Fotolia, new prices, the math.

fotografer

Premium Member

« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2009, 03:44 »

#link

That's not the case though as I had a BME on all 7 sites except StockXpert. My RPD was almost 1.50$ at fotolia last month which was only beaten by DT. Just had a look and last month was very even between the sites even though Fotolia has been in the lead for the few months before that.
SS 27% BME
FT 27% BME
IS 24% BME
DT 13% BME
StockXpert 4%
BS 3% BME
123 2% BME without ELs

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on April 10, 2009, 03:15

Would you still be happy if say one agency almost monopolize the microstock business as a result of constantly lowering commissions and aggressive marketing? Do you think they will increase commissions once they have the whole market to themselves, or lower them again since there is no competition left? Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

Konstantin Sutyagin

« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2009, 05:04 »

#link

Of course it is not the case now. I'm talking about future scenarios. I would not want the worst paying agency to succeed.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2009, 06:18 »

#link

Quote from: photox on April 09, 2009, 14:19

The only math I need to know is that I would be making A LOT MORE if Fibtolia hadn't decreased their commissions

No. The math you need to really know is the effect of the increased marketing that FT state they intend spending on __ and that'll take time to show.

What I do know is that the agency who have always paid the lowest % commission (IS) have always generated the most income for me from my port ... and the agency who paid the highest % commission (CanStockPhoto) generated next to nothing.

What is important to me is how much income each agency actually generates for me from my portfolio. Other details are largely irrelevant.


	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2009, 09:26 »

#link

Quote from: fotografer on April 10, 2009, 00:51

Why do you assume that fotolia are hurting financially?

Isn't that the reason they gave for cutting commision's? They weren't making enough to do the marketing? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2009, 09:31 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on April 10, 2009, 06:18

No. The math you need to really know is the effect of the increased marketing that FT state they intend spending on __ and that'll take time to show.

Fotolia could have raised prices and used the money to advertise more without reducing commissions.


	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2009, 09:37 »

#link

Good point Zeus...I guess what gets me is that not only are the companies feeling this punch from our current economical condition but so are the contributors...proubably more so than the big comapnies because we are just the little fish swiming in the shark infested waters.


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2009, 09:44 »

#link

Quote from: donding on April 10, 2009, 09:37

The other point I'd like to make is where are the additional customers coming from? Are they bering lured over from other sites that pay more? Are you getting more income from Fotolia but less from elsewhere? Will this trend increase as Fotolia captures more market share? Will other sites have to reduce commissions to stay competitive?


	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2009, 10:01 »

#link

Quote from: Zeus on April 10, 2009, 09:44

I wonder the same thing also, but I don't do well at Fotolia but I do well at all the other Big 6 so I'm not really seeing the business being shifted over to Fotolia, not yet anyway. I really believe the are hanging themselves with all the rejection's. If they really want the market share I'd think they'd allow themselves to be more open to new ideas. It seems that everyone is doing microstock any more and it will only increase as time goes on and also trends do change. What is a hot ticket today may not be so hot next year so that's what I mean by open to new ideas and not the same ol same ol. You gotta have the inventory to have the sales. I'm not saying they should accept everything out there but for good quality stock photo's that they reject for having no commercial value but do sell on other sites is really kinda stupid on their part in my opinion.


	Ignore \| Logged

MatHayward

« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2009, 23:53 »

#link

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2009, 07:16

Where is Mr. Hayward when you need him?

I'm sure that he could put a positive spin on this. Wink

Nothing to spin that I can tell. February was my best month ever, March was second best ever. April is * pretty bad for me but C'est Lavie.

If you are making more money it's working out well for you. If not, ?


	Ignore \| Logged

Milinz

« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2009, 18:48 »

#link

Quote from: MatHayward on April 10, 2009, 23:53

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2009, 07:16

Where is Mr. Hayward when you need him?

I'm sure that he could put a positive spin on this. Wink

Same here!


	Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2009, 18:53 »

#link

Quote from: Zeus on April 10, 2009, 09:31

Fotolia could have raised prices and used the money to advertise more without reducing commissions.

I agree, and I think it is an absurd that they reduced our commissions, what I believe is unheard of in any other site.

However, it seems to be working for me, with more sales and a higher RPD. But in the past few days I have noticed a different trend that is XS and S sizes becoming more common, what will reduce the RPD. But overall in April the new prices are still more profitable.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Fotolia, new prices, the math.

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results