, just audio of whats in the images.
Sure I could easily strip off the audio and sell it as a mute track, but why on earth would anyone buy a shot of a tram without audio? I’m trying to give them choices here, not take them away before the client has made up their own mind.
I’ve asked for a second opinion from Pond5, otherwise I will have to go shopping for a site that better understands tv post production.
_______________________________________________
I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe. -
That’s crazy unless the audio is really loud. Can you just drop the volume level and re-submit?
Stephen Smith
Check out my Vimeo page
-
I know its crazy, but certainly not loud, or over-modulated at all.
If I was cutting this I would want audio on the shot, even if turned right down.
But they were able to accept a shot with the fountain at Oriental Bay with audio of the fountain and some street sounds. Inconsistent.
_______________________________________________
I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe. -
Here is the response I have received from Pond5
“First I must say these are amazing shots. Clearly you took these with care, and quality was your focus.
Please know when your customer purchases this clip, they demand the option to layer in their own sound. Creating an additional step for your customer is a big detractor for sales, and could prove difficult for your customer without the right software. As a policy we are moving away from footage with sound. Please resubmit without the sound track, and I’ll be more than happy to request a secondary review of your clips.”
(The bold font is my emphasis)
They are kidding right, removing audio is one the simplest things you can do in post, as opposed to creating audio from nothing.
Surely even a guidetrack could be useful. Huh?_______________________________________________
I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe. -
For what it’s worth I’ve been shooting stills for a friend’s stock library for a few years now but they have recently got very excited about video. So on my last shoot I split it 50/50 stills/video and the returns have not mirrored the agency’s excitement, coming in at just 20%+/- of sales from that shoot. They syndicate through Getty amongst others.
This is a typical example, and shot in a very similar way to stills, but it generates not enough revenue to warrant the time taken away from shooting more profitable stills.
If you are thinking about Getty, be warned. They currently have the terrible habit of demanding everything we supply is 4K, and then insult us by discounting the 4K to the same price as HD. I am not happy about that. It means the contributors have to up their game and invest in 4K delivery without any payback. Pretty Getty-esque I’d say.
I’m going to look at Pond5. On down days I like heading out and shooting generic, it helps with process/workflow and if I can turn ‘personal work’ into a revenue stream all the better!
John
-
In my experience with friends and colleagues who have tried their hand at stock footage, it’s not been a very pleasant nor profitable experience, both in terms of jumping through the hoops of any particular site’s guidelines and then the rather paltry returns on their time.
My thought is that stock video is probably getting ready to (or desperately needs to) have some sort of model turnover that’s going to more heavily favor a curated subscription based model. It just seems that there’s a huge middle market who could use lots of great stock footage, but are unwilling to drop $75-$200+ a piece for a 15 sec. clip. Notwithstanding the amount of work, expertise and such that goes into great stock footage, I think the reality is that it’s largely overpriced for what a significant portion of the market is willing to pay right now (and that’s not likely to change in the future), and will probably have to adjust.
I see entities like Soundstripe and Artlist providing a potential model for this, in which they have a more limited, well curated and high quality selection but are able to bundle it into one price and really flexible licensing. Most of the clients I work with who were using places like Firstcom or even MusicBed have pretty much all switched over to places like these.
I know some people who are embarking on something like this for stock footage, in which it’s heavily curated (I think there’s about 5-6 people involved). Not sure if it will be successful or sustainable (nor yet what the licensing will be, which for me would be make or break), but I think it’s an interesting (and probably inevitable) approach. Like most of these types of things, it definitely tends toward certain moods and looks. Check it out if you want: https://www.storytape.com/
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up