Hi All,

This is my introductory post, so I just wanted to say hi, introduce myself and then get down to business.

I am a niche DVD marketer and content broker, and have been doing this since 2000 - sometimes surprising even myself that I made it this far. There are some good companies and bad companies out there. Luckily, I've rooted out the bad ones over the years, and acquired some very, very good ones. HD is now in a similar place to where DVD was years ago. I know that a lot of people are waiting for a consumer format to finally be adopted so that they can move some footage in formats other than WMV9/10.

One of my clients is a very respected name in the video imaging/imaging science world and we are looking at doing a little brand extension. The client has worldwide distribution with online and offline major retailers. You'll forgive me for not giving all of the particulars in a public forum, but I'd be very happy to answer your questions via PM.

On their behalf, I am looking to acquire and/or license content of the following types --usually 5-10 minute clips, although long-form content is welcome too:

1) General Nature
2) Aquatic and underwater scenes
3) Landscapes/cityscapes
4) Hang-gliding/ballooning
5) Maritime
6) Ornithology
7) Environment/Conservation

We are looking for great image quality above all, and will ensure that the transfer and authoring process protects this quality. There is often a tradeoff between audio and video quality when it comes to nature video, but I'd say that image is valued first and audio second, when necessary.

You would obviously be paid up front (~$300 and up per clip), credited for your work (unless you choose not to be credited, i.e. for situations where you are not supposed to be moonlighting). Participation in profits is certainly not out of the question, although I would imagine in most cases it's higher advance payment vs. lower advance with share of profits all tied to the percentage of your work that would comprise a particular final work.

If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me. Thanks for making this forum available as a resource.

Best Regards,
Jason Rosenfeld

Are you looking for HDV footage? If so does it need to be of any particular flavor?(1080i or 720p)....

Does the sound for the 5 minute clips matter?

Do you take shorter clips?

Inquiring minds want to know! :)

Hello Jason

Go here for a look
http://www.ningalooreefteach.com/FX1.htm

Regards
Paul

I wish someone would go to yellowstone with a Z1, they have great scenery there!

Go here for a look
http://www.ningalooreefteach.com/FX1.htmAwesome link, Paul! Thanks for sharing that,

$300 for five minutes of HD?!

Discovery channel just bought 10 SECONDS of DV from us for $100.

IMO, Jason is looking for steals, but if you want to
practically give your work away, that's your choice.

Sorry for the bucket of cold water, but this is how I feel
about this offer and IF you have great footage like he wants
(most won't cut the mustard) I would shop it around. There
are plenty of places paying more.

You are jumping the gun judging me here, Jacques. While I agree that, on the surface, it sounds better to sell 10 seconds of DV for $100 than to sell 5 minutes for $300, I don't know your level of expertise (I am assuming that you are quite good).

First, let me just begin by saying that I originally said that my clients are seeking content at a rate of "~$300 and up per clip". While I can't fathom using a 10 second clip for one of these projects, I have to plead ignorance. I simply don't know what the content was. However, your fee was still included in my estimated range as all I did was state an approximate minimum. Is there a theoretical maximum? Someone could have the next Zapruder film. While it wouldn't go to the client I had in mind, I'd have places to take different kinds of content.

Second, you are quite right that most footage does not cut the mustard. If we are talking about a nature shot -- and a plane flies through the shot, or someone "walks across the set," there are a lot of bad shots to be filtered out. But still, even if none of the above happen, it doesn't mean that a shot is great.

A great shot comes from a great artist mixed in with the occassional "happy accident" for good measure. Trust me, if I had the ability to sell 10 second shots for $100 all day, I wouldn't be a content broker. I'd be shooting with my camera all day. However, I simply don't have that type of artistic ability. (I can look at a shot or listen to audio and have a good sense of whether it works with a project, but I don't have the skills to create them).

And finally, I am a content broker. I have brokered deals with everything from TV episodic programming, to music, and lots of diverse types of content. Just like some people don't want to sell a house through a real estate agent, some people don't see needs for brokers, agents or other types of businesses where someone is working on a percentage basis. Someone like that should probably not respond to me. (But as we like to say in the content business, 100% of nothing is still nothing).

Best Regards,
Jason


$300 for five minutes of HD?!

Discovery channel just bought 10 SECONDS of DV from us for $100.

IMO, Jason is looking for steals, but if you want to
practically give your work away, that's your choice.

Sorry for the bucket of cold water, but this is how I feel
about this offer and IF you have great footage like he wants
(most won't cut the mustard) I would shop it around. There
are plenty of places paying more.

<<<Jason Rosenfeld]Trust me, if I had the ability to sell 10 second shots for $100 all day, I wouldn't be a content broker. I'd be shooting with my camera all day.>>>

And that is my point exactly. You can't do it, because it is very difficult.

To get even 10 seconds of footage
"worthy" enough to be purchased and included in anyone's broadcast is
_very difficult_. You want 5-10 minute clips in HD. That would infer
balloon flights over Yosemite at dawn, etc. IF I could go out with my
camera and sell dozens 10 second clips I would too.

The fact is that 10 seconds of usable stuff in realty equals HOURS and
HOURS of effort, huge equipment expense, etc.
If your client wanted to get 10 mintues of ballooning over
Yosemite, they would have to spend thousands and still might end up
with nothing due to weather and other issues. Therefore, imo,
their offer is less than generous.

<<<And finally, I am a content broker. I have brokered deals with everything from TV episodic programming, to music, and lots of diverse types of content. Just like some people don't want to sell a house through a real estate agent, some people don't see needs for brokers, agents or other types of businesses where someone is working on a percentage basis. Someone like that should probably not respond to me. (But as we like to say in the content business, 100% of nothing is still nothing).>>>

Willie Nelson sold a couple of his songs for $150. Those songs made
millions. At the time, Willie needed the money too and didn't know
what he was selling was worth. I think it is okay for me to inform
our members of real world rates.

jacques, aren't you being a bit harsh? i mean, there are quite a few folks here (myself included, if i had an HD camera, which i don't yet) who would be shooting this kind of stuff anyway, maybe for love not money. tomorrow, i am schlepping my XL2 up a 13,000 foot peak for the heck of it, to boldly go and get video footage where no XL2 has gone before. because i can. for fun. if someone wanted to pay me for what i would do anyway, that'd be swell. some things i do for money, some things i do because i'm stupid. or because i want to try something new (like test my new monopod, and see if it will be the tool that will make me want to hang onto this big-ass camera and make it worth my while to carry it to ridiculous places).

seasoned professionals already know what you are saying, anyway, and those of us who need a little seasoning probably wouldn't mind making a few bucks doing something we already love.

here's how i spent last weekend, climbing above 11,000 feet so that i could shoot a bit of wildflower footage. it's a 54-second clip which i'm thinking about submitting to a local 54-second film festival (sponsored by channel 54), and i think the privilege of submitting will cost me $20 (comparable to the DVC3), if i decide to go through with it.

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/38039

earning $300 or more sounds a lot better than paying out $20, no? i think someone like me (or me-with-HD-camcorder) is more the audience that jason is trying to hit. while i appreciate the warning shot from someone in the know, the guy is just engaging in a bit of free enterprise. he does not appear on the surface, to be a rip-off artist, just a guy advertising for a specific product from a specific market. i don't think he is seeking out seasoned pros, he is trying to capitalize on the democratization of the HD format. these new affordable camcorders are bringing to small-time operators, and he's trying to carve a niche.

or to get all philosophical and stuff, does any art have intrinsic value at all? or is its value determined by the zeitgeist and the existing market? do you think that if willie nelson had any inkling at all that his songs would be worth millions that he would have settled for $150? the songs pre-existed the zeitgeist and the market, not the other way around.

The true value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it -- not the price that someone sets for it. When the Soviet Union collapsed, butchers who never experienced capitalism before let their food rot on the shelves rather than negotiate a lower price with customers.

Jacques made a good point that it can take many hours to get the perfect shot. So, when you look at the whole project, he was not really selling 10 seconds of footage, but the footage plus all of the labor, gas and tolls, etc.

From a pure fixed cost perspective, in most cases, $300 for 5 minutes would be better than $100 for 10 seconds. I don't think you can book a videographer for 10 seconds! Variable costs are not much different between 10 seconds and 5 minutes. Same goes with the kinds of work I do. Some clients pay a lot for a small number of hours per week, and other clients book up large blocks of my time at a much lower rate.

The ideal scenario is this: When filming a nature lockdown shot, what Jacques should really do is to film an hour of material, sell 10 seconds of it to Discovery Channel for $100 and a separate 5 minutes to me for $300. :)


or to get all philosophical and stuff, does any art have intrinsic value at all?

Now gents, I think we need to calm the waters.

As Meryem has said, there are quite a few people here who have and would shoot footage like required for a fee. Remember, "Never let the need for money outweigh the need for Quality, Friendly and Professional service".

Now me for example, and staying in one the most beautifull cities in the world, have footage to offer someone like Jason providing that his offer is on the up and up.

Now Jason, don't get me wrong, you would not be the first to make an offer like this. Many before have and we had only to discover that these offers were not as legit as what they made out to be so forgive the scepticism.

If what you offer is sound, fell free to contact me as I do have some footage available of Cape Town and surrounds.

Cheers

No one is stopping anyone from buying or selling footage for a low price.
I am trying to educate people about fair market value.

In the current "race to the bottom", here is a brilliant plan.

Discovery Channel (who now needs HD and doesn't have enough)
puts out the word to thousands of videographers to go out and
shoot content for $$$. That content will be captured on the gear the _video
people_ paid thousands of dollar to acquire, NOT Discovery.
Many will buy cameras with their credit cards. (A while back Discovery
GAVE HD rigs to people in hopes of getting footage. Alas, I guess
they didn't get enough good shots.)

Then Discovery has 'the video people' provide at NO COST a large
'harvest' of oysters for FREE. Can you imagine thousands of
oyster boats sending their catches
for free to a jewelry company for "pearl inspection"? Cool plan eh?

Discovery can then go over the entire harvest and extract a few pearls
from the thousands of shells. The price they pay for pearls is EXTREMELY low, whereas normally it is VERY HIGH due to the money and effort
by dozens required to bring even a one pearl to market.

My point, it is a brilliant plan (albeit ethically sketchy in my book)
and because there are so many people
out there who are desperate or don't care, it will probably succeed
(in the short run and kill off the stock footage business in the long run).

I respect the point for fair market value and I too am one who doesn't want to 'give' footage away and would rather see value for value.

By the same token, if I do have lockdown footage that I feel is worth selling at a fair value, then surely I can ask a fair value provided the offer is fair.

As Jason has mentioned, the pricing would be negotiable and hence his brokerage.

Lets see what comes from this and then lets comment on what is fair or not.

Cheers

What is happening with stock photography might influence stock video, but I think it's harder to get usable footage than to get usable still shots.

Companies such as www.dreamstime.com offer tons of photos from the "photographic oysters" you describe -- for $1 apiece. There is a lot more junk to sort through, but $1 royalty for license in perpetuity versus $100s or $1,000s of dollars for a site such as Corbis -- it has to be hitting their pocketbooks.

No one is stopping anyone from buying or selling footage for a low price.
I am trying to educate people about fair market value.

In the current "race to the bottom", here is a briliant plan.

Discovery Channel (who now needs HD and doesn't have enough)
puts out the word to thousands of videographers to go out and
shoot content for $$$. That content will be captured on the gear the _video
people_ paid thousands of dollar to acquire, NOT Discovery.
Many will buy it with their credit cards. (A while back Discovery
GAVE HD rigs to people in hopes of getting footage. Alas, I guess
they didn't get enough good shots.)

Then Discovery has 'the video people' provide at NO COST a large
'harvest' of oysters for FREE. Can you imagine thousands of
oyster boats sending their catches
for free to a jewlery company for "pearl inspection"? Cool plan eh?

Discovery can then go over the entire harvest and extract a few pearls
from the thousands of shells. The price they pay for pearls is EXTREMELY low, whereas normally it is VERY HIGH due to the money and effort
by dozens required to bring even a one pearl to market.

My point, it is a brilliant plan (albeit ethically sketchy in my book)
and because there are so many people
out there who are desperate or don't care, it will probably succeed
(in the short run and kill off the stock footage business in the long run).

That is it Jason. Untold hours of bad video to sort though,
a few pearls to recover and coin and millions of oysters to
give away at 'cat food' prices.

Sorry, but you see what this means for those professionals who
dream of owning a successful stock footage company.

NEXT DREAM PLEASE ;(

Since the original post was in this HDV section, I think it's safe to assume the guy wants HDV footage. That means, at this point, only footage from the FX1, the Z1 or the single chip versions that JVC and Sony have on the market. Soon we can add the 3 chip JVC 100 to the mix.

The point is, 300 bucks for a lockdown shot from a prosumer type camera that costs only $5K or so isn't a bad deal--ASSUMING you don't sell the copyright to the footage and only sell certain rights. You'd have to read the fine print carefully. Stock footage companies never sell anybody the full rights to a shot, and they can sell the same shot over and over again.
If one person wants to pay you 300 bucks for a shot, you ought to be able to sell it to other stock footage companies too for the same amount or more.

This is the kind of thing you don't hire on to do, ie., to go shoot for 300 bucks a day. But, if you live in a cool, scenic place and have the camera and aren't doing anything useful on a Sunday morning, why not make 300 bucks for carrying your camera and tripod with you for a few hours.

On the other hand...people in the business world are always trying to get stuff cheap and not pay what it's really worth. So if I were going to go for this deal, I would want a decent cut of the action, ie., residuals...a payment everytime the shot is sold. I would think if the percentage were fair, instead of taking 300 bucks for a shot, you would be better off to put it out on consignment and get paid every time they sell it to somebody. But then...how do you keep 'em honest? Film distributors have been screwing film makers almost since the invention of the motion picture camera.

Jason, just wondering if HDV Z1 footage will work for you. By the end of January when our season slows down we should have thousands of scenics and thousands of nature/animals on HDV there will be 9 camera guys weekly all over the country till the end of January. Just inquiring, Thanks.
Mike McCloskey
Mossy Oak Productions
Field Production Supervisor

Jason, just wondering if HDV Z1 footage will work for you. By the end of January when our season slows down we should have thousands of scenics and thousands of nature/animals on HDV there will be 9 camera guys weekly all over the country till the end of January. Just inquiring, Thanks.
Mike McCloskey
Mossy Oak Productions
Field Production Supervisor

Shoot me an email and I'll send you my phone number. apparently there is some movement in the area of consumer decks (both hd-dvd and blu-ray are due to have something within a few months -- yeah, I know, we've heard it before...but this is on pretty good authority) Installed base will be small at first, but so will the amount of software available.

This thread is a Buzzkill...

I say shoot some footage and GIVE it to him for FREE... :)

<<Bill Binder: This thread is a Buzzkill...>>

Yeah, reality . . .

<<<I say shoot some footage and GIVE it to him for FREE... :)>>>

If you think about all the time and money invested by dozens for each
clip ultimately accepted and 'paid for', it is free.

I can also predict that when thousands and thousands of "oysters"
are dumped on the dock, most to languish until they rot, even the
pearls will lose their value.

Videoguy: "How'd you like that last reel of stuff I sent from my Yosemite
balloon flight?"

Broker: "Well . . . *I* love it, BUT, my buyers just purchased an hour
of pretty nice Yosemite footage for $30. This new kid was happy to
get anything out of it. For him it's a love thing, so I really can't do
$300 any longer. Sorry."

Videoguy: "But, it isn't the same thing. I mean, the stuff I sent in is GREAT."

Broker: "DUDE, you're DREAMING. They got MORE than what they need, sorry. Now, if you want to talk price, we'll talk . . . lay-tah. Ba bye!"

CLICK!

It takes electricity to charge batteries, your camera looses value with hours used, tapes cost money, gas costs money,and time in post costs money. So Bill it's impossible to give free footage any way you look at it money is involved, just giving a FACT.

DuuuuDE, it's not about money, it's about LOVE :)

He was kidding.

.

It takes electricity to charge batteries, your camera looses value with hours used, tapes cost money, gas costs money,and time in post costs money. So Bill it's impossible to give free footage any way you look at it money is involved, just giving a FACT.

Yeah, but that's MY money not the person on the receiving end's money. So, yes, it can still be FREE for some people, and of course, it wants to be free (free like LOVE).

I'll have to say, some of us are into this for FUN, not careers, but sometimes the career people have a really hard time with that. I mean why would anyone in their right mind spend so much money on gear if they weren't going to sell it or make a career out of it? Man, that's a short sighted view of the world. This has nothing to do with being rich, and everything to do with loving to make videos. It's art.

So, for all of the protectionists out there, you better start getting used to this, because at the rate this high-end hardware and more user-friendly software is becoming available at very reasonable prices to anyone who wants it and is motivated to learn how to use it, the industry is in for some big, big changes down the road. I mean once that $2K HDV cam from Sony comes out (maybe it is already?), or any of these newer prosumer cams for that matter, pretty much anyone can shoot HDV footage if they want to, and they can sell it, dump it for free, release it via creative commons license, or simply post as royalty-free on the web whenever and however they please. And yeah, a lot of it will be crap, and producers will always be willing to pay more for the pro stuff, but if you're worried about this trend now, just wait five more years when people will be posting HDV footage on their web blogs as a matter of routine.

Alright, maybe I'm exagerating a bit, but I'm trying to make a point here... Get over it already, it's a free market economy, and supply and demand for both low- and high-quality footage will determine its own price, not some sort of price-fixing scheme where we all conspire not to "dump" HDV footage on the market for $<fill in blank dollars here> per second. If I want to shoot it and give it away, I will, no one can stop me, and I'll enjoy doing it.

Take it easy Bill, we're all friends here.

I believe you are correct in your predicitons.
Already we've seen that most people will no
longer pay an editor $50 per hour, even with his own system.
Not long ago, that was the price without having to invest money.

I guess I am just sour graping about the fact that a plumber now
makes far more money than most people in video and the plumber
doesn't have to get on his knees as often :)

Jacques "TrollingforOysters" Mersereau

Just a thought to ponder, and now let the flames begin...

All: the flames are put out as soon as they're kindled around here. If you are looking for someplace where the members flame each other then you're on the wrong site.

Actually, I pretty much agree with your points, but we simply will not allow name calling or flaming here. When it happens then the posts get edited or deleted and threads end up getting locked.

Please, let's have a friendly debate on this topic and avoid the personal dimension.

And just to add to Boyd's explanation, I have indeed edited this thread, including the "flames" comment quoted above. Allow me to point out once again:

We do not tolerate flaming or trolling here. Period. Please keep that in mind. If confrontation is on your agenda, then you're at the wrong site. Thanks,

I guess what I see happening in the video business is much the same
as the audio business. The Alesis digital 8 track machine and
Mackie 32 8 Bus changed the recording business. It meant more
people got into recording, but a lot of good studios went under.
That's been happening in video too.

This is a time of major upheaval, but I have a feeling the big will keep
making movies, ads and TV, and the little guys are going to have a
tougher time. People reading this should to be aware of these issues.
There's nothing wrong with debate, thinking about fair market value
(what you and your work are worth)
and trying to plan ahead for those who want to make video a career.

I have a good job running a video studio, and I helped craft
an award winning documentary, so . . . it's not about me.

Peace, love, & understanding.

Ah folks, what saddens me more than all of this is the publics' ability to accept lesser quality. If you want to blame anyone for the lack of pay and quality, blame the average Television viewer. You can also blame the average movie goer for films moving up north of the US border and other places too.

Explain please? Why sure...

If the average person is acccepting crummy looking video than yes, any kid with a rich daddy and a new JVC HD100 will be shooting skateboarding and surfing video all day long. He'll probably get a few shots that sell for a few hundred bucks and yes, the guy next to him will have some footage, etc. Pretty soon someone is putting together a show with this footage or hires these guys but, the quality has suffered but will the general public care or notice? I doubt it.

Look at the shows the people are watching. Reality shows? What happened to writing, editing, real video and audio work. People are shooting these shows with $3000 cameras.

Who's going to use a Viper and a real Steady Cam operator when they can use a handheld Glidecam (not knocking Glidecam I love mine) and a DVX100a?

Anyway, if the people watching wanted real video and it mattered to them, they would stop watching bad video and folks might find out they really respond to well shot, lit, interesting dialog and story lines, etc.

The major networks would decide they need to put some money into real programs and the money would begin to flow uphill again. It's going to be a while folks. Dig in.

So is this new trend killing off some places - sure it is. My last Engineering gig went south due to downsizing. Not with our company directly but as a result of our major clients going to lesser quality/capable houses because they were "good enough". Remember when the average person didn't have a web site or blog? Those that did have them, for the most part, paid attention to the rules of HTML, used some sense of graphics and made some darn sense. Now you get pages with dark backgrounds and black text or flowery images that float behind the text, etc. Not professional and yet, folks still make them and folks still go to them.

I blame the viewers.

My views may not reflect those of the management.

And in closing "... There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history."

Sean McHenry

Jason: I have HDV footage of Yosemite, the Golden Gate Bridge and Lake Tahoe which I might consider licensing out. Please send me an email at info@videomem.com with more details about what you need and how this would work.

As far as trends in the industry are concerned, one could argue that video/film production is going through a similar maturing process which has affected many other types of business, from steel to microchips. When only a few people can do something then everyone goes to those people and pays whatever they have to pay for the results. After a while it gets less expensive to do an acceptable job (and also easier to do an incompetent one), so there are more people offering the product or service and basic prices drop. If you want top dollar you have to really offer something special, and after a while even that becomes a tough sell. This trend is good in some ways and not so good in others, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for something different to happen.

I'm hoping at some point in the near future, larger companieswill tire of popping from one inexperienced fly-by-night editor/post place to the next and settle on folks they know can get a good clean job done for them.

In "Studio" this month is a nice 2 page blurb about this. Figuring out what your time is worth. All valid to this discussion.

Until I got worn out recently, I was charging a modest $50 per hour to edit at my facility/home. I had folks driving in from an hour away 2-3 times a week to edit. I was a bit under the scale here but I am a fledgling operation, or was. Now that I am back Engineering for a major post facility again, my time is more important to me than the extra income.

My odd jobs paid for my modest setup and I am grateful for that. Lately I have been working on simple shorts and writing some minor scripts for future works. I'm happy again. I am doing it all for me now.

Sean McHenry

Sean McHenry

Jason Rosenfeld,

If it’s not too late, then I would want to make business with you. I have about 3.5 hours worth of scenic footage from Europe All of it shot with the Sony HC1 on a tripod. Email me @ teixeirapaulos@hotmail.com
Thankyou