pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Emeralds only, what is your 7 day ranking?

1-50
2 (7.4%)
51-100
0 (0%)
101-200
7 (25.9%)
201-999
8 (29.6%)
1000+
10 (37%)

Total Members Voted: 24

Author Topic: Fotolia Emeralds 7 day ranking poll (emeralds only)  (Read 7271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« on: December 16, 2012, 04:29 »
+1
I am finally at my computer (as opposed to my phone) so can get the poll started mentioned in this thread!
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/shocking-fotolia-earnings-drop

So Emeralds only what is you current 7 day ranking?

If all the Emeralds here are somehow now outside, say, the top 100, it will be pretty clear that Fotolia has decided to punish the people who have historically contributed most to the site's success.


« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2012, 05:00 »
0
You should have an option 1000+.  My 7day ranking has just started to creep above that magical mark... :-\. Used to be between 25-60.

Microbius

« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2012, 05:02 »
0
Done, apologies to the one other person who filled it in. You'll have to do it again, I promise I wont zero it again!!!

Microbius

« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2012, 10:11 »
0
No emeralds in the top 100 so far...

« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2012, 14:21 »
0
You should have an option 1000+.  My 7day ranking has just started to creep above that magical mark... :-\. Used to be between 25-60.
Same story here.  29 was my highest weekly position and I am now over 1000th place.
Would be really interesting to know how many emeralds there are.


lisafx

« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2012, 20:58 »
0
This poll is a really good idea.  Small sample so far, but very telling results.  So far no emerald is ranked under 100. 

Robyn and Fotographer, I also like the idea of telling what your highest weekly rank was, for a comparison.  My highest weekly rank was 16.  Current weekly rank 438. Overall rank 39. 

« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2012, 22:46 »
0
I got into the top 20 and stayed there awhile in my first few months of being Emerald, but when they started punishing us I started a gradual slide that has accelerated this past week.  I'm in the top 100 overall, but 7 day is well over 100 now. 

Microbius

« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2012, 02:38 »
+1
It was always going to be a small sample size, because there are not many Emeralds out there, but you would expect most of them to appear in the top 100 or there about.

I wish they would just come out and say what their policy was. If it does have anything to do with DP etc. at least we could make business decisions about our best course of action.

It just makes no sense to purposely punish the quality producers who are the backbone of your agency.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 04:31 by Microbius »

« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2012, 03:29 »
-1
I don't think it's to do with DP.  Aren't there competition laws to stop that happening?  I think we discussed this before here and there were people sliding down the rankings that didn't use DP.  I think it might be partly to do with how long people have been contributing to FT.  They've got quite a few former istock exclusives and perhaps they want to keep those new contributors happy, so they've changed their best match.  That would explain why it's not just emeralds seeing the big dip in earnings.  I used to be under 500 on the weekly rank and now I'm over 3,000.  My overall rank was under 500 and now it's over 700.  But that doesn't explain why new images aren't selling well for lots of us, unless they've given the best match boost selectively and that would be very unfair.

Microbius

« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2012, 04:14 »
0
I don't think it's to do with DP.  Aren't there competition laws to stop that happening?


Well you'd hope so, but they were pretty open about it when they said they would bust you down to white for uploading to DP.
And check out this message here:

http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/GeneralInformation


"Pricing Disclaimer
If Fotolia becomes aware that a non exclusive contributor with a rank of Emerald or above is distributing any images, vectors or videos (the Works) through another stock agency or website (where at least some of such Works are the same as the Works being distributed through Fotolia), and if the pricing charged on such other stock agency or website for the downloading of any of such contributors Works are comparatively lower than the pricing charged on Fotolia for downloading Works of White ranking contributors, then, subject to applicable law, Fotolia reserves the right, at its discretion, to lower the pricing of any of such contributor's Works offered through Fotolia so as to match the pricing for the Works of White ranking contributors on Fotolia. Subject to applicable law, Fotolia reserves the right to inquire, from time to time, with any given contributor with a rank of Emerald or above as to whether such contributor is distributing any Works through any other stock agency or website, and such contributor shall promptly provide this information to Fotolia. For clarity, Fotolia is under no obligation to make any such inquiries."

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2012, 04:30 »
0
. oops double post

« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2012, 04:54 »
0
It was always going to be a small sample size, because there are not many Emeralds out there, but you would expect most of them to appear in the top 100 or there about.

I wish they would just come out and say what their policy was. If it does have anything to do with DP etc. at least we could make business decisions about our best course of action.

It just makes no sense to purposely punish the quality producers who are the backbone of your agency.

When I turned Emerald a few months ago my 'Overall Rank' was about 170. Therefore there must be at least 170+ Emeralds; my guess would be closer to 200 by now. You'll find out exactly how many there are when you turn Emerald by your ranking at the time.

I'm not on DP so I can't be being 'punished' for that.

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2012, 05:32 »
0
Sounds about right, I am in the low 200s and approaching Emerald in the next couple of months
Very interesting that you have had the same Emerald drop off and you aren't on DP.

Must be as Lisa said, they just want to save on having to pay out the higher percentage

« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2012, 07:37 »
+3
I'm sure folk are reading far too much into the 'conspiracy against Emeralds' theory. I believe that the reality is much simpler than that.

Not so long ago, the main complaint against FT sales was that it was always the same relatively few images that sold over and over. Basically, if you were lucky enough to have an image favoured by FT's default 'Relevance' sort-order, then it sold incredibly well. The slightly annoying issue was the difficulty in any of your images attaining 'chosen few' status whilst so much, often better, work was ignored.

Since then FT have radically changed the algorithm. Nowadays new images are very heavily promoted whilst, at the same time, older images are equally heavily penalized. You still get the odd older image that enjoys multiple sales but many fewer than before.

Try this experiment. Image ID 36000000 at FT is roughly one year old. Do some test searches and count how many images within the Top 100 are older than 1 year old (i.e. have an Image ID lower than 36M). Not many on the ones I've tried. On one search, with over16K results, only 19 of the images were over a year old (and most of those younger than 2 years). Another search with 3K results had only 9 images older than 1 year within the Top 100. Another search with 7K results had just 5 'older' images. Quite frankly, from what I can tell, images much older than 1-2 years have virtually disappeared from the top of the default sort-order.

Long-term contributors with large portfolios (which Emeralds tend to be) rely heavily on continued sales from their older images to sustain and grow their monthly earnings. In my view older images, but for a precious few, are now so far back in the default sort-order that they provide drastically fewer sales than previously. That's the main reason why Emeralds have been suffering with falling sales over the last year or so.

FT's default search results are in marked contrast to those at SS, for the same subjects, despite having mostly the same images. On SS it's easy for good images to retain high sort-order position for years. On FT you're lucky to keep it for months.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 07:49 by gostwyck »

« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2012, 07:48 »
0
I'm sure folk are reading far to much into the 'conspiracy against Emeralds' theory. I believe that the reality is much simpler than that.

Not so long ago, that main complaint against FT sales was that it was always the same relatively few images that sold over and over. Basically, if you were lucky enough to have an image favoured by FT's default 'Relevance' sort-order, then it sold incredibly well. The slightly annoying issue was the difficulty in any of your images attaining 'chosen few' status whilst so much, often better, work was ignored.

Since then FT have radically changed the algorithm. Nowadays new images are very heavily promoted whilst, at the same time, older images are equally heavily penalized. You still get the odd older image that enjoys multiple sales but many fewer than before.

Try this experiment. Image ID 36000000 at FT is roughly one year old. Do some test searches and count how many images within the Top 100 are older than 1 year old (i.e. have an Image ID lower than 36M). Not many on the ones I've tried. On one search, with over16K results, only 19 of the images were over a year old (and most of those younger than 2 years). Another search with 3K results had only 9 images older than 1 year within the Top 100. Another search with 7K results had just 5 'older' images. Quite frankly, from what I can tell, images much older than 1-2 years have virtually disappeared from the top of the default sort-order.

Long-term contributors with large portfolios (which Emeralds tend to be) rely heavily on continued sales from their older images to sustain and grow their monthly earnings. In my view older images, but for a precious few, are now so far back in the default sort-order that they provide drastically fewer sales than previously. That's the main reason why Emeralds have been suffering with falling sales over the last year or so.

FT's default search results are in marked contrast to those at SS, for the same subjects, despite having mostly the same images. On SS it's easy for good images to retain high sort-order position for years. On FT you're lucky to keep it for months.

I think this is spot on and jives with what I'm seeing in sales from my images.... from both before and after the new search order.

fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2012, 08:29 »
0
Since I posted my weekly rank elsewhere before, it isn't a secret: It alternates between 5-15 and I am emerald for a while now.

Microbius

« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2012, 08:30 »
0
Sounds like a good explanation and I hope it is correct. So far as a gold contributor I have seen my sales growing strongly since about July 2011. If your theory is true then I look forward to no change in that trend when I clear the Emerald milestone.

Microbius

« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2012, 08:31 »
0
Since I posted my weekly rank elsewhere before, it isn't a secret: It alternates between 5-15 and I am emerald for a while now.
Sorry was typing when you posted, I was replying to the post before yours.
Good to hear you are still going strong!

« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2012, 09:37 »
0
If they have made the search much more biased towards new images, I'm not sure why I seem to sell less of those than I used to.  I have just a few images that I've uploaded this year that have sold in significant numbers.

saniphoto

« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2012, 10:52 »
+2
I believe several 'old emerald' were entering the famous phase of 'comfort zone' predicted by Yuri in a wise article sometime ago. New competitors with fresh energy, vision and enthusiasm were coming, attracted also by the FT offer to get started at emerald rank (remember that?) and all this together combined results in what we see now.
I am one of those 'old' emerald, by the way! :-)  Just I have almost abandoned since January this year FT (I am at 1050 weekly rank, now) and slowly I am abandoning DT as well, then my wife have promised to 'keep alive' SS just because of the almost 1k earnings monthly.
I don't fear competition, mind you, but my enthusiasm and faith in microstock is vanished, so I am now going in new directions that provide me better results, more satisfactions for the time I spend and especially renewed enthusiasm. I believe there are always new opportunities to be explored in life, for creative and open minded people.
Happy Christmas to all!  :)

« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2012, 16:17 »
0
Well, I'm far from being an emerald but my 7day rank dropped from 2k to about 10k. I don't upload much so I suspect that's the reason.

« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2012, 23:25 »
0
I don't think it's to do with DP.

Yes, it does.

grafix04

« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2012, 00:12 »
0
I don't think it's to do with DP.

Yes, it does.

I still believe it's about DP.  Have any Emeralds or higher rankings had their level revert back to 'white' because they sell at DP?  I've never heard of any.  FT knows that if they do that, Emeralds and higher will leave and everyone else that's striving to reach Emerald, will also leave.  Even the really low levels will leave because their incentive to stay would be wiped out.  A class action due to Price Fixing and due to a massive deviation from the contract terms is also likely to happen.  I'd say this is their way of punishing the people they wanted to punish without it being obvious and without proof.  I wouldn't even call it a conspiracy theory since they were open about punishing people for contributing to DP. 

« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2012, 02:27 »
+1
Please explain to me how it can be to do with DP when people that don't use DP have the same earnings fall as those that do?  It doesn't make any sense.  I very much doubt there will be a class action, how many of those have we seen against the sites?  I've seen it talked about several times and there was one almost started once but it soon became apparent to me that it was pointless.  The best action we could take would be to all leave sites that don't pay a decent commission and that are only interested in their own profits but we aren't even capable of organising that.

grafix04

« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2012, 06:54 »
0
Please explain to me how it can be to do with DP when people that don't use DP have the same earnings fall as those that do?  It doesn't make any sense.  I very much doubt there will be a class action, how many of those have we seen against the sites?  I've seen it talked about several times and there was one almost started once but it soon became apparent to me that it was pointless.  The best action we could take would be to all leave sites that don't pay a decent commission and that are only interested in their own profits but we aren't even capable of organising that.

Who had the 'same' earnings fall?  Gostwyck?  Did his earnings drop significantly like the others or just a bit?  Who are the other emeralds and above that have seen a dramatic fall but aren't on DP?  I don't think Fotorob's on DP and he's doing very well.  I left DP and have had a big increase in earnings and haven't uploaded for about a year.  That can't be a coincidence.  They were next on my list to drop but after the rise, they're now on my 'lets wait and see' list.

As for the class action, Fotolia was threatening the income of all high volume sellers.  I reckon they'd be able to put their resources together and take them on - and win.  Historically, the people blabbering on about class actions have been low level contributors.  We all know they'll talk big and do nothing because they're not as effected by the shafting that goes on like the top contributors are.  When all the big guns are effected, it's a completely different ball game.  Aside from contributors taking action, sites like DP and any other cheaper sites could ban together to take on FT for price fixing.   

The only other thing this could be that I can think of is an algorithm shift that that favors cheaper images so it could be that emeralds and above with higher prices are pushed back, but then Fotorob's images are set at a higher price (the ones I looked at) and he's doing okay.

Maybe some of the emeralds can do a bit experimenting with their prices.  Set a few of their best sellers at the cheaper price to see if they notice a vast improvement in the ranking. 


lisafx

« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2012, 07:16 »
0
In my case, my Fotolia earnings drop began before I joined DP.  In fact, the reason I joined DP and PhotoDune was, in part, to compensate for the large earnings drop at Fotolia. 

grafix04

« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2012, 07:33 »
0
In my case, my Fotolia earnings drop began before I joined DP.  In fact, the reason I joined DP and PhotoDune was, in part, to compensate for the large earnings drop at Fotolia.

That's interesting, Lisa.  Do you think it could be purely based on pricing?  It's a real shame if it is because that's half the incentive of reaching emerald.

I can't work out why my earnings went up.  It doesn't make any sense at all, does it?  I joined FT later than most of you but two years ago things were booming.  Then came the two drops in commissions and things started to fall and the drop continued.  Then suddenly a few months ago it just picked up for no reason at all.  No new uploads, no moving up any levels, although I'm close now.  I hardly even looked at the site.  It's weird. 

« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2012, 07:45 »
+2
Who had the 'same' earnings fall?  Gostwyck?  Did his earnings drop significantly like the others or just a bit?  Who are the other emeralds and above that have seen a dramatic fall but aren't on DP?  I don't think Fotorob's on DP and he's doing very well.  I left DP and have had a big increase in earnings and haven't uploaded for about a year.  That can't be a coincidence.  They were next on my list to drop but after the rise, they're now on my 'lets wait and see' list.

My earnings at FT have been slowly declining for a couple of years, same as they have at IS, and in direct contrast to SS where they have been rising over the same period. If you looked at my data graph you wouldn't be able to tell at what point I made Emerald on FT. It basically made no difference at all.  It's my view that the overall microstock market has now plateaued, from the early explosive growth, and some agencies are simply more successful than others at retaining and growing their share of the market.

Fotorob has a huge portfolio on FT, almost half of which has been uploaded in the last year. With FT's sort-order being so heavily weighted in favour of images uploaded within the last year, I'm not at all surprised that Fotorob is reporting strong growth. In the last year he's uploaded almost as many new images as I have since 2006. Good effort but, the way things stand, he'll probably need to keep up that incredible output of 3500 new images/year to maintain his earnings. When he turns up here saying "Well I'm Emerald and my earnings are growing" you have to scratch below the surface to find the true story.

If FT were next on your 'to drop list' it suggests to me that your portfolio/earnings there might not be large enough to be statistically meaningful. I doubt that you'd have been thinking of dropping them if they were generating several hundred or thousand $'s per month.

I think Emeralds are generally suffering more than lower-ranked contributors but only because they tend to have the older portfolios, that contained many best-selling images, that nowadays rarely get seen.

grafix04

« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2012, 08:31 »
0
Who had the 'same' earnings fall?  Gostwyck?  Did his earnings drop significantly like the others or just a bit?  Who are the other emeralds and above that have seen a dramatic fall but aren't on DP?  I don't think Fotorob's on DP and he's doing very well.  I left DP and have had a big increase in earnings and haven't uploaded for about a year.  That can't be a coincidence.  They were next on my list to drop but after the rise, they're now on my 'lets wait and see' list.

My earnings at FT have been slowly declining for a couple of years, same as they have at IS, and in direct contrast to SS where they have been rising over the same period. If you looked at my data graph you wouldn't be able to tell at what point I made Emerald on FT. It basically made no difference at all.  It's my view that the overall microstock market has now plateaued, from the early explosive growth, and some agencies are simply more successful than others at retaining and growing their share of the market.

Fotorob has a huge portfolio on FT, almost half of which has been uploaded in the last year. With FT's sort-order being so heavily weighted in favour of images uploaded within the last year, I'm not at all surprised that Fotorob is reporting strong growth. In the last year he's uploaded almost as many new images as I have since 2006. Good effort but, the way things stand, he'll probably need to keep up that incredible output of 3500 new images/year to maintain his earnings. When he turns up here saying "Well I'm Emerald and my earnings are growing" you have to scratch below the surface to find the true story.

If FT were next on your 'to drop list' it suggests to me that your portfolio/earnings there might not be large enough to be statistically meaningful. I doubt that you'd have been thinking of dropping them if they were generating several hundred or thousand $'s per month.

I think Emeralds are generally suffering more than lower-ranked contributors but only because they tend to have the older portfolios, that contained many best-selling images, that nowadays rarely get seen.

Actually they were on my 'to drop list' just like all of the microstock sites are.  I'm slowly replacing my RF income with RM and other things, including selling more on my own.  That's what I've been doing all year.  One by one they're dropping like flies and I haven't lost anything.  Fotolia was next on the list for a few reasons.  They became one of the cheapest with the lowest commissions and dropped our royalties twice in a year.  I just didn't like them after that.   But as I said before, two years ago they were doing really well for me.  I joined them late in the game  but even with half of my portfolio, I was earning double the income I was at DT and they were my second best earner - even managed to be the top earner at one stage.  But then they started to fall significantly and leaving them became inevitable. 

Now this sudden increase.  I can't make any sense of it.  I've not shown any interest in the site in about a year.  Can you explain it to me?  I'm not too sure how I even feel about the increase.  I was looking forward to dumping them and now I'm leaving them there a bit longer just to see what's going on.  If I was to get the same income I was getting two years ago, I may stay on but then all you guys are experiencing the opposite so I find myself in a bit of a dilemma.  Should I stay on and work towards emerald or will I reach it and be shafted like you guys seems to be? 


« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2012, 09:07 »
0
In my case, my Fotolia earnings drop began before I joined DP.  In fact, the reason I joined DP and PhotoDune was, in part, to compensate for the large earnings drop at Fotolia.
Same here.  I started to upload to a dozen new sites that I had never bothered with before AFTER the big drop at Fotolia.  Between all of them I haven't managed to recuperate anything like what I was making from only the top 4 before.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 09:10 by fotografer »

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2012, 12:34 »
0

Fotorob has a huge portfolio on FT, almost half of which has been uploaded in the last year. With FT's sort-order being so heavily weighted in favour of images uploaded within the last year, I'm not at all surprised that Fotorob is reporting strong growth. In the last year he's uploaded almost as many new images as I have since 2006. Good effort but, the way things stand, he'll probably need to keep up that incredible output of 3500 new images/year to maintain his earnings. When he turns up here saying "Well I'm Emerald and my earnings are growing" you have to scratch below the surface to find the true story.

(snip)

I think Emeralds are generally suffering more than lower-ranked contributors but only because they tend to have the older portfolios, that contained many best-selling images, that nowadays rarely get seen.

Gostwyck may have hit on the magic formula here.  I don't know for sure, but I can verify that my newer stuff does sell at a much higher rate than my portfolio overall. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7022 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
2 Replies
2132 Views
Last post April 09, 2011, 15:22
by cthoman
3 Replies
3478 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
28 Replies
6974 Views
Last post June 01, 2012, 01:21
by Anyka
23 Replies
17186 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors