Author Topic: How fast you can fall? (Read 18293 times)

stokfoto · « **on:** June 09, 2012, 08:13 »

I am experiencing a dramatic decline in sales on FT. i was wondering if it has something to do with one of these best match shifts again? my 7 day rank was usually around 600 to 700 but for last couple of months I guaranteed a good place below 5000 ,wow!!, all of a sudden customers decided not to my pics any more? I was wondering if it is only me? BTW I've got around 2K files there.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2012, 08:17 »

no, not only you, some topics on that matter on the latest days/weeks

fotografer · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2012, 08:20 »

Quote from: stokfoto on June 09, 2012, 08:13

I am experiencing a dramatic decline in sales on FT. i was wondering if it has something to do with one of these best match shifts again? my 7 day rank was usually around 600 to 700 but for last couple of months I guaranteed a good place below 5000 ,wow!!, all of a sudden customers decided not to my pics any more? I was wondering if it is only me? BTW I've got around 2K files there.

Are you uploading? My sales are about 70% images that have been uploaded in the last month or two. There was definitely a drastic best match change about 3 weeks ago.

stokfoto · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2012, 08:24 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 09, 2012, 08:20

Quote from: stokfoto on June 09, 2012, 08:13
I am experiencing a dramatic decline in sales on FT. i was wondering if it has something to do with one of these best match shifts again? my 7 day rank was usually around 600 to 700 but for last couple of months I guaranteed a good place below 5000 ,wow!!, all of a sudden customers decided not to my pics any more? I was wondering if it is only me? BTW I've got around 2K files there.
Are you uploading? My sales are about 70% images that have been uploaded in the last month or two. There was definitely a drastic best match change about 3 weeks ago.

oh ,thanks for the tip, that's right i haven't been uploading for some while, so they must be favouring new files,I should start uploading again.

Wim · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2012, 08:44 »

About time agencies start promoting regular uploaders don't you think? Or do they want to keep selling old stuff from sunday shooters?
At least these guys appreciate the dedication some of us put into this business.
My sales are good, zero rejections, 24h reviews and they are my third best earner so they have my full support.

Good weekend all

stokfoto · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2012, 10:15 »

Quote from: Wim on June 09, 2012, 08:44

About time agencies start promoting regular uploaders don't you think? Or do they want to keep selling old stuff from sunday shooters?
At least these guys appreciate the dedication some of us put into this business.
My sales are good, zero rejections, 24h reviews and they are my third best earner so they have my full support.

Good weekend all

that would be good, if they rewarded the hard-working ones .but i am not that optimistic on that sense,I don't think best match changes based on this kind of approach especially considering ranks playing so much role on the amount of commissions we get.

Pixart · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2012, 10:49 »

Wow, Stokfoto, that is about the most impressive crash I've heard of. I hope you don't depend on FT to pay the bills. I don't know how anyone can rely on any of these agencies for a steady return these days!

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2012, 11:52 »

Quote from: stokfoto on June 09, 2012, 10:15

Quote from: Wim on June 09, 2012, 08:44
About time agencies start promoting regular uploaders don't you think? Or do they want to keep selling old stuff from sunday shooters?
At least these guys appreciate the dedication some of us put into this business.
My sales are good, zero rejections, 24h reviews and they are my third best earner so they have my full support.

Good weekend all
that would be good, if they rewarded the hard-working ones .but i am not that optimistic on that sense,I don't think best match changes based on this kind of approach especially considering ranks playing so much role on the amount of commissions we get.

Exactly. I've been uploading steadily for the last couple of months and my sales have completely tanked there too. It's not about rewarding hard workers. It's about padding the site's bottom line by pushing sales away from higher ranked members.

As already discussed in the other threads on this topic.

MatHayward · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2012, 12:32 »

I got confirmation that the search algorithm does create an advantage for photographers that upload on a regular and consistent basis. In theory, the more you upload the great the visibility of your images.

sharpshot · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2012, 17:59 »

I'll upload regularly, when they reverse the commission cuts

I used to upload regularly but they took away any motivation I had to do that. It's strange how as my earnings have collapsed with FT, they've improved with other sites. So I really don't need them now. I'm not going to leave just yet, as there's always a slim chance things might improve. I doubt I could stomach any more commission cuts though.

Mantis · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2012, 18:11 »

FT completely sucks. Dedicated contributors have nothing to gain, high enders have nothing to gain, that BS about favoring frequent uploads is bullsh_t cuz I have been uploading a lot. This company is a whorish one and when their supplier says fk it, they just simply find another....and there a bunch of them.

OM · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2012, 20:27 »

Just went from one extreme to the other. Not so long ago, new files got no views for weeks or months and now almost all that's immediately offered in search (default 'relevance'), similia and alternatives for a chosen file is new files with numbers starting with 40million+. I'm sure that someone must be smart enough to work out an algo that gives almost equal chances to new uploads as historical best-sellers.........they should give the 'infinity' series a separate section instead of plopping them in between Fotolia-priced images. Then they could give that space to the 'proven' sellers.

Difficult to say whether there's any other bias against higher ranked contributors other than the predominance of files from 'serial uploaders'. Among the serial uploaders there are some golds and emeralds and their recently accepted files appear regularly in the 'newly accepted' section which is definitely the place to give your new files the bottle-rocket start that everyone dreams of. The same names do crop up frequently in the 'new accepted' section but whether that's due to some sort of 'favouritism' or just simply serial-uploadism, it's difficult to say.

If I were a corporation (intent on making as much money as possible in the shortest period of time), I would have an algo written that promotes the files that: cost the least in payout to contributors ( hold back exclusives and non- exclusive near-emeralds who would soon be able to increase prices which buyers don't like paying), promote subs of the lower rankings because it can take 200 subs to reach payout (whilst the sub payment from the buyer is on your account from day one) and promote any files that are currently HOT(minimal time in database vs most sales in a short period). Needless to say, these corporate goals may be the antithesis of the established contributors' pecuniary interests.

Wim · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2012, 04:24 »

Hey, I'm not complaining, we'll see how things turn out by the time I make gold/emerald but until then I'm happy with the search placement and sales because I need every bit of exposure I can get.
If all higher ranked contributors want their stuff dominating the search I might as well quit now because my work will get burried pretty quickly.

Maybe it's because I'm getting higher ranked though, I don't know if that has anything to do with search placement, it probably does. My search placement is good on all sites except IS and a few small agencies so FT was actually the only one lagging behind.

Later

una · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2012, 05:25 »

"I am experiencing a dramatic decline in sales on FT. i was wondering if it has something to do with one of these best match shifts again? my 7 day rank was usually around 600 to 700 but for last couple of months I guaranteed a good place below 5000 ,wow!!, all of a sudden customers decided not to my pics any more?"
I'm experiencing the same, but I'm uploading, unfortunately my new files are buried too...FL was one of the best earners for me until the last month.This month is pure disaster.

OM · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2012, 06:41 »

What gets me about the search change is that there seems neither rhyme nor reason to results. This is one example.

Go to FT and search 'french fries'. On the first page that comes up, there's one glaringly obvious file (around the middle of P1) that has not a French fry in sight. You'll see it has no downloads, is from an emerald contributor and has a very recent number. Progress to P2 of the same search and in the second row there are 2 shots (admittedly with french fries) and a whole burnt-offering chicken (IMO not too well lit either!). Click on file to find same contributor as P1 who didn't even bother to give the burnt offering a title, just a file number. Why do potential buyers get this sort of stuff on their screen in the first (all important) pages of search? How some of the stuff got past a reviewer in the first place beats me.

Edit: Besides accept/reject/reasons buttons, do reviewers for agencies also have a 'like' button which will guide their choices directly into top search positions? Just askin'.

fotografer · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2012, 05:08 »

I've noticed another complete turn around in the last few days. The new files have virtually stopped selling and old files are selling again. Is anybody else experiencing this or is it just total coincidence. Also seems to be a higher percentage of credit sales as opposed to subs

Druid · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2012, 10:32 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 12, 2012, 05:08

I've noticed another complete turn around in the last few days. The new files have virtually stopped selling and old files are selling again. Is anybody else experiencing this or is it just total coincidence. Also seems to be a higher percentage of credit sales as opposed to subs

Yes I've had some good sales of old files in the last couple of days and they have been on files that hardly sold before, strange??

andresr · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2012, 10:41 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 12, 2012, 05:08

I've noticed another complete turn around in the last few days. The new files have virtually stopped selling and old files are selling again. Is anybody else experiencing this or is it just total coincidence. Also seems to be a higher percentage of credit sales as opposed to subs

Still new files selling for me ...

stockmarketer · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2012, 12:51 »

The strange thing I've seen is a lot of Medium sized credit sales lately. I never used to see them, now I'm getting several a day for the past few days. Anyone else seeing more Medium credit sales all of a sudden?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2012, 13:08 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 12, 2012, 12:51

The strange thing I've seen is a lot of Medium sized credit sales lately. I never used to see them, now I'm getting several a day for the past few days. Anyone else seeing more Medium credit sales all of a sudden?

sales are climbing quite nicely for me, looking forward for more, most of my sales are singular, not many buyers getting over 1

today so far (12)
5 SUB
1 XS
1 S
3 M
2 XL

yesterday (15)
2 SUB
4 XS
5 M
1 L
2 XL
1 XXL

OM · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2012, 07:37 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 09, 2012, 11:52

Quote from: stokfoto on June 09, 2012, 10:15
Quote from: Wim on June 09, 2012, 08:44
About time agencies start promoting regular uploaders don't you think? Or do they want to keep selling old stuff from sunday shooters?
At least these guys appreciate the dedication some of us put into this business.
My sales are good, zero rejections, 24h reviews and they are my third best earner so they have my full support.

Good weekend all

that would be good, if they rewarded the hard-working ones .but i am not that optimistic on that sense,I don't think best match changes based on this kind of approach especially considering ranks playing so much role on the amount of commissions we get.

Exactly. I've been uploading steadily for the last couple of months and my sales have completely tanked there too. It's not about rewarding hard workers. It's about padding the site's bottom line by pushing sales away from higher ranked members.

As already discussed in the other threads on this topic.

I've done a bit of delving into the recent search changes and there's more to it than just favouring recent uploads, there's also a definite bias towards certain contributors (to the exclusion of others) but not necessarily based on ranking.

Take this image: http://eu.fotolia.com/id/42250005

Very recently uploaded and appears in most searches within the first 2 or 3 pages of many of the keywords associated with that file.
Try searching 'tortilla' , 'chard' or 'eggs' .........same image appears early in all those searches despite having no views, downloads or even title (seems to be 2 Japanese/Chinese symbols). Take a look at other recent uploads in that port, take a keyword that's obviously wrong, enter into search and the image (or ones from that series) comes up yet again within the important first pages of the search. How does this figure? I don't know. Author is emerald, has files starting at 3 credits and is certainly not being excluded from the search.

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2012, 17:08 »

Quote from: OM on June 14, 2012, 07:37

I've done a bit of delving into the recent search changes and there's more to it than just favouring recent uploads, there's also a definite bias towards certain contributors (to the exclusion of others) but not necessarily based on ranking.

Take this image: http://eu.fotolia.com/id/42250005

Very recently uploaded and appears in most searches within the first 2 or 3 pages of many of the keywords associated with that file.
Try searching 'tortilla' , 'chard' or 'eggs' .........same image appears early in all those searches despite having no views, downloads or even title (seems to be 2 Japanese/Chinese symbols). Take a look at other recent uploads in that port, take a keyword that's obviously wrong, enter into search and the image (or ones from that series) comes up yet again within the important first pages of the search. How does this figure? I don't know. Author is emerald, has files starting at 3 credits and is certainly not being excluded from the search.

Very interesting. I wonder what the magical component is to getting visibility for one's images. Hope I won't have to be purchasing knee pads....

Reading the recent threads here where high ranking members almost universally report poor sales, I still think that's a factor, even if a few emerald members mysteriously continue to get exposure.

OM · « **Reply #22 on:** June 14, 2012, 19:09 »

As George Carlin once said, "It's a big club...........but you and I ain't in it."

There are a few other similarly favoured contributors. I've only come across them because it's so blatant........a whole series of 5 almost identical shots all next to one another on page 2 of a search but I didn't record who or where.
Whatever, FT is not a level playing field by any means. The table is tilted.

Sedge · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2012, 23:53 »

Yeah, I've seen a big reduction in sales so far this month as well. Made about $300 in May and so far I'm on pace to do about half of that. I've got a small portfolio there of about 200 images. I mostly specialize in texture backgrounds and Fotolia rejects just about all of them, even though I've got one there that's sold over 2000 times. Go figure, they just don't like my stuff whereas the other agencies accept just about all of it. I've even had two images rejected by Fotolia that have been in the top 50 images of the week at SS. So yeah, they drive me crazy sometimes, but you've just got to move on and spread your work around (hopefully without diluting it too much).

Elenathewise · « **Reply #24 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:47 »

Oh good it's not just me...

well actually nothing is good about it, my sales on Fotolia are really low right now. Yes a few new files sell but since I have a large portfolio (almost 13,000 images on Fotolia) those sales are just noise. All the hard work I put into building my portfolio over last few years seem to be getting flushed down the toilet by FT. Good thing I am not exclusive!
These are my stats for this week:
Ranking
Overall rank: 15
7 day rank: 101
Nice, eh?

Lagereek · « **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2012, 13:34 »

Same here. Looks like another major agency is doing a nosedive.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2012, 14:45 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 20, 2012, 12:47

Oh good it's not just me... well actually nothing is good about it, my sales on Fotolia are really low right now. Yes a few new files sell but since I have a large portfolio (almost 13,000 images on Fotolia) those sales are just noise. All the hard work I put into building my portfolio over last few years seem to be getting flushed down the toilet by FT. Good thing I am not exclusive!
These are my stats for this week:
Ranking
Overall rank: 15
7 day rank: 101
Nice, eh?

Thanks for posting. It's crazy, isn't it? I am absolutely certain that there are not 100 people who have a larger and more marketable portfolio than yours (as your overall rank attests).

Whatever they are going over there, they are seriously risking killing off their business. Hope it turns around soon!

Mantis · « **Reply #27 on:** June 20, 2012, 16:27 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 14:45

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 20, 2012, 12:47
Oh good it's not just me... well actually nothing is good about it, my sales on Fotolia are really low right now. Yes a few new files sell but since I have a large portfolio (almost 13,000 images on Fotolia) those sales are just noise. All the hard work I put into building my portfolio over last few years seem to be getting flushed down the toilet by FT. Good thing I am not exclusive!
These are my stats for this week:
Ranking
Overall rank: 15
7 day rank: 101
Nice, eh?

Thanks for posting. It's crazy, isn't it? I am absolutely certain that there are not 100 people who have a larger and more marketable portfolio than yours (as your overall rank attests).

Whatever they are going over there, they are seriously risking killing off their business. Hope it turns around soon!

I think they're just running out of customers because it seems that the whole breadth of contributors (from high-enders to mid to low tier producers) are reporting the same thing...significant drops in sales...., accept for a few who claim to be still doing well.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 20, 2012, 16:37 »

I am silver, a lot lower ranking but I am feeling that change too, overall I have been getting better place (today at 4270) but the weekly have been jumping a lot between 1400 (lately) to 750

OM · « **Reply #29 on:** June 20, 2012, 19:34 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 20, 2012, 16:37

I am silver, a lot lower ranking but I am feeling that change too, overall I have been getting better place (today at 4270) but the weekly have been jumping a lot between 1400 (lately) to 750

Wow! Weekly under 1000..........it would be a dream for me!! Me silver too, overall around 5,000. Saw 3,500 momentarily last week but haven't sold anything this week and my weekly average is still better than my overall............is nobody selling anything then? Seems out of whack to me.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 20, 2012, 20:00 »

Quote from: OM on June 20, 2012, 19:34

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 20, 2012, 16:37
I am silver, a lot lower ranking but I am feeling that change too, overall I have been getting better place (today at 4270) but the weekly have been jumping a lot between 1400 (lately) to 750

Wow! Weekly under 1000..........it would be a dream for me!! Me silver too, overall around 5,000. Saw 3,500 momentarily last week but haven't sold anything this week and my weekly average is still better than my overall............is nobody selling anything then? Seems out of whack to me.

last week was pretty awesome, over 60 sales but this one doesn´t look very bright, will see

Kone · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2012, 20:05 »

Interesting discussion.
Everything was okay-ish until November 2011 (Fotolia never really worked well for me).
After that date, my revenue went down by 40%. Again, in April 2012, it went down by 50%, for no reason.
Now, I am getting around 25% of what I was getting before November, 2011.

I'm just wondering how far we are willing to go.

Kone

Lawren · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2012, 21:15 »

I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2012, 21:49 »

Quote from: Lawren on June 20, 2012, 21:15

I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

if so why don't buyers leave them and join SS per example once they can get 750 files for 250$ (not saying I want that) but I am sure most of the files are in there too (actually those and a few more millions), not to mention that we would all feel this down trend not only top contributors (they would feel more right)

I believe they have changed their "best match" which is hurting top contributors, doesn´t make much sense once they do most of FT money even paying more royalties

Lagereek · « **Reply #34 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:00 »

Quote from: Lawren on June 20, 2012, 21:15

I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

Ofcourse! Emeralds and Golds are pushed back, giving prefferance in searches to the lower cannisters. This is an action which can backfire very badly indeed.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** June 21, 2012, 03:48 »

Their overall sales can't be falling that much because they're still well above DT in the earnings poll rankings here. Or have DT fallen even more?

I think FT are trying to make it harder for people like me to reach the next ranking level. I should of been gold over a year ago but they moved the goalposts and now it's going to take a few years to get there, if I haven't left before then. They will of saved thousands of dollars in commission.

It's still a stupid policy though because I've no motivation to upload new images there now and my earnings are increasing with their rival sites. I'm sure some buyers have left and that trend will probably continue. They had a chance to overtake istock and rival SS but they were too greedy and it looks like SS are going to be the big microstock site that attracts most of the buyers.

Phil · « **Reply #36 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:53 »

overall I am earning about the same, but it has been made up from others. FT this year is 50% per month of any month pre december last year.
I had hit overall rank 403, now it is 477 with seven day at 2130 (it has been over 2000 most of this year). Seems like some people are still making money but...

Elenathewise · « **Reply #37 on:** June 22, 2012, 11:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 20, 2012, 16:27

I think they're just running out of customers because it seems that the whole breadth of contributors (from high-enders to mid to low tier producers) are reporting the same thing...significant drops in sales...., accept for a few who claim to be still doing well.

Well if they were just running out of customers then everyone's relative rank would remain the same, just fewer sales. My weekly rank has been consistently and significantly lower over the last few months than the one I earned on FT initially (it has been at 9 at some point). So the theory of FT pushing higher ranking contributors down their searches seems valid to me. I don't see any major players coming in at this point with large and well-selling portfolios, well at least not a 100 of them:) So looks like FT is just screwing with the search trying to maximize their profits... it looks like its a general consensus here, too.

Karimala · « **Reply #38 on:** June 22, 2012, 14:31 »

Quote from: Phil on June 21, 2012, 06:53

overall I am earning about the same, but it has been made up from others. FT this year is 50% per month of any month pre december last year.
I had hit overall rank 403, now it is 477 with seven day at 2130 (it has been over 2000 most of this year). Seems like some people are still making money but...

No fair...those used to be my normal rankings!!!

Now I'm 823 and 4,420.

Then again...I quit uploading to Fotolia two years ago, so I'm probably being punished.

Mantis · « **Reply #39 on:** June 22, 2012, 17:01 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 22, 2012, 11:20

Quote from: Mantis on June 20, 2012, 16:27

I think they're just running out of customers because it seems that the whole breadth of contributors (from high-enders to mid to low tier producers) are reporting the same thing...significant drops in sales...., accept for a few who claim to be still doing well.

Well if they were just running out of customers then everyone's relative rank would remain the same, just fewer sales. My weekly rank has been consistently and significantly lower over the last few months than the one I earned on FT initially (it has been at 9 at some point). So the theory of FT pushing higher ranking contributors down their searches seems valid to me. I don't see any major players coming in at this point with large and well-selling portfolios, well at least not a 100 of them:) So looks like FT is just screwing with the search trying to maximize their profits... it looks like its a general consensus here, too.

They can keep pushing up and down all they want, tweak this, rig that, to attempt to get the best revenue possible with the customer base they have. That would account for the shifts in ranking, but when all levels, by in large, are reporting the same thing my conclusion is that they have defecting customers. They are simply reacting by tweaking the sh_t out of the algorithm to get the most juice out of the squeeze as I believe you stated. My opinion, of course. No evidence other than anecdotal, of course

robynmac · « **Reply #40 on:** June 22, 2012, 17:17 »

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010.

FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

Mantis · « **Reply #41 on:** June 22, 2012, 17:24 »

Quote from: robynmac on June 22, 2012, 17:17

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010. FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

+1000

OM · « **Reply #42 on:** June 22, 2012, 20:34 »

Quote from: robynmac on June 22, 2012, 17:17

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010. FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

No they don't give a fig about anyone else but their new investors' bottom line and (consequently) the senior management's bonuses. Contributors interests and theirs are definitely not the same.

The search is also totally messed up and appears to promote certain contributors over others. I can't figure it out but not only do new images with no views and no sales (too) frequently occur on the first page of search, wrongly keyworded images from certain contributors keep popping up there too. Take the keyword 'disc'. Feed it in and click on the first image on page 1 That is an image of some sort of salami which does have 'disc' in the keywords. Click on that first image and look at the 'suggestions' on that page and there's a number of food shots shown, of which, most do not have 'disc' in the title and they're wrong anyway if you're looking for 'disc'. Look toward the bottom of that page and there are again a couple of food images that stick out like a sore thumb in that they shouldn't be there (not a disc in sight). Click on them and try finding your original search word disc in the description. Not there! As a buyer, I only need to see this sort of nonsense once or twice to know that I'm wasting my time and move on.

It just looks to me like some contributors get their images in prime positions, time after time, to the exclusion of others. Any form of merit appears to have gone out of the window. Many established images that are proven sellers (and by inference are images that buyers prefer) are actually excluded from the first pages of a search to have their place taken by any image from various (but what seem to me to be) favourite contributors. Whether these people are in some sort of club or receive megaticks on f***book, I have no idea but there's something very weird happnin' there. There's only one thing that I can't see and that is contributor bias on ranking and price. 'Favoured' contributors seem to come from all ranking groups and have various basic price levels from 1 thru 3.

fotografer · « **Reply #43 on:** June 23, 2012, 02:44 »

Quote from: robynmac on June 22, 2012, 17:17

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010. FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

Me too, I am at just over 15%. It has made a huge difference to the way I live.

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** June 23, 2012, 02:47 »

Are the former istock exclusives that were given a deal to go with FT getting a boost? Or is it people that have some exclusive images with FT? There has to be something going on because as people have said, for all of us reporting a fall in the rankings here, there must be others going up.

OM · « **Reply #45 on:** June 23, 2012, 09:32 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 23, 2012, 02:47

Are the former istock exclusives that were given a deal to go with FT getting a boost? Or is it people that have some exclusive images with FT? There has to be something going on because as people have said, for all of us reporting a fall in the rankings here, there must be others going up.

Difficult to say as FT tells no-one who their exclusives are. One way to get an idea would be to enter a keyword in the area of one's choice and see what images come up on the first couple of pages. When those images have a number starting with 40, 41 or 42 they are fairly new and being 'promoted' as they are on the first page. If any of those images have a credit price greater than 1 and the contributor is less than emerald, then it means that the contributor is wholly or partially exclusive as they are the only ones allowed to increase their image price prior to emerald status. But not all exclusives do it which makes it even more difficult to determine. The only pattern that I can detect is that the first few pages of some searches produce many new images from what appears to be a select group of contributors who also appear to be recent serial uploaders (20-60 uploads in the last week and often 100-500 in the last month). If I had, say, 400 shots ready to upload, I would upload 100/week for the next month and see whether the images get into top search positions. If that didn't work, then I'd have to think there's some sort of 'club' operating to which most are not invited.

wut · « **Reply #46 on:** July 10, 2012, 08:44 »

I just got deducted 5% from an EL sale, which never happened before. Does anyone has any idea why? It's a European agency, so it makes no sense.

dirkr · « **Reply #47 on:** July 10, 2012, 13:28 »

Quote from: wut on July 10, 2012, 08:44

It's a European agency

It's not. FT is officially located in NY.

wut · « **Reply #48 on:** July 10, 2012, 13:36 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 10, 2012, 13:28

Quote from: wut on July 10, 2012, 08:44
It's a European agency

It's not. FT is officially located in NY.

Wow, so why is everybody saying it here. And why do I have the eu subdomain?

OM · « **Reply #49 on:** July 15, 2012, 18:15 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 20, 2012, 21:49

Quote from: Lawren on June 20, 2012, 21:15
I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

if so why don't buyers leave them and join SS per example once they can get 750 files for 250$ (not saying I want that) but I am sure most of the files are in there too (actually those and a few more millions), not to mention that we would all feel this down trend not only top contributors (they would feel more right)

I believe they have changed their "best match" which is hurting top contributors, doesn´t make much sense once they do most of FT money even paying more royalties

Buyers can stick with FT for those 3Credit emeralds.........just buy a $200 sub for a month and download all sizes @25X/day every day for one month.

OM · « **Reply #50 on:** July 15, 2012, 18:29 »

Quote from: wut on July 10, 2012, 13:36

Quote from: dirkr on July 10, 2012, 13:28
Quote from: wut on July 10, 2012, 08:44
It's a European agency

It's not. FT is officially located in NY.

Wow, so why is everybody saying it here. And why do I have the eu subdomain?

I have the UK domain and if I registered in Germany I would have the .de domain. Had I registered in the EU.....not available before mid-2008, I would also have an .eu domain. It's a US service corporation (albeit paying out in Europe via a Luxembourg bank). That's why you have to fill out the US IRS tax disclaimer to prevent US taxation (if you are a resident in a country that has a tax arrangement with the US IRS).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How fast you can fall? (Read 18293 times)

Wim

lisafx

Wim

lisafx

Lagereek

lisafx

Lagereek

wut

wut

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors