pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Increase in Credit Value at Fotolia?  (Read 31898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2010, 17:41 »
0

You can use your logic the other way, and UK photographers get a much higher percentage than they would from sles to USA. 

This has been discussed before, and it seems FT considers that in the end, for them, it will all be the same $$.  of course, this means that sales in UKP and EUR would be equivalent to sales in USD.  For us members it doesn't look different, but UK members get more than non-UK ones, in real money. 

I'd agree, in the UK we are currently a bit better off but it would only need another swing in exchange rates to change the picture __ but that's not the point.

The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.

I've just proven above that every single purchase of a USA contributor's image by a UK buyer will result in a commission lower than 34% __ in most cases massively lower. How is that going to even out?

They've just increased credit prices to UK customers by over 33% (and 20% US customers?) and yet none of that extra money is to be distributed to contributors. Unbelievable.


« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2010, 17:44 »
0
Is there, on their forum on FT, any explanation about this injustice for US registered contributors??

« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2010, 18:39 »
0
The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.
Actually I think they say a % of credits. Observe that all our accounting there is in credits, which only become $ when we ask for a payout.  Not that I agree with this, but I think they have their wording correct.

« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2010, 19:22 »
0
The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.
Actually I think they say a % of credits.

But even if that is true, a credit should be a credit.  You can't say that a credit is worth X for a buyer, and Y for a contributor.

« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2010, 19:28 »
0
But even if that is true, a credit should be a credit.  You can't say that a credit is worth X for a buyer, and Y for a contributor.


Exactly __ that's the point madelaide is missing. The value of a credit has just increased by 33% if you're a UK buyer but apparently not for sellers.

« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2010, 19:28 »
0
Sure they say credits but they also specify a set value for credits. I don't see how they can credibly run a dual pricing system.

As for it all working out the same dollars at the end - baloney! I've been forced to sign on to the American site but I live outside the US and most of my sales - like 95% - are made outside the US. So I'm being paid way below the theoretical announced rate. You can bet your bottom dollar, if you have been left with one, that Fotolia knows exactly what it is doing. It's got a long history of treating its photographers with complete contempt, today's comments were just more of the same.

« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2010, 21:49 »
0
This where I jump in and tell everyone they should delete their portfolio at Fololia. I did a while back and don't regret it at all. Sure I lose income but...

« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2010, 21:51 »
0
Exactly __ that's the point madelaide is missing. The value of a credit has just increased by 33% if you're a UK buyer but apparently not for sellers.

A credit is a credit.  A credit in USA doesn't havethe same value as in UK.  Don't UK members receive more?

« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2010, 21:56 »
0

A credit is a credit. 

It was until about 24 hours ago. Now it depends if you are buying that credit or earning it.

« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2010, 22:28 »
0
This where I jump in and tell everyone they should delete their portfolio at Fololia. I did a while back and don't regret it at all. Sure I lose income but...
I also have no regrets that I deleted my portfolio at FT. Not only did their management practices annoy me (understatement), but FT was also one of my lowest performing sites... rarely earning more than BigStock.

« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2010, 22:53 »
0
Strange, FT is my top performer...

« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2010, 02:52 »
0
Just in case it helps: A fotolia employee on the German forum confirmed that the credit value will stay the same for contributors and will vary for buyers from $ 0,75 to $ 1,20 (or Euros, GBP respectively) according to how many credits are purchased.

Can I buy 1000 credits at $0.75 per credit then request payout at $1.00 ?  Somehow I doubt it.


« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2010, 02:57 »
0
How about legal action? I'm willing to send few hundreds of $$$ to anyone willing to take the lead. I strongly believe we could collect enough for this to get realistical without ruining anyone's wallet.

Even if the result is just them realizing we are not nameless and clueless crowd.

Even if their papers are written so that all they mention are just credits, I doubt they could get away with this credit having different value for buyer and for seller, not in civilized country. And they are registered in civilized country.

Let's finally do something about this...

« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2010, 03:35 »
0
Same here.   The only way I can afford to delete my portfolio is if I went exclusive with IS.  I am going to have to sit and do the math now that things have changed at IS as it seems that exclusives get a great deal there.
Strange, FT is my top performer...

« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2010, 04:19 »
0
Same here.   The only way I can afford to delete my portfolio is if I went exclusive with IS.  I am going to have to sit and do the math now that things have changed at IS as it seems that exclusives get a great deal there.
Strange, FT is my top performer...

Exactly my thoughts, I'm just waiting for istock to become a better earner for me - I had been concentrating on fotolia last year and have a lot of exclusive stuff there because they were so strong for me. Now I'm trying to build a stronger portfolio at istock, and off to istock I will be! I've so had enough of that place!

In istock's introduction to the information about exclusivity it says: "We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you." - that sounds so soothing and tempting to me!

« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2010, 05:22 »
0
"We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you."


Fotolia's is :-

"We want to scew you, and dont give a monkeys about what you want"


Warren !!

« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2010, 05:26 »
0
If you look at one of the later posts on their forum by FT UK office, it basically says that they do whatever they want and contributors can like it or lump it.

This is a no brainer.  FT, and all the other agencies, are in the position of power.  There's so few of them, and so many of us.  It's simply the law of supply and demand, and if you don't have the stomach for it, microstock is not the place for you.  We can whine all we want about not liking the terms at a certain agency, but the truth of the matter is that it is a business that is making decisions it feels is right to compete with its rivals, and as a vendor you have the power to accept their decisions or decide those moves are bad for your own business and walk away.  No one is forcing you to play by rules you don't like.  We can either choose to be victims and stay in a situation we feel isn't fair, crying the whole time, or be grown-ups and say "I don't like your rules" and stand behind our convictions and end the relationship.  

« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2010, 06:09 »
0
PowerDroid

Yeah I know I cant do anything FT and other agencies will, and do do just what they want to. But I wont just stand there and say nothing when I think somthing is unfair I will say so, but will stand my ground being as polite and respectful as I can.
If i didnt need to stay I would leave FT now not because of the pricing and stuff, but simply because the staff dont seem to have any respect for the contributors at all.


Warrem

« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2010, 06:18 »
0
This is a no brainer.  FT, and all the other agencies, are in the position of power.  There's so few of them, and so many of us.  ... (snip) ...

We can either choose to be victims and stay in a situation we feel isn't fair, crying the whole time, or be grown-ups and say "I don't like your rules" and stand behind our convictions and end the relationship.  

We're nothing like as helpless as you seem to think __ don't be so defeatist. We have got a voice, here, which we know they read and we have also got several graduated levels of action that we can take. By acting collectively we have forced significant changes before and I'm sure we can do it again.

Actually there really aren't that many of us either __ not serious players anyway. I've no doubt that the 60/10 and the 80/20 rules apply here just as anywhere else. Most likely 60% of FT's sales and their uploads will come from just 10% of their contributors. If enough of the top echelon take action the agency will be in a difficult position.

Quite simply we want our commissions paid as per the agreement. If, according to your ranking, you are supposed to receive xx% then that's what it should be. We are meant to be paid a fixed percentage of the sale price not a percentage of some nefarious floating 'credit' system, the value of which the agency can change to suit themselves and their profit margin any time they like. What other agency operates like that and what contributor would possibly accept it? We want our percentage, no more and no less.

Firstly we stop uploading new images to them. If that doesn't work then ultimately we can choose exclusivity with Istock which is becoming ever more financially attractive __ but that's the 'nuclear option' to be avoided until the last moment.

As it stands right now FT can be paying out as little as 16% to a Silver level contributor, paid in $US, on an image bought via the minimum credit package in Sterling. That contributor is meant to receive 31% of their sales and this is not acceptable. Every other significant agency is able to pay us our due percentage according to the sale price of the license, fully adjusted for discounts and currency, and that's what we want at FT too. Nothing else will do.

« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2010, 06:24 »
0
We're nothing like as helpless as you seem to think __ don't be so defeatist.

I think we're on the same page.  Sounds like we both encourage the same thing... the empowerment of the contributor. 

Your post does an eloquent job of drawing a line in the sand.  I say it's time for everyone to figure out on which side of the line they wish to stand and move there. 

I just feel little sympathy for those who stand on one side of the line and whine about not liking it but being too afraid to move.

« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2010, 08:32 »
0
"We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you."


Fotolia's is :-

"We want to scew you, and dont give a monkeys about what you want"


Warren !!

That's it in a nutshell Warren M!  :(

I'm surprised our posts on the FT forum haven't been deleted already! Especially when it started becoming more and more heated and critical!

It beats me that the Fotolia directors don't read their forums more regularly. They are aware that buyers also read the forums, right?!!! It can't be good for fotolia's reputation to see their contributors getting angry with being treated like crap! Now the buyers know that 1 credit for them is worth less to the people who actually photograph/design the images!

« Reply #71 on: February 02, 2010, 08:33 »
0
Typical Fotolia. It will be interesting to see what things will be like as we approach summer and the dreamstime lock-in expires. I'm sure there are many diamond contributors and others, considering, or making preparations to go exclusive, many which never post. Will it make a difference, who knows? Fotolia isn't helping themselves here. They're obviously above the law.

« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2010, 09:17 »
0
here is a link to the fotolia thread.
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25159

it doesn't look like anyone there knows anything more  ???

« Reply #73 on: February 02, 2010, 13:45 »
0
 >:(

WarrenPrice

« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2010, 16:19 »
0
Good timing, Fotolia.  All the bad PR is getting lost in the Getty,Thinktank,StockXpert,iStock Noise.   ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2258 Views
Last post May 09, 2008, 09:05
by domencolja
61 Replies
11146 Views
Last post February 18, 2009, 06:02
by Peter
85 Replies
14860 Views
Last post January 04, 2010, 15:41
by Karimala
6 Replies
808 Views
Last post January 09, 2013, 18:25
by luissantos84
13 Replies
1103 Views
Last post May 22, 2014, 14:43
by Svetlana

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors