Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking. (Read 117690 times)

stvcisco · « **Reply #425 on:** September 30, 2011, 12:03 »

Quote from: chad_fotolia on September 29, 2011, 14:44

Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same.

In order to remove or negotiate, one needs to know *who* to remove from or negotiate with. Unless you tell contributors which agencies you have a problem with, how can they comply? So please provide a list of agencies you are concerned with.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #426 on:** September 30, 2011, 12:05 »

FT have been dropping royalties year after year, this year they haven´t waited a single year

OM · « **Reply #427 on:** September 30, 2011, 12:36 »

+1 to all the last 3.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #428 on:** September 30, 2011, 15:33 »

Quote from: stvcisco on September 30, 2011, 12:03

Quote from: chad_fotolia on September 29, 2011, 14:44
Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same.

In order to remove or negotiate, one needs to know *who* to remove from or negotiate with. Unless you tell contributors which agencies you have a problem with, how can they comply? So please provide a list of agencies you are concerned with.

It's simply stupid to say contributors should negotiate a higher retail price. One or two big guns might be able to negotiate a higher commission percentage but the way the agencies price their retail sales is not something we have any say over.

As for who to remove images from .... well, the answer seems pretty clear to me

Take them off just one site and all the problems disappear.

Xalanx · « **Reply #429 on:** September 30, 2011, 15:45 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2011, 15:33

As for who to remove images from .... well, the answer seems pretty clear to me Take them off just one site and all the problems disappear.

+1. And perhaps many other problems, like interminable list of (bogus) affiliates all around the globe of which we have no control.

Xalanx · « **Reply #430 on:** September 30, 2011, 15:52 »

I just don't get it - what on Earth is FT expecting? Us to solve their financial problems? How about I negotiate a much better commission with them, what will they say? Or what will they say if anyone comes demanding a re-negotiation of commissions because some other website said FT is too cheap?

This nonsense is exactly like I come up with "hey Fotolia, raise my commission, because look - the other agency pays me better!"
Oh wait - what? Right, they just CUT our commission and we had absolutely nothing to say.

leaf · « **Reply #431 on:** September 30, 2011, 15:56 »

For anyone late to the party, Sean just wrote a nice summarizing blog post of this issue
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/how-fotolia-missed-an-opportunity/

picture5469 · « **Reply #432 on:** October 01, 2011, 01:33 »

Im getting so annoyed at the royalty cuts twice in one year and ft recent action, i'm seriously thinking of sending them files with only the minimum pixel count.

lagereek · « **Reply #433 on:** October 01, 2011, 02:03 »

Quote from: leaf on September 30, 2011, 15:56

For anyone late to the party, Sean just wrote a nice summarizing blog post of this issue
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/how-fotolia-missed-an-opportunity/

Sean ! has really nailed it completely, hasnt he? exellent writing. Well its an FT, eyeopener thats for sure. I hope their precious Admin read this and come to their senses.

Pixart · « **Reply #434 on:** October 01, 2011, 09:54 »

Well, it's early in the day October 1st and Fotolia's ranking in the earnings poll has dropped to middle tier below 123 (this may change when everyone votes though). What will the poll look like next month when everyone is white?

qwerty · « **Reply #435 on:** October 03, 2011, 04:49 »

Without naming the sites how can we make a decision on whether to play your game or not.

I can upload my portfolio to one of the "cheap" agencies, after I've done all the work to upload it there then you may tell me that its not allowed and remove my portfolio or go back to white. I may/probably will choose to leave it there as I've now grown my earnings on the new site.

Wouldn't it be better from FT point of view to name the agencies so I mightn't even upload it there first place.

Come on, help us support your fair business model. (note this is a sarcastic comment)

I hope they name the "offending" agencies so that we can all suport them.

markstout · « **Reply #436 on:** October 03, 2011, 13:27 »

This is almost funny. Microstock agencies came in and literally pulled the rug out from under the entire stock photo industry and put many stock photo agencies that charged fair prices out of business by licensing photos for less than pennies on the dollar compared to the pricing structure at that time. They are now finding both that they can't survive on the prices they themselves set and they are attempting to address this by cutting royalties... and they are finding THEY DON'T LIKE IT MUCH WHEN SOMEONE DOES TO THEM ON A SMALL SCALE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INDUSTRY ON A GRAND SCALE.

It's poetic justice and it would be funny were it not for the fact that the real losers are the photographers who earn their livings making images that others depend on to market themselves.

gostwyck · « **Reply #437 on:** October 03, 2011, 13:40 »

Quote from: markstout on October 03, 2011, 13:27

This is almost funny. Microstock agencies came in and literally pulled the rug out from under the entire stock photo industry and put many stock photo agencies that charged fair prices out of business by licensing photos for less than pennies on the dollar compared to the pricing structure at that time. They are now finding both that they can't survive on the prices they themselves set and they are attempting to address this by cutting royalties... and they are finding THEY DON'T LIKE IT MUCH WHEN SOMEONE DOES TO THEM ON A SMALL SCALE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INDUSTRY ON A GRAND SCALE.

It's poetic justice and it would be funny were it not for the fact that the real losers are the photographers who earn their livings making images that others depend on to market themselves.

^^^ Ooh look __ a post from 2005 has only just arrived here.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #438 on:** October 03, 2011, 13:44 »

@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

lthn · « **Reply #439 on:** October 03, 2011, 13:56 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44

@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...

pancaketom · « **Reply #440 on:** October 03, 2011, 14:11 »

Actually it is more like if any macrostock company paid their photographers microstock royalties if they sent any pictures ever to a microstock company. I don't think any tried that, but a few wouldn't work with anyone selling microstock - a sure way to keep them there and keep them from moving "up".

I still don't think that any of the companies reducing commission % are doing it because they are unprofitable, I think it is because they see it as the easiest way to increase their earnings. Without looking at their real books it is hard to say if it is a good strategy or not, but I have a feeling that in the long run it might not be.

disorderly · « **Reply #441 on:** October 03, 2011, 14:26 »

Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 13:56

Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44
@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...

Hardly. Unless you believe it's irrelevant that all those macrostock agencies were closed shops that wouldn't have accepted work from most of us. Macro was defeated by technology (digital cameras and the Internet) and by their own efforts to keep the market to themselves.

lthn · « **Reply #442 on:** October 03, 2011, 14:41 »

Quote from: disorderly on October 03, 2011, 14:26

Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 13:56
Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44
@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...

Hardly. Unless you believe it's irrelevant that all those macrostock agencies were closed shops that wouldn't have accepted work from most of us. Macro was defeated by technology (digital cameras and the Internet) and by their own efforts to keep the market to themselves.

" wouldn't have accepted work from most of us."

That's a big smear. "wouldn't have.." How do you know? especially if you put it togethet with "most of us". Most of who? You? Me? How do you know what others are capable of producing....

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #443 on:** October 03, 2011, 14:47 »

Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 14:41

Quote from: disorderly on October 03, 2011, 14:26
Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 13:56
Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44
@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...

Hardly. Unless you believe it's irrelevant that all those macrostock agencies were closed shops that wouldn't have accepted work from most of us. Macro was defeated by technology (digital cameras and the Internet) and by their own efforts to keep the market to themselves.

" wouldn't have accepted work from most of us."

That's a big smear. "wouldn't have.." How do you know? especially if you put it togethet with "most of us". Most of who? You? Me? How do you know what others are capable of producing....

It isn't a big smear. If you read some of the agreement conditions agencies were imposing at that time they were clearly designed to prevent the sort of people who started out as microstockers ever being able to market their images.

lthn · « **Reply #444 on:** October 03, 2011, 15:00 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 03, 2011, 14:47

Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 14:41
Quote from: disorderly on October 03, 2011, 14:26
Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 13:56
Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44
@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...

Hardly. Unless you believe it's irrelevant that all those macrostock agencies were closed shops that wouldn't have accepted work from most of us. Macro was defeated by technology (digital cameras and the Internet) and by their own efforts to keep the market to themselves.

" wouldn't have accepted work from most of us."

That's a big smear. "wouldn't have.." How do you know? especially if you put it togethet with "most of us". Most of who? You? Me? How do you know what others are capable of producing....

It isn't a big smear. If you read some of the agreement conditions agencies were imposing at that time they were clearly designed to prevent the sort of people who started out as microstockers ever being able to market their images.

Show me some of those. Btw why is that a problem? You don't need outstanding foresight to realize that soocking everyone in having opposable thumbs to hold a camera being enough, isn't exactly the road to quality and a valuable, respected trade on the long run... or even a mid-run. Actually another similarly ironic situation comes to mind: 'long time' microstockers frowning upon all kinds of cheapo ppl from those dark corners of the world just flodding into micro agencies, accepting any deal they throw at them.

Why does "soocking" "oo=u" gets deleted?? It isn't exactly a swear as is word, is it? Jesus... kindergarten : )

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #445 on:** October 03, 2011, 15:24 »

I think history has shown the exact opposite - that it was the road to quality. It enabled a huge number of people to develop their skills because the prohibitive costs associated with the film era were taken out of the equation.

Prohibitive terms were things like requiring the submission of several hundred stock-quality images as an initial test, I seem to recall some sites stipulated that they wanted a considerable number of shots every month or that you should be available for commissioned work. But I don't have copies of old submission guidelines.

sharpshot · « **Reply #446 on:** October 03, 2011, 15:34 »

Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 13:56

Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44
@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...

If the traditional sites had made it easier for new contributors to join and if they had adapted to the digital era, he might have a valid argument.

They rejected me and priced themselves out of a huge market. Microstock is far from perfect and I would like to see lots of changes but I think the traditional sites are also at fault. By closing the doors to contributors that were often superior to the ones they had, it was inevitable that an alternative would come along. They let istock and the other new microstock sites take away a huge amount of their slice of the market before doing anything about it.

lthn · « **Reply #447 on:** October 03, 2011, 16:00 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 03, 2011, 15:24

I think history has shown the exact opposite - that it was the road to quality. It enabled a huge number of people to develop their skills because the prohibitive costs associated with the film era were taken out of the equation.

Prohibitive terms were things like requiring the submission of several hundred stock-quality images as an initial test, I seem to recall some sites stipulated that they wanted a considerable number of shots every month or that you should be available for commissioned work. But I don't have copies of old submission guidelines.

Just sounds like they wanted to keep it a seriuos hq business with 'real persons' if you now what I mean... sure, all that locks out a large number of people, but the same applies as I said before, thats how you keep it real. Look whats happening now, dilution of everything, and a price race to the bottom, because phottogs are all exchangable and expandable faceless peons.

lthn · « **Reply #448 on:** October 03, 2011, 16:04 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 03, 2011, 15:34

Quote from: lthn on October 03, 2011, 13:56
Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2011, 13:44
@markstout. You're talking about a completely different issue. The discussion here is about an agency trying to punish contributors who sell to agencies they won't name and whose pricing policies they don't like.

Your rant about how this is poetic justice belongs somewhere else.

No it doesn't. He is spot on. Of course everyone who points out things like that is a troll : ) Childish...
If the traditional sites had made it easier for new contributors to join and if they had adapted to the digital era, he might have a valid argument.

They rejected me and priced themselves out of a huge market. Microstock is far from perfect and I would like to see lots of changes but I think the traditional sites are also at fault. By closing the doors to contributors that were often superior to the ones they had, it was inevitable that an alternative would come along. They let istock and the other new microstock sites take away a huge amount of their slice of the market before doing anything about it.

Thats just one of the reasons, the smaller one actually. The big one is the lack of foresight from ppl who started contributing... the whole thing works out for a very-very few ppl, others just dumbly, unknowingly support an enterprise with their work, and actually even money, in exchange for next to nothing. They might as well could have been locked out of this trade and did something better with their time imho.

chad_fotolia · « **Reply #449 on:** October 03, 2011, 16:26 »

Folks,

After carefully considering your feedback, we've decided to focus on retail pricing rather than commissions. Most of the photographers that we have spoken to agree that destructive retail pricing is not good for the industry. We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

Please note that this rule only applies to Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, and Diamond ranked images that are non-exclusive, and selling at prices above the standard XS price. No changes will occur without prior communications with the artist.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking. (Read 117690 times)

stvcisco

luissantos84

OM

BaldricksTrousers

Xalanx

Xalanx

leaf

picture5469

lagereek

Pixart

qwerty

markstout

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

lthn

pancaketom

disorderly

lthn

BaldricksTrousers

lthn

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

lthn

lthn

chad_fotolia

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors