Files we do and don't need

Hey everyone,

Not sure if you guys have all seen similar threads on some of the other marketplaces. But I think we have reached a point with some of the categories here that a “files we do and don’t need” page is relevant here as well.

You can view the wiki page outlining everything here

With this comes another raise in quality standards. The change won’t happen for a week or so. I need some time to outline exactly what we’re upping.

But expect to see the bar go WAY up for Motion Graphics. Mograph stuff is what we built this marketplace on, and its still a very active section. But because it’s been around for so long, many file types are beginning to get redundant. These files also take up the most space on the server. Very few project files, and usually only those with pre-rendered elements, surpass the 200MB mark. While even the most basic Motion Graphic files fall in between the 400MB – 500MB mark. Seeing as how these are such a drain on the space, and have been around for so long, its only logical to tighten the rope a bit.

As I said on the wiki article, its not that we’re going to stop accepting common file types here. But instead, we’re going to be looking at them more closely. If you’re going to submit a file that falls into the “things we don’t need” criteria, that file needs to bring something new to the table, making it worth while to have here.

We will be changing a few things with standards in projects, and footage as well. More info to follow soon!

No, files in the queue, and files that come in prior to the soon to be specified date do not adhere to the new raise.

And yes, Optical Flares can be used still, but just not overused.

I think there should be a special badge though for any author who can combine all of the stuff on the ‘files we don’t need’ list in a single file…

Imagine it….. We open on earth-rise in a vast burst of light and particles over the psunami sea. Dollar bills rain down all around from the clouds that gather overhead. I’d like to see that.

-f.

A couple of meanderings on this issue….

There definitely needs to be a nudge in a new direction. There are literally hundreds of graphic and stylistic variations that are never, ever explored on VH. If Videohive is not to sink in a quagmire of formulaic work, then a little shove in the right direction is something to welcome, even if it means getting a bit tougher on what’s accepted.

However, there needs to be some carrot to go along with the stick.

Amongst the hundreds of clone files, there are interesting files that crop up too, many of which seem to sink without trace. I’ve spent much time trying to work out the mechanics of success on Videohive – out of curiosity more than anything. It doesn’t function like any other creative market place I’ve worked in. I’ve come to the conclusion that VH buyers are fairly easily lead and that the entire structure of the site leads a casual visitor back again and again to quantity and not quality.

Files that have already sold a lot are far, far more visible on the site than others. There’s now so much to look through that most buyers will only have time to do a quick search of the best sellers. Even if they use the search engine, the rankings clearly favour files that have sold well. We have the best selling this month, the best selling this week, the best selling of all time, the best selling authors this month, the best selling authors of all time and so on. It’s all about selling, volume, quantity, money etc. Even the competitions are won by the file that sells best. It’s little wonder really that there is so much repetition.

Innovation needs to be rewarded. Videohive could easily lean more towards being a more qualitative creative hub. Imagine instead of ‘best selling this week’ there was a ‘most positive ratings’ or a ‘most featured in other user’s collections’. Creative files need to be made much more visible on the site in general. Of the hundreds of files uploaded a week, only one gets picked out for its merit to be file of the week.

Maybe VH needs an expanded ‘editor’s choice’, maybe a Videohive reel, maybe a bit more curation than it currently has. Imagine the honour of having your work selected for Videohive’s quarterly showreel, for instance. Maybe there could be a competition for innovative design work, whose winner was not based on cold, hard sales, but judged by a panel of experts from the motion graphics industry. The design and advertising industry has all manner of means for rewarding innovative, creative thought, why not a stock market place too?

I think to survive in an increasingly competitive environment, Videohive perhaps needs to think beyond stock.

-f.