The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Pond5 Sales Decreasing
Old 8th July 2019
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Pond5 Sales Decreasing

Hi there,

not long ago Pond5 was one of the platforms where I made the most money, but sales decreased quite tremendously within the last months...and I mean not a light drop, but like 50% less in sales - which is real bitter.

Am I the only one? And last but not least, might this happen because of my Adrev affiliation?
I wonder especially as if I sell after all, I mostly sell jingles (so tracks under 30 seconds - which don't get spotted by Adrev), but almost never any full tracks anymore.

PS: Did maybe even the whole market change to the worse as of one new library undercutting the market (I've heard of subscription models, which are newly-introduced, for instance at soundscape music)? I mean this might sound crazy, but in this fast-paced world and times you basically never know....

Please feel free to share your experience.

Rock On!
-Freshd.
Old 8th July 2019
  #2
Gear Maniac
 

...further more I got several emails of pond5 asking for clarification, linked to PRO-affiliated tracks (I think ever user got those).

Just wondering, does your Pond5 portfolio has to be 100% not registered at PROs?

Of course I know it says "royalty-free", but as we all know this term has two meanings. So Pond5 is clearly royalty-free in the sense of unlimited licenses, but what about the PRO royalty free aspect? I'm especially confused as they actually ask for your PRO within the track details, which always looked to me that PRO registered material is totally legit, or am I on the wrong path here?

Cheers!
-Freshd.
Old 9th July 2019
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
might this happen because of my Adrev affiliation?
Why should your Adrev affiliation affect your sales?

Bottom line is this: if your P5 income is decreasing, find a new source(s) of income.

Cheers.
Old 9th July 2019
  #4
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lornemalvo View Post
Not greatly au fait with P5 to be honest but aren't you competing with millions of other tracks and millions of other composers on a site where there is no barrier to submission or vetting process with a not very good search facility with the really crap stuff mixed in with the not so crap stuff on a site where there is no marketing to promote the music or composers and the massive virtual track dumpster truck is having thousands of tracks added daily as it grows into an enormous Black Hole of bad music nothingness and eventually eats the universe itself...

...? Kinda thing?
ha ha very well put
Old 9th July 2019
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannymc View Post
ha ha very well put

+2

But seriously, it worked so well for a long time although...

@ jeff

Well, since a few months youtube videos with adrev music (or other PROs/fingerprinted content) get sorta marked. So you can identify the music if you check on the details of the youtube video. Before this wasn't possible, and only the uploader could see that his video will also be third-party exploited (at least if the music wasn't licensed properly).

So hypothetically I imagine I'm a potential client who wants to buy a sync of one piano track, check out the usage example (which I often include in the video description), and then see the track is actually adrev affiliated, and step back from buying a license, as I'm afraid of potential copyright strikes?!

I actually earn maybe like 90-120 USD a month with Adrev, so it really isn't worth it. Actually I'm using it mostly (just as many of you too) for getting to know where my music is getting used - so basically just my personal curiosity and interest - and it is still used a whole lot on youtube...but right now I'm sort of afraid that the now shown details actually might have leaded to a decrease in sales...

Best,
-Freshd
Old 9th July 2019
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
+2

But seriously, it worked so well for a long time although...

@ jeff

Well, since a few months youtube videos with adrev music (or other PROs/fingerprinted content) get sorta marked. So you can identify the music if you check on the details of the youtube video. Before this wasn't possible, and only the uploader could see that his video will also be third-party exploited (at least if the music wasn't licensed properly).

So hypothetically I imagine I'm a potential client who wants to buy a sync of one piano track, check out the usage example (which I often include in the video description), and then see the track is actually adrev affiliated, and step back from buying a license, as I'm afraid of potential copyright strikes?!

I actually earn maybe like 90-120 USD a month with Adrev, so it really isn't worth it. Actually I'm using it mostly (just as many of you too) for getting to know where my music is getting used - so basically just my personal curiosity and interest - and it is still used a whole lot on youtube...but right now I'm sort of afraid that the now shown details actually might have leaded to a decrease in sales...

Best,
-Freshd
Ad Rev isn't THE reason videos are flagged for copyright strikes. The reason is because the music is uploaded into google Content ID system.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

music in the content ID system isn't automatically blocked when uploaded. Ad Rev chooses to Monetize the videos with Content that has been uploaded by Ad Rev. So you should never see an ad rev piece of music causing a video to get blocked.

They are usually always set to "Monetize" unless the content creator (i.e. you) notices a video showing up in Google Content ID using your music that you did not give a license to. THEN you can ask ad rev to submit a claim and the video will be blocked temporarily until the video creator pays the license.

So it shouldn't deter people from licensing music... although Pond5 users are not the most well-versed when it comes to how this whole thing works... so it could very well be scaring them away simply because they don't know enough to know it is no big deal.

To be honest, every track up on pond5 should be Ad Rev enabled. It's stupid not to. The video creator does not pay the money to Ad Rev... Google does through charging money to air the ads in the first place.

Last edited by Etch-A-Sketch; 14th July 2019 at 02:21 AM..
Old 16th July 2019
  #7
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Ad Rev isn't THE reason videos are flagged for copyright strikes. The reason is because the music is uploaded into google Content ID system.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

music in the content ID system isn't automatically blocked when uploaded. Ad Rev chooses to Monetize the videos with Content that has been uploaded by Ad Rev. So you should never see an ad rev piece of music causing a video to get blocked.

They are usually always set to "Monetize" unless the content creator (i.e. you) notices a video showing up in Google Content ID using your music that you did not give a license to. THEN you can ask ad rev to submit a claim and the video will be blocked temporarily until the video creator pays the license.

So it shouldn't deter people from licensing music... although Pond5 users are not the most well-versed when it comes to how this whole thing works... so it could very well be scaring them away simply because they don't know enough to know it is no big deal.

To be honest, every track up on pond5 should be Ad Rev enabled. It's stupid not to. The video creator does not pay the money to Ad Rev... Google does through charging money to air the ads in the first place.
Hey Derek,

long time no see! Your wisdom is once again highly appreciated.

I still wonder if it would be a good idea to mention in my pond5's profile that the tracks are adrev-registered, or would that be totally stupid? Just seen other composers (actually quite prolific/popular ones) doing exactly that.

Another question, aiming at pond5:

I saw a live orchestral music track of mine to appear on dutch TV, and I am almost dead sure they bought the license at pond5. Tunesat provides that it was aired around 100 times!

Well, I wrote the TV station to get at least to known if they actually even bought a sync license, and if they filled a cue sheet properly. No reaction whatsoever. Not that I wouldn't have seen it coming, but I wonder what to do now - possibly writing them by postal mail? And is Pond5 actually royalty free after all? I mean it certainly is in the definition of providing unlimited license usage for the once who bought a proper license, but is it actually too in the second definition of no further royalties getting payed to the authors?

PS: I think everyone of us pond5 authors just recently got a strange mail, with a poll asking for the music's status - resp. if it is registered with a PRO or not etc., while the system actually asks everyone to fill in a PRO before (same as it asks for the composer, arrangers etc.)...and in my experience all music libraries which ask for the PRO are actually collecting royalties, respectively are non-royalty free, at least as far as I am concerned.
So that whole poll seems a bit weird to be quite frank (did anyone else not reply? ).
Old 16th July 2019
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Ad Rev isn't THE reason videos are flagged for copyright strikes. The reason is because the music is uploaded into google Content ID system.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

music in the content ID system isn't automatically blocked when uploaded. Ad Rev chooses to Monetize the videos with Content that has been uploaded by Ad Rev. So you should never see an ad rev piece of music causing a video to get blocked.

They are usually always set to "Monetize" unless the content creator (i.e. you) notices a video showing up in Google Content ID using your music that you did not give a license to. THEN you can ask ad rev to submit a claim and the video will be blocked temporarily until the video creator pays the license.

So it shouldn't deter people from licensing music... although Pond5 users are not the most well-versed when it comes to how this whole thing works... so it could very well be scaring them away simply because they don't know enough to know it is no big deal.

To be honest, every track up on pond5 should be Ad Rev enabled. It's stupid not to. The video creator does not pay the money to Ad Rev... Google does through charging money to air the ads in the first place.
....yes but isnt the whole point that when Adrev monetizes either on lincensed (synced) videos or on unlicensed vids that are playing your music, it comess off the chunk of monetization that the Video creator is getting?

In other words, if as a legitimate content creator I plan to monetize off my YT video, when I buy a sync on Pond5 say, I don´t necessarily want to buy an Adrev enabled music because then the composer would be getting a piece off of my YT monetisation scheme, is this logic correct?? And if correct, is there a way to get the composer to "switch off" Adrev monetisation for my licensed sync? Is this the Whitelisting that would have to be activated in Adrev?
Old 16th July 2019
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
Hey Derek,

long time no see! Your wisdom is once again highly appreciated.

I still wonder if it would be a good idea to mention in my pond5's profile that the tracks are adrev-registered, or would that be totally stupid? Just seen other composers (actually quite prolific/popular ones) doing exactly that.

Another question, aiming at pond5:

I saw a live orchestral music track of mine to appear on dutch TV, and I am almost dead sure they bought the license at pond5. Tunesat provides that it was aired around 100 times!

Well, I wrote the TV station to get at least to known if they actually even bought a sync license, and if they filled a cue sheet properly. No reaction whatsoever. Not that I wouldn't have seen it coming, but I wonder what to do now - possibly writing them by postal mail? And is Pond5 actually royalty free after all? I mean it certainly is in the definition of providing unlimited license usage for the once who bought a proper license, but is it actually too in the second definition of no further royalties getting payed to the authors?

PS: I think everyone of us pond5 authors just recently got a strange mail, with a poll asking for the music's status - resp. if it is registered with a PRO or not etc., while the system actually asks everyone to fill in a PRO before (same as it asks for the composer, arrangers etc.)...and in my experience all music libraries which ask for the PRO are actually collecting royalties, respectively are non-royalty free, at least as far as I am concerned.
So that whole poll seems a bit weird to be quite frank (did anyone else not reply? ).
Hi!

I am no expert but theoretically should´nt it be something like this: Dutch TV airs the Production that has your music. The Production presumably bought the unlimited sync on Pond5 and then the TV should fill in a Cue Sheet, so through your PRO you should be getting the broadcast royalties.
BUT: is Pond5 getting 50% of those because they are now owning the "Publisher" half of the Music they sync? Can´t you find out from Pond5 directly?
Also, the TV is just Airing the Production, so really you have to find out who bought/synced your music in the first place (the production) and hope that they did not register the "New Work" as their own, because effectively, this is what Pond5 means with Royalty Free: that you can use what you buy on pond 5 to create distribute and sell new material.

if you read the Pond5 User Agreement (which is really not that long) especially Section 2 .e and .f and then Sec 3 and Sec 6 especially .b there is nothing mention of Pond5 takin over any Publishing rights for music.

However it is really unclear what actually happens to your music once it is licensed.

Best bet is to call them and ask.

Please elt us know how it goes!!
Old 16th July 2019
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Lorenzop's Avatar
 

Btw here´s a good link to PRO and Pond5 : https://help.pond5.com/hc/en-us/arti...and-Cue-Sheets

Goes without saying, that hopefully you´r track had the PRO section properly filled out?!

By looking at the PRO sheet from Pond5 it appears that THEY DO NOT take over the Publising rights of the music, because YOU have to fill in whatever Publisher holds the rights in the PRO sheet
Old 16th July 2019
  #11
Gear Nut
 

I have yet to receive any broadcast royalties through cues licensed at Pond5, but I do fill out PRO, list my own publishing company, and register the Pond5 title at ASCAP. Maybe someday one will hit.

I have not noticed a decrease in sales, but I have noticed over the last few months my views have gone up significantly (more than double), but sales have held steady. I have around 500 cues there and have been licensing through Pond5 for over three years.
Old 16th July 2019
  #12
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMusic View Post
I have yet to receive any broadcast royalties through cues licensed at Pond5, but I do fill out PRO, list my own publishing company, and register the Pond5 title at ASCAP. Maybe someday one will hit.
Same here - just a few tracks of mine are PRO registered, but of course the tracks data is always filled by me on such registered tracks.

What should I do next with those dutch guys? I know they read my mail, but no reply at all. And I haven't checked yet, but though I am hell-sure it doesn't show up on BMI - also, at it will certainly need quite some time, even if they did registered the cue correctly in their sheets...or am I on the wrong path here?

Back to the low sales. It's just that the drop came out of nowhere, and persists since months...(while also in the last days my views were super-high - they never have been higher actually!)....or maybe the people "google around", and get the same track totally free, via downloading the unwatermarked file? (yup - sadly still quite some libraries don't do watermarkings, even in this day).

Freshd.
Old 21st August 2019
  #13
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMusic View Post
I have yet to receive any broadcast royalties through cues licensed at Pond5, but I do fill out PRO, list my own publishing company, and register the Pond5 title at ASCAP. Maybe someday one will hit.

I have not noticed a decrease in sales, but I have noticed over the last few months my views have gone up significantly (more than double), but sales have held steady. I have around 500 cues there and have been licensing through Pond5 for over three years.

Still very less sales at my former warhorse lib...any other Pond5 users to chime in here?

Would be keen to know if anyone else experienced a similar drop, or if sales stayed steady, yet even gone upwards for some!?

PS: as for the low sales the views are still the highest I've ever had...which is absolutely paradox to me, and I still don't know the reason. The pond5 staff was super respondent, but said it's most likely just a "low sales period". They were very nice, but it didn't solved the problem at all.

The only real advice I got from them is to look if I have the same music as on pond5 (about 500 tracks) at other libraries too, but with a lower price tag, which is not the fact. But maybe some other library - of which I don't know of - changed their pricing model, like to a subscription membership? Speaking of; I have my music in soundscape music (a library I have a lot of music, for a lot time, but never had a single sale, no idea what's going on there)...you other guys who are registered with Soundscape certainly also have seen the email debacle a few weeks ago, where many people dropped out, due to their service changing to a subscription plan. But I can't imagine that's the sole reason, or is it after all?

I wonder if anyone has an idea when Youtube began to list the adrev details within/below the video description? Wasn't this like quite a while ago? So adrev most likely can't be a possible reason.

-Freshd.
Old 21st August 2019
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

....and it get's WORSE!

Just read this mail they sent today:

"As we launch Pond5 Publishing, we will also be adjusting your share of license revenue to align with the industry standard for a non-exclusive marketplace. Beginning September 3rd, 2019, contributors to our Music and Sound Effects offerings will begin collecting 35% of the license revenue their content generates through Pond5. We did not make this change lightly but we are no longer able to pay a materially higher revenue share for the same content available on competing marketplaces while continuing to invest in developing a global customer base for your content. We appreciate your understanding as we align with an extremely competitive landscape."

Did I just read right, and it this for all tracks, or only the ones included for their new publishing program?

I mean WTH? The industry standard ever has been 50%. Even 40% (like at worse music libs as audiosparx), is a joke. But 35% is nothing else than a rip-off. Not long ago they were the best and most artist-friendly music lib by far, but this is just sad. If it's for all tracks I hope they get the ****storm they deserve.
Old 21st August 2019
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
I mean WTH? The industry standard ever has been 50%. Even 40% (like at worse music libs as audiosparx), is a joke. But 35% is nothing else than a rip-off. Not long ago they were the best and most artist-friendly music lib by far, but this is just sad. If it's for all tracks I hope they get the ****storm they deserve.
35% for the composer is the same as Pump Audio/Getty Images. That is the current industry standard. Royalty free means no royalties for you and free usage of all material for the people that pay 5 figures a year to get the blanket licenses.

Pay to host music on their site coming in 5, 4, 3, 2, .......
Old 21st August 2019
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
PS: as for the low sales the views are still the highest I've ever had...which is absolutely paradox to me, and I still don't know the reason. The pond5 staff was super respondent, but said it's most likely just a "low sales period". They were very nice, but it didn't solved the problem at all.
This is the problem when a company races to the bottom. They are only on top so long as they are on bottom.

Most likely another big competitor to Pond5 has entered the market and is now cheaper than Pond5... so while you are still getting a lot of views from past customers, they are now deciding to license somewhere else that is cheaper.

When the only value a service is perceived to have by it's customers is price, then that is the only thing attracting them to the service. Once another service is cheaper, all the business moves to that other service.

The 99 cent store is only going to be popular and see a lot of business until the 49 cent store opens up. Why pay 99 cents for the same thing you can get at this other store for 49 cents.
Old 21st August 2019
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
"As we launch Pond5 Publishing, we will also be adjusting your share of license revenue to align with the industry standard for a non-exclusive marketplace. Beginning September 3rd, 2019, contributors to our Music and Sound Effects offerings will begin collecting 35% of the license revenue their content generates through Pond5. We did not make this change lightly but we are no longer able to pay a materially higher revenue share for the same content available on competing marketplaces while continuing to invest in developing a global customer base for your content. We appreciate your understanding as we align with an extremely competitive landscape."
This was inevitable. They have been operating at a loss in hopes to tank the market and then be the only player left in the market. They had $61mil invested in them back in 2014 and they have run out of money. They don't make nearly enough to support their business.

now they will be taking all of your publishing and taking 65% of the sync licensing just to try and stay afloat and attract another round of VC investment or sell. And guess what... when they sell for $100mil or $200mil... you don't see a penny! "Thank you for your music and making us multi-millionaires while you make nothing. Peace out!"

I have been saying this for years in these forums... these RF super cheap bottom feeding libraries are not sustainable business models. There is a reason music licensing costs as much as it does. And you need that performance royalty income as well as sync income to keep the business financially healthy.

Music licensing has been around since the mid 1800's with Ernest Bourget and Les Ambassadors Cafe-Brasserie on the Champs-Elysées. And to some degree even before that! There is a reason we do what we do and charge what we charge because this has all been worked out over 170 years of trial and error. But some young people who know nothing about music publishing think they can just come in and change how everything is done by giving up huge chunks of revenue that is standard in the industry..."oh but we'll make that lost Performance Royalty revenue and lost sync licensing revenue back in volume of licensing..." LOL... obviously not!
Old 22nd August 2019
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
They have been operating at a loss in hopes to tank the market and then be the only player left in the market.
If that's the case, then they deserve to fail.

Unfortunately, on the backs of composers who are just trying to earn a living.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #19
Gear Maniac
 

Question: taking all the publishing means they will get the full royalties I would normally get from my PRO - writers AND publishers share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
This was inevitable. They have been operating at a loss in hopes to tank the market and then be the only player left in the market. They had $61mil invested in them back in 2014 and they have run out of money. They don't make nearly enough to support their business.

now they will be taking all of your publishing and taking 65% of the sync licensing just to try and stay afloat and attract another round of VC investment or sell. And guess what... when they sell for $100mil or $200mil... you don't see a penny! "Thank you for your music and making us multi-millionaires while you make nothing. Peace out!"

I have been saying this for years in these forums... these RF super cheap bottom feeding libraries are not sustainable business models. There is a reason music licensing costs as much as it does. And you need that performance royalty income as well as sync income to keep the business financially healthy.

Music licensing has been around since the mid 1800's with Ernest Bourget and Les Ambassadors Cafe-Brasserie on the Champs-Elysées. And to some degree even before that! There is a reason we do what we do and charge what we charge because this has all been worked out over 170 years of trial and error. But some young people who know nothing about music publishing think they can just come in and change how everything is done by giving up huge chunks of revenue that is standard in the industry..."oh but we'll make that lost Performance Royalty revenue and lost sync licensing revenue back in volume of licensing..." LOL... obviously not!
I knew they must have been pumping exessive amounts of money into their library for a long period of time! Like every other franchise which is showing up on number uno on google and facebook advertisement's programms! Though I wonder where you got those hard facts from?

...and don't they still make extreme amounts of royalties? Can't imagine they blew up the biggest part of it up the air only for ad campaigns? Running the company as such shouldn't be too costy, but maybe I'm thinking a bit naive here.

After all I think prices such as 40 USD for a full track license you use on a youtube show or for a podcast is still alright, but the system is simply missused. It's certainly not alright if an internationally-acknowledged brand pays the same price, but sadly that's reality.

I mean pump pulled a similar thing 10 years ago, and they got away with it. But they survived as Getty Images is a much larger corporation.

Speaking of Getty, I wonder if IstockAudio still exists? Didn't they had payouts like 19 %? Lol.

PS: Derek, please check your mailbox.

Freshd.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
Question: taking all the publishing means they will get the full royalties I would normally get from my PRO - writers AND publishers share?



I knew they must have been pumping exessive amounts of money into their library for a long period of time! Like every other franchise which is showing up on number uno on google and facebook advertisement's programms! Though I wonder where you got those hard facts from?

...and don't they still make extreme amounts of royalties? Can't imagine they blew up the biggest part of it up the air only for ad campaigns? Running the company as such shouldn't be too costy, but maybe I'm thinking a bit naive here.

After all I think prices such as 40 USD for a full track license you use on a youtube show or for a podcast is still alright, but the system is simply missused. It's certainly not alright if an internationally-acknowledged brand pays the same price, but sadly that's reality.

I mean pump pulled a similar thing 10 years ago, and they got away with it. But they survived as Getty Images is a much larger corporation.

Speaking of Getty, I wonder if IstockAudio still exists? Didn't they had payouts like 19 %? Lol.

PS: Derek, please check your mailbox.

Freshd.
Hey buddy!

It means they take the publisher's share. Your writer's share should still be intact... although if Pond5 had the option to waive your writers and publishers and make it truly "Performance Royalty Free" then they could very well be taking both the writers and publishers shares in those instances when the license require PRO info (people don't realize that a lot of countries have laws/mandates stating that the broadcasters HAVE to pay the PROs and that a writer and publisher always has to be listed for anything that is broadcast).

Anyway... the only way Pump survived was by being sold to and assimilated by Getty.

There are a few companies right now who are operating like this. Audio Network was doing this (running at a net loss and trying to undercut prices. They were 50 mil GBP in debt but were only making 30 mil GBP a year when they sold), It looks like Epidemic Music is doing this (they had to just do another round of VC funding to stay afloat). Pond 5 is doing this (they will probably have to do another round of VC funding or sell in the next few years). I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the other RF libraries are doing the same.

There is a reason why the traditional licensing and publishing deals exist and have existed for a long time. Sometimes "bucking the system" and "breaking the mold" and "changing the game" to a long existing industry just doesn't work. Look at what happened to Ole after they bought Jingle Punks (they tanked, had to let go of their CEO, and then had to completely burn Ole to the ground and rename and rebrand the entire company to Anthem Entertainment). So sometimes it just doesn't work, especially when the "big groundbreaking plan" is to just cut prices and give away the product for significantly cheaper than normal (or even free in some cases, like JP did).

And it's getting late here... I'll check my email in the morning and see what you sent me. Cheers!
Old 22nd August 2019
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Audio Network was doing this (running at a net loss and trying to undercut prices. They were 50 mil GBP in debt but were only making 30 mil GBP a year when they sold)
How do you know they were 50 mill in debt?
Old 22nd August 2019
  #22
Gear Nut
 

Hey Etch,

I'm super curious about the whole publishing thing, and I would like to get your take on it.

According to the communication I received from them:

Key information about the program:

  • These performance royalties are in addition to the upfront license revenue you receive when your track is licensed through Pond5.
  • You will keep all of your writer and publisher performance royalties, less a standard admin fee from the publisher share to cover our expenses.
  • We will make every effort to ensure that buyers file cue sheets and provide relevant information for public broadcasts on film and TV.
  • You are not required to license exclusively through Pond5 in order to participate in Pond5 Publishing.
  • Participation in Pond5 Publishing does not interfere with other publishing arrangements you may have, as we will only be collecting performance royalties generated by tracks licensed through Pond5.
  • We will help you sign up as a writer with a performing rights organization if you are not already (which is a prerequisite to collecting performance royalties and completely free with BMI).
  • You’re in control - you decide whether to participate in Pond5 Publishing.

It doesn't sound to me like they are making a grab for all of my publishing, just that they are admining it for me?

Cheers,
Rob
Old 22nd August 2019
  #23
Gear Nut
 

I read it the same way. That they aren't proposing to act as a traditional publisher, just administering paperwork. But if you have your own publishing company setup, the mechanism has been part of the submission process for as long as I can remember to enter your publisher information. I think this is aimed at people too naive of lazy to setup their own Publishing.

I have been on Pond5 for 5 or so years, licensed dozens of music tracks (maybe 100?) and I always register my PRO and Publishing information. I have yet to see one cue sheet hit or one penny of Publishing be accounted for.

This whole publishing "feature" they rolled out is a rouse to sugar coat the real announcement which is Pond5 going from a 50/50 split for license fees, to 65/35 in their favor, a 30% reduction to composers.

They have yet to respond publicly to composers complaining, or privately to an email I sent asking them to reconsider. At this point, even if they backtrack and stick to 50/50, I don't trust them, so I'll be pulling all 555 of my music tracks and requesting my account be deleted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orbiterred View Post
Hey Etch,

I'm super curious about the whole publishing thing, and I would like to get your take on it.
  • These performance royalties are in addition...

It doesn't sound to me like they are making a grab for all of my publishing, just that they are admining it for me?

Cheers,
Rob
Old 22nd August 2019
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMusic View Post
They have yet to respond publicly to composers complaining, or privately to an email I sent asking them to reconsider. At this point, even if they backtrack and stick to 50/50, I don't trust them, so I'll be pulling all 555 of my music tracks and requesting my account be deleted.
That’s a lot of music you are removing. I say stay the course and raise your prices. You should be charging at least $100 per cue.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #25
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMusic View Post

I have been on Pond5 for 5 or so years, licensed dozens of music tracks (maybe 100?) and I always register my PRO and Publishing information. I have yet to see one cue sheet hit or one penny of Publishing be accounted for.

This whole publishing "feature" they rolled out is a rouse to sugar coat the real announcement which is Pond5 going from a 50/50 split for license fees, to 65/35 in their favor, a 30% reduction to composers.
Same experience, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #26
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMusic View Post
At this point, even if they backtrack and stick to 50/50, I don't trust them, so I'll be pulling all 555 of my music tracks and requesting my account be deleted.
Yeah, same here. Almost identical numbers, 546 going to be removed.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtrwll View Post
Yeah, same here. Almost identical numbers, 546 going to be removed.
Don’t do it!

Ride this out. In the meantime, raise your prices. You have to think long term here. No hasty moves.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #28
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
Ride this out. In the meantime, raise your prices. You have to think long term here. No hasty moves.
It's exactly long term in play here.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtrwll View Post
It's exactly long term in play here.
Keep those cues up on the site.
Old 22nd August 2019
  #30
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
Keep those cues up on the site.
That would be clutching at straws. And bad advice.

But hey, to each to his own.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump