MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia is cutting royalties for 2010 and will increase prices  (Read 34262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2009, 14:52 »
0
SQUEEZE MY NIPPLES!!!!!
(Have you heard about the old lady who goes into the bank....)

SQUEEZE MY NIPPLES!!!!

So, all day yesterday I couldn't get onto FT.  I even wrote up a post in the FT down thread that said something like They likely have the site down while they reduce our commissions... and I deleted it because I thought I was being a bit of a witch. 

SQUEEZE MY NIPPLES!!!  I LIKE TO HAVE MY NIPPLES SQUEEZED WHEN I GET F*CKD


« Reply #51 on: December 17, 2009, 15:05 »
0
Cide,

The math I posted pertained to photography.  I should have specified that.  I'm very sorry for your confusion and thank you so much for your feedback.  As always you are like a ray of sunshine on an otherwise dreary day.  I'm really not the best source of information on vectors as I have never made one in my life.

RT:  This is by far a better forum to post a rant or to vent your frustration vs.  the FT forum.  Your post in the Fotolia Forum implied that people should consider going exclusive to I-stock.  It should be incredibly obvious why it was deleted.  Sorry for your frustration though.

As for the other stuff.  I guess the best thing to do would be to take your sales month to date or maybe pull them from last month and apply the new rates to those sales.  Find out what your net profit would be.  I'm guessing you would have made more money assuming you have more than a couple of sales per month. 

To be brutally honest, to white ranked photogs..if you are struggling to get your first 100 sales, you have bigger concerns than a commission % decrease.  We are literally talking about pennies or fractions of pennies with white ranked photographers.

As for grumbling about Fotolia getting a bigger piece of the pie.  It's to market the site more aggressively and I don't have a problem with it as long as I continue to make the same or more $.  I heard Leaf (at least I think it was Leaf) posted something a while back comparing the sites with the biggest market share and their commission %.  To sum up my personal opinion...it takes money to make money.  I believe FT is way behind the curve for marketing right now.  I see I-stock advertised everywhere and people in my personal life that use stock photo's have only heard of I-stock for micro.  If FT is going to continue to drive business it will need to spend a lot of money to do so.  If someone has a link to that article Lea wrote or knows what I'm talking about, please post a link here for me.

Thanks,

Mat

Mat

« Reply #52 on: December 17, 2009, 15:05 »
0
I finally reached Silver after a year of hard work. I'm being rewarded with a 1% reduction from bronze.
And I'm a vector contributor, so most likely I won't benefit much from the increased prices of rasters.

« Reply #53 on: December 17, 2009, 15:06 »
0
SQUEEZE MY NIPPLES!!!  I LIKE TO HAVE MY NIPPLES SQUEEZED WHEN I GET F*CKD
Be careful what you wish for, one day it might come true.  ;)

« Reply #54 on: December 17, 2009, 15:20 »
0

As for grumbling about Fotolia getting a bigger piece of the pie.  It's to market the site more aggressively and I don't have a problem with it as long as I continue to make the same or more $.  I heard Leaf (at least I think it was Leaf) posted something a while back comparing the sites with the biggest market share and their commission %.  To sum up my personal opinion...it takes money to make money.  I believe FT is way behind the curve for marketing right now.  I see I-stock advertised everywhere and people in my personal life that use stock photo's have only heard of I-stock for micro.  If FT is going to continue to drive business it will need to spend a lot of money to do so.  If someone has a link to that article Lea wrote or knows what I'm talking about, please post a link here for me.

Thanks,

Mat



I am guessing you are referring to when I said this
Quote
I dont want to be an advocate of low commissions but it is interesting to note that the two agencies giving the lowest commissions are generating the highest income for photographers.  Perhaps this lets them advertise more than their competitors who are giving a higher commission percentage to photographers.

taken from this blog post
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/2009/microstock-subscription-plan-review/

« Reply #55 on: December 17, 2009, 15:49 »
0
First, let me start by saying that I'm no happier than anyone else with a reduction in commissions!

That being said, I'm not sure that there is any correlation between credit price increases and more subscriptions. Before you get out the torches and pitchforks, please let me elaborate...

The buyers that benefit from buying subs use a LOT of images or believe that they will. That's why a subscription makes sense for them. Smaller (less active, less productive or whatever you want to call it) businesses and individuals will still need imagery and will continue to purchase credit packages because a subscription would end up costing them much more per image that they actually need.

At any rate, I wish that the only changes to commissions would be increases!

RT


« Reply #56 on: December 17, 2009, 16:13 »
0
RT:  This is by far a better forum to post a rant or to vent your frustration vs.  the FT forum.  Your post in the Fotolia Forum implied that people should consider going exclusive to I-stock.  It should be incredibly obvious why it was deleted.  Sorry for your frustration though.

As for the other stuff.  I guess the best thing to do would be to take your sales month to date or maybe pull them from last month and apply the new rates to those sales.  Find out what your net profit would be.  I'm guessing you would have made more money assuming you have more than a couple of sales per month.  

As I said you're allowing your personal opinion to judge your moderation, I did not imply that people should consider going exclusive to iStock, I said that Fotolia's latest announcement might be the incentive that those who were considering going to iStock as an exclusive needed. As a moderator you should be very careful making assumptions and twisting peoples words because it may get you in trouble. (And note I used the term competitor, at no time did I mention iStock because that's against forum rules)

As for the other stuff, again you don't seem to grasp the finances of running a businesss, when the costs of running a business go up you need the businesses income to go up in line, it's irrelevant whether the same figures now applied to sales figures last year are more because last year your overheads were different, run a business based on your equations and you'll go bust. As for having more than a couple of sales per month, judging on our two portfolios and downlaod figures I'd estimate that I sell a fair bit more than you so yes I sell more than a couple a month, unfortunately I haven't been given back door bump up the rankings and like many others got screwed over last year in Fotolia's ranking re-structure.

I'm not sure you are the best person to try and convince people that Fotolia's latest offering is a blessing from above, you've kind of made a name for yourself, but it would be nice if you could ask a member of Fotolia's mangement to come here so we could have an open and uncensored discussion, whenever I've dealt with the Fotolia mangement team I've always found them to be easy to communicate with which was what I was hoping to do on the forum over there, obviously if you keep censoring threads to your own liking they may never get to see what the contributors really think.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 16:15 by RT »

« Reply #57 on: December 17, 2009, 16:25 »
0
Vector artist here. I recalculated my November numbers using the new prices. It was a 4% increase with the new prices, but I can understand people's anger towards this. The emotional side of me wants to get the torches and pitchforks out of the closet, but the rational side says it's a raise. I definitely don't think this move will sway anyone eyeing iStock exclusivity to stay at Fotolia.


RT


« Reply #59 on: December 17, 2009, 17:59 »
0
Mat,

Could you pass on the request for Fotolia management to come here to discuss their latest price change, I'm sure I'm not the only one with some important questions.

« Reply #60 on: December 17, 2009, 18:58 »
0
It's very sad that FT is cutting our share again.  So prices raise, and FT gets most of it. Take the "M" example in Mat's example in FT forum:  FT gets 2.72 now, will get 3.60 in 2010, or 32% more, while we get only 9% more (1.28 to 1.60).

Now, if only we could understand the reason behind it.  "More budget for advertisement", I guess will be the explanation.

« Reply #61 on: December 17, 2009, 19:06 »
0
...As for the other stuff.  I guess the best thing to do would be to take your sales month to date or maybe pull them from last month and apply the new rates to those sales.  Find out what your net profit would be.  I'm guessing you would have made more money assuming you have more than a couple of sales per month....
That wont be accurate, as prices go up, the number of images sold decreases.  That means it takes longer to reach the next level, so we lose out again.  It also encourages people to switch to subscriptions and that doesn't seem to make us any more money.  The sites that are cutting our commissions say they will spend more on marketing but that only improves our earnings if they get new buyers.  Taking buyers from another site wont help.

« Reply #62 on: December 17, 2009, 22:37 »
0
Biting my tongue to keep from saying what I really think.  It would not be pretty.

It's just one more kick to the balls.  There will be many more no doubt.

« Reply #63 on: December 17, 2009, 22:42 »
0


...I'm not sure you are the best person to try and convince people that Fotolia's latest offering is a blessing from above, you've kind of made a name for yourself.


You've taken the words right out of my mouth. ;)



« Reply #64 on: December 17, 2009, 23:40 »
0


...I'm not sure you are the best person to try and convince people that Fotolia's latest offering is a blessing from above, you've kind of made a name for yourself.


You've taken the words right out of my mouth. ;)




SWhite...I don't even know who you are so I'm going to have to pretend to be upset about your opinion here.

I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with anyone over whether or not making more money is good or bad.  It seems like a fairly silly argument to me.  I like to make as much money as possible.  I honestly believe if Fotolia were to announce they were sending everyone in this forum a $20 bill the same grumblers that gripe about every change would chime in...."What a bunch of a-holes!  Should've been a $50!"

That being said, I will humbly bow out of this conversation and allow you all to vent to yourselves.

Have fun,

Mat
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 23:43 by MatHayward »

« Reply #65 on: December 18, 2009, 01:59 »
0
...As for the other stuff.  I guess the best thing to do would be to take your sales month to date or maybe pull them from last month and apply the new rates to those sales.  Find out what your net profit would be.  I'm guessing you would have made more money assuming you have more than a couple of sales per month....
That wont be accurate, as prices go up, the number of images sold decreases.  That means it takes longer to reach the next level, so we lose out again.  It also encourages people to switch to subscriptions and that doesn't seem to make us any more money.  The sites that are cutting our commissions say they will spend more on marketing but that only improves our earnings if they get new buyers.  Taking buyers from another site wont help.

good point

« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2009, 02:01 »
0
Vector artist here. I recalculated my November numbers using the new prices. It was a 4% increase with the new prices, but I can understand people's anger towards this. The emotional side of me wants to get the torches and pitchforks out of the closet, but the rational side says it's a raise. I definitely don't think this move will sway anyone eyeing iStock exclusivity to stay at Fotolia.

How do you get an increase in income when prices aren't going up for vectors?

« Reply #67 on: December 18, 2009, 03:26 »
0
Vector artist here. I recalculated my November numbers using the new prices. It was a 4% increase with the new prices, but I can understand people's anger towards this. The emotional side of me wants to get the torches and pitchforks out of the closet, but the rational side says it's a raise. I definitely don't think this move will sway anyone eyeing iStock exclusivity to stay at Fotolia.

How do you get an increase in income when prices aren't going up for vectors?

Vector artists also sell rasters.

I did the same calculation as cthoman and lost 1 cent. Not taken into consideration that PPD sales will probably decrease or Fotolia will take away my share from other sites through marketing

« Reply #68 on: December 18, 2009, 04:38 »
0
Vector artist here. I recalculated my November numbers using the new prices. It was a 4% increase with the new prices, but I can understand people's anger towards this. The emotional side of me wants to get the torches and pitchforks out of the closet, but the rational side says it's a raise. I definitely don't think this move will sway anyone eyeing iStock exclusivity to stay at Fotolia.

How do you get an increase in income when prices aren't going up for vectors?

Vector artists also sell rasters.

I did the same calculation as cthoman and lost 1 cent. Not taken into consideration that PPD sales will probably decrease or Fotolia will take away my share from other sites through marketing
thanks

« Reply #69 on: December 18, 2009, 04:59 »
0
So far for December I would have made 22.5% more on my non-sub sales under this new pricing and commission structure. I do have an awkwardly high number of M, L, and XL sales this month though. Plus I have a relatively small portfolio. I am a silver rank though.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 05:17 by Kngkyle »

« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2009, 05:47 »
0
yes

« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2009, 07:10 »
0
I just calculated how much I would have made this year (2009) if I replaced the current royalty rates with the new royalty rates and found that I would have received a 14% pay increase.  But this assumes that sales patterns would have remained the same, which is a BIG assumption.  For example, subscriptions are currently 65% of all sales for me.  When prices go up, then subscription sales will probably rise as well (especially since subscription prices won't be going up), which will decrease earnings substantially.  So while there is a possibility of receiving a pay increase next year, the probability of that happening is low.

Also, while I would have received a possible 14% pay increase, FT would have received a 38% pay increase (without taking into account an increase in subscriptions).

As many have stated previously, FT is stating that they need more money to run their business, but the same is true on the contributors side.  Many of us would like to purchase some new equipment to increase sales and that will be much harder to do with a smaller cut from sales.  I find it very ironic that ALL of the micro sites want better quality (which means better equipment), but they don't want to provide the means for obtaining that better quality.

« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2009, 07:13 »
0
Hi all,
just published an overall comparison table 2010 -> 2009 at:

http://www.mystockphoto.org/fotolia-2010-pricing/

If buyers will continue with Fotolia  ???... the average royalties will be better.

Cheers,
     roberto


dbvirago

« Reply #73 on: December 18, 2009, 08:19 »
0
As I've said in many other threads, for me, it's not about percentages or per image amounts, but net revenue. No matter how much or what percentage other sites pay, I make more at SS because they simply sell more. A small percentage of a lot is more than a large percentage of a little.

Looking at the change at FT for 2010 and doing an apples to apples comparison with sales I have made this year (leaving subs out of the equation), the new structure will net me an 11% increase.

In this economy, an 11% raise is a good thing.

« Reply #74 on: December 18, 2009, 08:27 »
0
In this economy, an 11% raise is a good thing.

It would be, if that's what we get.  But in this economy, a price increase is likely to reduce sales.  How much is anybody's guess, but I expect it'll be nonzero.  A small decrease in sales will mean an increase in revenue for Fotolia and maybe one for us as well.  A larger decrease will help them and hurt us, while a still larger one hurts vendor and suppliers alike.  The big question is which of those scenarios will play out over the next year.

Fotolia has dropped from 13.1% of my total in 2008 to 12.3% in 2009.  Will this change reverse or extend that slide?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
5673 Views
Last post December 05, 2006, 09:16
by ichiro17
10 Replies
6675 Views
Last post October 18, 2007, 19:38
by epixx
12 Replies
4268 Views
Last post June 13, 2013, 10:58
by Monkeyman
1 Replies
3032 Views
Last post November 17, 2015, 12:30
by MatHayward
15 Replies
5719 Views
Last post March 25, 2018, 14:28
by dbvirago

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors