MicrostockGroup

As you know, Fotolia (FT) is one of the cheapest fotosellers on the web, and their greed will not end. It is good for customers but bad for photografers. 

Me, as a fotografer, annoys that FT bit the hand that feeds them.

for eg.:
Substcribtions:
you can´t choose if you want subscribers (except you load up exclusive) or not, so by example it is possible that you get 0,31 credits for a XL pict placed on a cover of a Magazin. FT mentioned that they will get new customers that way – but why on the back of us fotografers? This is really an unfair point of their selling strategie, besides the prices of the fotos they sell, are rather cheap at all.

...so there is only one way to avoid this fact: you have to upload exclusiv picts, to stop subscription. By the way you are able to rise the price of you picts up because the are exclusiv.

I´ll give you a small example:
My last 10 downloads at FT where 60% subscriptions (L or XL) so I lost about 1,4 credits (1,75 for a XL or 1,56 for L) per download or 8,6 credits for 10 downloads (average). Thats to much for customer relationship.

For an exclusiv file I´ll get 4,16 credits (before 1,56) for a Large – thats far better (+350%). Same for extended license: 20 credits (6.6 for me) before now 50 credits (16.6 credits for me).

So I ask you why should I give my fotos for 0,31 credits away? Think customers will understand that they should pay for a good foto.

....what do you think?

Thats not the problem, because my very best picts are not for sale as microstock, only these which are not that high quality at all. Besides I shot series, so that I am able to deliver a similar pict (not the same) to other agencies.

I thought exclusivity restrictions applied to all images in a series.  Kind of a useless policy if images only slightly different can be sold elsewhere.  

fred

Thats right, but they got good sales for me, the point is only the price policies. For me the subscription problem exists not only at fotolia, it´s a problem of microstock-market at all. I´m not willing to give my picts away for nothing or 0,31 credits, because it takes time to shoot them, to work them out and finally to make them useable for stockagencies.

It makes no sense to make customers believe, that the picts are not worth to pay a fair price. Remember that worth defines over the price.

Thats right, but where is the border whats similar and what´s different – there are no guidlines. Of course I know this fact, so the pictures vary in lightning, perspektive, Backgrounds, etc., of course.

...and there is the next question about Exclusivity – isn´t it against the spirit of royalty free status?

Differentiation is easy.  If photos are similar and from the same series they can only be exclusive on one site.  What you have said seems to violate that principle.

fred

to Fred:
do you think these two are similar? But they are from the same serie, same motiv and same fotografer

If you are not happy with the pricing at Microstock (nobody is), you'd better not join them. If you count on ditching your substandard shots on Microstock, you might be in for a surprise since the standards have become very high and many photographers send their best. (Very) talented photographers are an endless supply, like sand in the Sahara. Buyers are not.

We all agree here, but what can you do? It's a question of supply and demand. You can even find people that upload on Crestock that has extremely high quality standards and sell those shots for 25cents. If you don't do it, others will do it. It's the world of 19-th century Dickens capitalism ;-)

We all hope that Obama will pass some tough laws (seasoned with state subsidies of course) that make it illegal to sell photos under 5 dollars 
In the mean time, the price of a photo (or of any item) is not determined by what its intrinsic value is, but by what the sites/buyers want to give for it. Yes it's the sites that determine the prices, not the customers. Customers are much less cost-aware than what most think. Time is money, and finding the right shot fast and easy saves more time/money than shopping for a 1$ rebate.

Acencies are competing against each other too, especially for customer loyalty since most microstock agencies carry the same type of images now. Price competition is - as you state - probably much less important than convenience. The large agencies clearly have an advantage here, since with millions of shots they can cater for many customers' demands. Dreamstime and Istock have never been competing on the price level, as smaller agencies tend to do.

Ultimately, it's the photographer's responsability not to upload to sites that undersell.

....and it seems everbody knows, but nobody act.

Exclusivity on Fotolia is a very difficult balance.

If you made all your photos exclusive, then opted out of subscriptions, it is true that you would not have to sell your work for 0.31c

However, it doesn't mean that you would get $2 for them.  The customer may just buy someone else's for 0.31 instead.  It could reduce your earnings!

However, I generally adopt a rule that if an image sells really well at Fotolia I delete it from other sites and have it exclusive on Fotolia (perhaps at 2 credits but sometimes just at 1).  For images with more sales on Fotolia than all other sites put together it makes business sense to make them exclusive.

Most images I now put up as non-exclusive initially, then  see how they go.

I thought FT subs were limited to L.  I've never had an XL sub sale.   Or is that a Vector?