This is a threat to our business
Maybe when they drop people down to white that is the perfect time to pull your port...
This is a threat to our businessMost important part.
This sounds like extortion.
The other sickening part... they're doing it on a "case by case" basis. So Yuri is safe?I think you could bet your bottom dollar on that.
This is a threat to our businessMost important part.
This sounds like extortion.
Yeah, just like reneging on the grandfathering promise because it wasn't 'sustainable'.
Hmmm.. just saw this on their image sale and royalties paragraph
Please note that after 6 months without a sale, content prices are automatically set at the minimum price (XS = 1 credit). If a file has sold 5 times or more, the contributor has the ability to change the price back to the maximum price.
Doesn't affect me I guess because I don't have the ranking to increase my prices - EXCEPT FOR EL's. Is this new language?
Over the last few months, we've seen new competitors offering pricing
and commission rates that are lower than our white ranking levels.
the more curious is that they are serious about making money, I havenīt received this email (not far from silver)
Hmm... This is interesting. Is it only going to certain levels? Gold and above?
Everyone reply with:
1) Did you get the letter: YES / NO
2) What level are you?
For the record, I got it, and I'm Emerald
Does anyone have any idea which agencies they are referring to?
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
Does anyone have any idea which agencies they are referring to?
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
All you muppets supplying Photodune and selling ELs for 5 USD x 25%, did you really think this would have no consequences?
How old are you? 10? You really thought they would not mind if you demand 100 USD for an EL at FT and happily sell the same elsewhere for 5 USD? Wait for more! In fact you guys are lucky that I'm not the CEO of FT because I would degrade your rank to "transparent" and pay you 1% because by selling at Photodune you have announced publicly that you will lick any peanuts off the floor anywhere where peanuts are to be found. You undercut yourselves, you undercut everybody else, you should not expect a fair treatment. You are cheapos, period.
In the Photodune thread I recommended that Photodune's contributors make a projection how much money they will lose when the big sites adjust their commisions to Photodune's levels. Here you go.
I do think that FT are greedy *, but some contributors are way more greedy than FT.
Eventually all greed gets punished.
I didn't get this message and I'm Emerald, and I do not submit to ThinkStock...correlation?
The are so naive, do they really think it's the lower price competition (where???) that is hitting them?
I think if they go ahead and do this for some contributors and not do it for the ones they chose not to do so, then we as contributors can sue them for sure..
If they do such thing, they must do it for everyone with no exceptions
The are so naive, do they really think it's the lower price competition (where???) that is hitting them?
That's the EXCUSE to claw back revenue. I also think their end is near.
I think if they go ahead and do this for some contributors and not do it for the ones they chose not to do so, then we as contributors can sue them for sure..
If they do such thing, they must do it for everyone with no exceptions
why do you say that? I remember Yuri getting the higher level at DP without having the sales
thats a beautiful post, great stuff but in the end I believe top contributors do feel the down on IS and perhaps other agencies so why not to look into other agencies? what do you recommend? just Alamy? wanna hear more from you :)
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
I think if they go ahead and do this for some contributors and not do it for the ones they chose not to do so, then we as contributors can sue them for sure..
If they do such thing, they must do it for everyone with no exceptions
If FT was a government entity, I believe this would be true, but as a private company I believe they have latitude to offer different deals to different parties at their own whim.
But that doesn't make it right. If we can't sue them, we can pull our ports. I have my letter written and ready to fire off to Patrick. Refreshing my account page every few minutes, and if my badge turns white, I'm pulling out. Everyone else should be prepared to do the same. FT has to get the message LOUD and CLEAR the moment they make this change.
This is a line in the sand. FT is about to cross it. This will be WAR.
(and for perspective, check out my recent posts defending FT in other threads. I think I was one of FT's last cheerleaders here, and they've made me their enemy. I think Mat may be all alone now.)
thats a beautiful post, great stuff but in the end I believe top contributors do feel the down on IS and perhaps other agencies so why not to look into other agencies? what do you recommend? just Alamy? wanna hear more from you :)
1. Supply only fair OR expensive microstock sites.
2. Do not supply cheapo sites under no circumstances.
3. Work on your macro portfolio.
4. Put more effort into developing your own sales channels. Try to reduce the depandancy on microstock agencies.
5. Find other things that earn money.
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock.
I think if they go ahead and do this for some contributors and not do it for the ones they chose not to do so, then we as contributors can sue them for sure..
If they do such thing, they must do it for everyone with no exceptions
why do you say that? I remember Yuri getting the higher level at DP without having the sales
I didn't know that.. then it is illegal.. is it not? :)
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock.
AFAIK Thinkstock pays 0.28 USD for subs and FT 0.27 USD or 0.27 EUR, depending on your zone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock. If the alternative was to reduce commissions on EVERYONE then I support this decision. Hit the ones that are contributing to the lowering of commissions, not the ones that are standing their ground against Getty's race to the bottom.
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
All you muppets supplying Photodune and selling ELs for 5 USD x 25%, did you really think this would have no consequences?
How old are you? 10? You really thought they would not mind if you demand 100 USD for an EL at FT and happily sell the same elsewhere for 5 USD? Wait for more! In fact you guys are lucky that I'm not the CEO of FT because I would degrade your rank to "transparent" and pay you 1% because by selling at Photodune you have announced publicly that you will lick any peanuts off the floor anywhere where peanuts are to be found. You undercut yourselves, you undercut everybody else, you should not expect a fair treatment. You are cheapos, period....
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock. If the alternative was to reduce commissions on EVERYONE then I support this decision. Hit the ones that are contributing to the lowering of commissions, not the ones that are standing their ground against Getty's race to the bottom.
You've been supporting the lowering of commissions by having your portfolio on FT. Why didn't you pull your port from FT on any of the many occasions that they have done so?
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.
Yuri has 38K images at PD and Andres has 27K there. I can't imagine that FT will be reducing either of those to 'White' and yet they are doing more to support 'the competition' than anyone else ... by a country mile.
I think we can sue them and win it.. there is a very obvious violation..
I still think it's mainly a reaction to Thinkstock, after all we are only five days away from the deadline set by Getty, to either accept the new ASA, or close our accounts. I don't think the timing is a coincidence.
I think we can sue them and win it.. there is a very obvious violation..
Probably!
Every company that operates in the public should have an equal treatment for everyone on the same position... So if Yuri has portfolio on Photodune like me, we must have equal treatment for levels....
Any different treatment is directly robbing of those contributors with reduced level...
I still think it's mainly a reaction to Thinkstock, after all we are only five days away from the deadline set by Getty, to either accept the new ASA, or close our accounts. I don't think the timing is a coincidence.
Actually I very much doubt it. For starters probably 90%+ of their contributors are also contributors on Istock. Most of us are being forced there against our will anyway. You'd have thought that they'd have pulled this stunt when TS was a new threat and when it was actually voluntary. I think it's about the smaller and newer agencies like PD.
If it is about TS then folk are just going to pull their ports from FT. Dropping down to White, apart from the insult, would so reduce my (ever dwindling) earnings from FT that it wouldn't particulary matter.
now it looks like it will be on the top contributors, I cannot see Yuri 43% to 20%..
...I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...
Did you receive the email? I very, very much doubt that they would apply this to you Elena. FT have a long history of having 'special rules' for their topselling contributors. I suspect this is more about hammering down commissions for the low selling contributors. They probably don't care if they stay or go.
So who do you think it is then? PhotoDune? A site I've never even heard of... surely poses no threat to Fotolia. Every move Fotolia has made has seemed to been precipitated by a move from IStockphoto, they have execs from IStockphoto, farily obvious to me.
Tyler is a low earner?
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...
Did you receive the email? I very, very much doubt that they would apply this to you Elena. FT have a long history of having 'special rules' for their topselling contributors. I suspect this is more about hammering down commissions for the low selling contributors. They probably don't care if they stay or go.
Is it a coincidence that the sites that have cut commissions don't seem to be doing well but SS is thriving? Thousands of contributors complaining about low commissions, losing their motivation to upload new images has to have some effect. Every image and portfolio that's removed must reduce traffic. Does that hit their google rankings? I'm sure if the sites cut commissions too far, they will lose money. They should look at other ways to improve their profits.
Yup I've got that email. Like I said, cutting commissions for top sellers makes more sense profit-wise. And last time they did that, they cut Yuri's income (edit: on Fotolia) by 25% (his files used to 4 credit, now it's 3). So.... wouldn't call it "special treatment" :)
Yup I've got that email. Like I said, cutting commissions for top sellers makes more sense profit-wise.
C'mon... you sell ELs on FT for 100 and on PD for 5... and you don't see a connection ???
In my day job I work for a major wholesaler in our field. If a supplier in wholesale did the kind of stunt that you have been doing, they would just get a kick in the a55. I wouldn't touch this kind of suppliers with a 10 foot pole.
You can't compare physical products with "zeros and ones"
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
All you muppets supplying Photodune and selling ELs for 5 USD x 25%, did you really think this would have no consequences?
How old are you? 10? You really thought they would not mind if you demand 100 USD for an EL at FT and happily sell the same elsewhere for 5 USD? Wait for more! In fact you guys are lucky that I'm not the CEO of FT because I would degrade your rank to "transparent" and pay you 1% because by selling at Photodune you have announced publicly that you will lick any peanuts off the floor anywhere where peanuts are to be found. You undercut yourselves, you undercut everybody else, you should not expect a fair treatment. You are cheapos, period.
In the Photodune thread I recommended that Photodune's contributors make a projection how much money they will lose when the big sites adjust their commisions to Photodune's levels. Here you go.
I do think that FT are greedy , but some contributors are way more greedy than FT.
Eventually all greed gets punished.
Exactly my thoughts couldn't understand the hype at PD I also think their offer sucks especially for a start-up. But Fotolia they have drove the prices down from their very beginning and ruined the healthy German midstock-market I wish them worst they suck deeply.I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.
All you muppets supplying Photodune and selling ELs for 5 USD x 25%, did you really think this would have no consequences?
How old are you? 10? You really thought they would not mind if you demand 100 USD for an EL at FT and happily sell the same elsewhere for 5 USD? Wait for more! In fact you guys are lucky that I'm not the CEO of FT because I would degrade your rank to "transparent" and pay you 1% because by selling at Photodune you have announced publicly that you will lick any peanuts off the floor anywhere where peanuts are to be found. You undercut yourselves, you undercut everybody else, you should not expect a fair treatment. You are cheapos, period.
In the Photodune thread I recommended that Photodune's contributors make a projection how much money they will lose when the big sites adjust their commisions to Photodune's levels. Here you go.
I do think that FT are greedy , but some contributors are way more greedy than FT.
Eventually all greed gets punished.
Fair comment I'd have to say. I really don't understand why the biggest earners in microstock immediately flock to low-paying start-ups. They can't need the few pennies it brings in (relative to their greater earnings) and you'd think they'd want to preserve the long-term value of their excellent ports by being selective on where it is available. Pissing it away on every two-bit site that will have it just devalues their work by far more than the potential gain.
"People like Yuri with the power to take a stand should do so in principle. It might cost them a percentage that is not insignificant but it should send a clear message to management that you can't expect to beat contributors to a pulp and get away with it."
If they wanted to send any message, they would have already done, by not uploading to the penny sites in the first place. It's likely they created this problem by uploading anywhere with a pulse, as Gostwyck said.
I don't think it is a direct reaction to Photodune - they are too small (though I still won't support them with their current setup).
I think they followed the developments at Istock closely. After a year they decided that the majority of independents took Istock's kick between the legs with a simple reaction - whine a lot but continue to upload. The few that stopped uploading or pulled their port are insignificant.
So they decided that lowering commissions for those who accept lower commissions elsewhere (and Istock's commission is the lowest) would work. The part about prices is only there to confuse the masses and make it look at least a bit logical.
"People like Yuri with the power to take a stand should do so in principle. It might cost them a percentage that is not insignificant but it should send a clear message to management that you can't expect to beat contributors to a pulp and get away with it."
If they wanted to send any message, they would have already done, by not uploading to the penny sites in the first place. It's likely they created this problem by uploading anywhere with a pulse, as Gostwyck said.
Why not? The product is EXACTLY THE SAME on FT as on PD.
(there might just be minor differences in license terms, but I don't think it matters)
This is a pretty incredible stance on competition. As far as I know this is the first instance of a company having a say in who else their contributors work with.
... Subject to applicable law, Fotolia reserves the right to inquire, from time to time, with any given contributor as to whether such contributor is distributing any Works through any other stock agency or website, and such contributor shall promptly provide this information to Fotolia. ...
Of course you don't; quite the reverse, it would be rather idiotic to accept it :)It sort of guarantees that Fotolia can be the winner of the race to the bottom of what they pay their contributors... Too bad the contributors can't reverse this -
I intend to turn it around on them when I close my port. I will tell them that by reducing me to White, they will greatly reduce my earnings on the same images that earn greater returns for me on other leading sites. Therefore it is in my financial interest to no longer sell my images at Fotolia.
Let's not feel powerless to this change. We don't have to accept this.
Well, when you guys get to the microstockexpo: [url]http://www.microstockexpo.com/speakers[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockexpo.com/speakers[/url]) you can ask "Oleg Tscheltzoff, Founder & CEO, Fotolia" why it's a good idea to screw over contributors who have built their business.
It sort of guarantees that Fotolia can be the winner of the race to the bottom of what they pay their contributors... Too bad the contributors can't reverse this -
I intend to turn it around on them when I close my port. I will tell them that by reducing me to White, they will greatly reduce my earnings on the same images that earn greater returns for me on other leading sites. Therefore it is in my financial interest to no longer sell my images at Fotolia.
Let's not feel powerless to this change. We don't have to accept this.
Wouldn't it be great if we could move the FT buyers to a site like Stockfresh or Graphic Leftovers? I'm sure that if a significant number of contributors removed their portfolios and told every buyer they knew where to look for them, it would make a difference.
iStock have their version of it which says "if you sell anywhere else, all your files must (also) sell for peanuts via TS". Plus they give their exclusives a higher commission.
This is a pretty incredible stance on competition. As far as I know this is the first instance of a company having a say in who else their contributors work with.
It's a pretty disgusting stance, in my opinion, but it's their sandbox and their rules.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can opt out from ELs at PhotoDune?Yep!
This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.
This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.
I don't think 'real life' works like that. In the UK we had the Net Book Agreement for 95 years which prevented retailers from discounting the cover price. I'm sure it was good for the publishers and certainly small retailers but I doubt if any authors (i.e. "us") benefited at all. They probably lost out because fewer books were bought.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement[/url])
I'm not going to MicrostockExpo. I intend to show my displeasure if and when they change me from emerald to white. I'll instruct them to close my account. That's reacting with action not just words.
Who else is with me? I think we need a poll...
Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much. People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.
Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much. People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.
Yeah, like telling 'togs not to buy their IP-free props at pound/euro/dollar shops where many items are produced sweatshops.Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much. People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.Also, the news is gonna be something like this..
photo agencies like istockphoto and fotolia are constantly reducing photographer commissions and violating artists rights.. Graphic designers should instead shop at agencies with fair commissions..
Even if you could rally support from a few contributors, there are plenty more who are too fearful to give up their income and will still stay and take whatever is dished out. After all, 5 cents per image is better than no money at all, right?
Let's just say that an Emerald is getting $2,000 a month. The math could suggest that this same person going to White could now be getting less than $750 a month.
If you're Emerald at Fotolia, you're almost certainly doing well at all the other sites you're on, so $750 relatively speaking is not a large amount to these contributors.
The ONLY hope of retaining $2,000 a month is telling Fotolia you are willing to quit and give up $750 a month.
Giving up $2,000 a month is painful. $750 not so much, and it's the cost of standing up for yourself, retaining your pride, and possibly reversing unfair business practices.
A call to everyone Emerald and higher: do the math on your figures. You'll see that your White revenue becomes a small proportion of your overall microstock earnings and you can easily live without it and cause Fotolia some serious pain in the process. We HAVE to do this.
Let's just say that an Emerald is getting $2,000 a month. The math could suggest that this same person going to White could now be getting less than $750 a month.
If you're Emerald at Fotolia, you're almost certainly doing well at all the other sites you're on, so $750 relatively speaking is not a large amount to these contributors.
The ONLY hope of retaining $2,000 a month is telling Fotolia you are willing to quit and give up $750 a month.
Giving up $2,000 a month is painful. $750 not so much, and it's the cost of standing up for yourself, retaining your pride, and possibly reversing unfair business practices.
A call to everyone Emerald and higher: do the math on your figures. You'll see that your White revenue becomes a small proportion of your overall microstock earnings and you can easily live without it and cause Fotolia some serious pain in the process. We HAVE to do this.
The "Return to Start" threat impacts the very top contributors at a very severe level.
But today the story is completely different. The "Return to Start" threat impacts the very top contributors at a very severe level. By definition, there are very few top contributors, but this small pool of people are Fotolia's superstars, bringing in the VAST MAJORITY of its revenue. It cannot afford to lose even 10 of these people. If a small number of Emeralds and above take a stand, it WILL hurt Fotolia.Didn't they say it was going to be applied on a 'case by case' basis?
XPTO, if you seriously doubt the honesty of Fotolia (which is what doubting the legality of what they do means) how can you continue to work with them in a relationship which is completely opaque and relies on you trusting them to be completely honest in recording and reporting sales?
The "Return to Start" threat impacts the very top contributors at a very severe level.
You're assuming the policy will be applied equally...
It may be foolish and it may not.If your employer said it was going to cut your pay from $30,000 a year to $10,000 a year and you had to maintain the same quality and quantity of work, would you nod your head and say "I can't afford to leave." That's foolish.
I live solely from stock and cannot choose between a roof or food on the table. As simple as that. If I could afford it, FL would be long gone, as IS would too.
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.
Forget it. It is not going to happen to Emeralds and above. FT is already making too much from them. This is designed for the low-selling contributor.
Then why did only the high-selling contributors get the threatening email? From the responses in this thread, it appears that no one Silver or below received this.
Wouldn't you NOT send the email to those you're NOT targeting, and instead send it to the people you ARE targeting?
It may be foolish and it may not.If your employer said it was going to cut your pay from $30,000 a year to $10,000 a year and you had to maintain the same quality and quantity of work, would you nod your head and say "I can't afford to leave." That's foolish.
I live solely from stock and cannot choose between a roof or food on the table. As simple as that. If I could afford it, FL would be long gone, as IS would too.
(...)
Also, if the person didn't think they'd be likely to get a job, they may hold on, but that would depend on their family circumstances, i.e. whether they would get more on benefits.
May not have any direct benefit to the Fotolia thing, but you can't make such a sweeping statement about salaries in the real world.
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.
Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.
Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?
Unfortunately I don't know which are the "offending" agencies. Just knew this from an affected friend.
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.
When did this happen? Did anyone already get reduced to White? I don't think so.
The only way photographers can make a stance is to create a collective agency with fair commissions, and with time leave the agencies that continue to undercut the business.
Wrong. This will never happen. Any movement that requires a majority of contributors to form an organization and speak with one voice will NEVER get off the ground.
But what COULD happen is a dozen or so of FT's top contributors (ok, maybe not Yuri as he is probably safe... I'm talking the small amount of people on the rungs right below him) to say No. That's a realistic possibility. Just a small amount of these people standing firm could change FT's mind. I'm willing to be one of this small group. Anyone else at Emerald or above willing to do this? I'm convinced we only need a small number of us to make a change. Please speak up.
Wasn't Fotolia's commission rate already down at 15%? They cut it to something like that as soon as iStock's cut took force. It may even be lower than 15%, they make it almost impossible to find out what it is.
As Emerald, I get $.33 per subscription sale. I get 37% of credit sales. But the big advantage of this level (or higher) is doubling (or more) the prices of my images at any size. This is all pretty clear.
So for Emeralds being reduced to White, credit prices get cut in half and our take of that reduced amount gets cut by about half (we go from 37% to 20%). The pain is worse for those above Emerald. My subscription earnings would fall by about one fourth (33% to 25%).
I can't imagine anyone at Emerald or above standing for a reduction to White. I usually laugh at petitions and talk of unions, but if enough Emeralds and above spoke up over this, FT would have to think twice before docking us. I would bet 90% of their revenue comes from Emeralds and above (probably their top 150 or so contributors according to their ranking system). If a number of these resisted the change, that could NOT be ignored.
Forget it. It is not going to happen to Emeralds and above. FT is already making too much from them. This is designed for the low-selling contributor.
Then why did only the high-selling contributors get the threatening email? From the responses in this thread, it appears that no one Silver or below received this.
Wouldn't you NOT send the email to those you're NOT targeting, and instead send it to the people you ARE targeting?
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.
Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?
Unfortunately I don't know which are the "offending" agencies. Just knew this from an affected friend.
Of course you did. BS.
I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.
I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.
I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.
You said some contributors, i.e. more than one. Get them to come and post here to prove your point. How long is this 'transition period' anyway, what agencies were considered questionable, etc, etc, etc?
Not for the first time you are making absurd, hysterical statements that you can't possibly back up with any facts.
I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.
I am also getting very confused here. It would be very helpful if your friend could let us know which offending sites they have been asked to remove their work from. Or if you could ask them and pass on the info. But you have now said they were dropped to white already, so who was told to remove images from offending sites, another friend? And where does the transition period come in?
Maybe you could just start from scratch and spell out what you know as it sounds like you have been privy to some very useful info., or could be if you get back yo your friend with a question? Thanks.
At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.
And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.
Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request. ;)
At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.
And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.
Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request. ;)
You're just making this up as you go along aren't you? No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.
No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.
At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.
And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.
Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request. ;)
You're just making this up as you go along aren't you? No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.
...
I do not go to the Microstockexpo. But I start to regret to not have the possibility to say those imbeciles right into the face what I think of them.
I would not associate receipt of the email with anything. It's right there on the site and applicable to all
I would not associate receipt of the email with anything. It's right there on the site and applicable to allI agree completely with you. Just because I didn't get one I don't feel any less vunerable than those that did.
Now who's making "absurd, hysterical statements that you can't possibly back up with any facts." See? You're just like anyone else around here. Stop being arrogant, and try to discuss the issue instead of trying to get into a mud fight with others.
Now who's making "absurd, hysterical statements that you can't possibly back up with any facts." See? You're just like anyone else around here. Stop being arrogant, and try to discuss the issue instead of trying to get into a mud fight with others.
Actually I can. We've had at least 6 Emerald status contributors already report in on this thread, 5 of whom I know well, and none of them have said that they have been reduced to White although 3 of them have received the email. It is not going to happen to such contributors. It would be commercial suicide for FT to do so.
Personally I think it is extremely 'arrogant' behaviour on your part to invent stories about mythical 'friends' and obfuscate a serious discussion on a subject affecting peoples' livelihoods.
Why would emeralds sell their wares anywhere for less than what a white gets on FT?
I would not associate receipt of the email with anything. It's right there on the site and applicable to all
I think this can be for court...
You might well be right, but in what country are you going to sue them? :-\
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.
I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.
You would also think that this news would be posted over at the FT forum to discuss!
Incredible!
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.
I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
I'm emerald and haven't recieved a letter as yet. I wonder if Lisa has had one!!
I'm emerald and haven't recieved a letter as yet. I wonder if Lisa has had one!!
I'm not aware of having gotten one, but I've been offline for days. Doing remodeling and can't access my office or computer. Reading this on my tiny netbook. I didn't get the letter in my webmail account, unless spam filter got it.
FWIW, I would expect to leave FT if I was dropped to white commission level. My income there is already less than half what it was a year or so ago. I will not be told where I can upload. That's the whole point behind being independent.
I don't think it makes much sense that FT complains about other sites, given they are among the lowest commissions we get.
I'm emerald and haven't recieved a letter as yet. I wonder if Lisa has had one!!
I'm not aware of having gotten one, but I've been offline for days. Doing remodeling and can't access my office or computer. Reading this on my tiny netbook. I didn't get the letter in my webmail account, unless spam filter got it.
FWIW, I would expect to leave FT if I was dropped to white commission level. My income there is already less than half what it was a year or so ago. I will not be told where I can upload. That's the whole point behind being independent.
That's the whole point...no one should be able to tell you where you can upload the images you own without stating it in a contract before hand or tell you how much YOU chose to sell them for. They are your images. That should only be for exclusives...not independents.
Those who will be dropped to white have no incentive to stop their behavior really - quite contrary they may be looking to further dillute ports to make up loss of income. So by pissing contributors off with this kind of behavior, they may be shooting themselves in the foot.
Just my 2cents.
That's exactly what I did. I was only on 5 sites until a few months ago along with Crestock which I had stopped uploading to and started deleting. Since all the crap we have been getting from the sites I have uploaded to a half a dozen more.
Very good point. In fact this is what already happened. Speaking for myself, I had avoided adding any new sites for a couple of years. In fact I had started deleting my port from smaller sites.
Then all this BS of lowering commissions started, and then accelerated. The threat to my income from lower commissions and search engine gerrymandering at the big sites is what made me receptive to offers from smaller sites in the first place. I doubt I'm the only one.
I don't think all that is because TS. Should tey force to choose between istock-TS and them, they would lose a lot of contributors. Maybe Fotolia subs pay 1 or 5 cents more, I don't know, maybe IS just offers 15-20%, but IS sells more that FT and at a higher prices, so the loss in revenue --with the same portfolio size-- would be higher on IS.
It's not just about dropping you down to white, the intention seems to be to cut your commission to match the lowest level on the lowest paying site you contribute to. That's how I read it, anyway.
Note that Veer's lowest subscription payment would be 10c under the plan they just announced (be sure to read up on that one, Lisa, you will probably want to ask them to leave you out of it).
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.
I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.
FWIW, I would expect to leave FT if I was dropped to white commission level. My income there is already less than half what it was a year or so ago. I will not be told where I can upload. That's the whole point behind being independent.
FWIW, I would expect to leave FT if I was dropped to white commission level. My income there is already less than half what it was a year or so ago. I will not be told where I can upload. That's the whole point behind being independent.
+1
I'm Emerald, and suffering a major 7 day ranking and income drop from last year. My income from FT has dropped from around 25% of my total last year to 13% this month! While the loss of even this income would still hurt, I would not hesitate to pull my port if they dropped me to white.
with so many contributors how can they really police this? I mean how can they track down every contributor's portfolio on other sites? what am I missing here?
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.
I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.
but i don't get how, with this reasoning, Fotolia is accomplishing anything for the better (for the photographers)
Say iStock cuts rates to 10% and reduces prices by 50%. Fotolia tells me I have to either leave iStock or they cut my commissions by 50% (put me at white). If, as you say, I (or photographers in general) don't leave Fotolia and don't leave iStock, then both iStock and Fotolia will reduce my commissions by 50%. It's a win win for the agencies. If i leave iStock, or Fotolia then my earnings are again taking a hit.
with so many contributors how can they really police this? I mean how can they track down every contributor's portfolio on other sites? what am I missing here?
The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
Could someone who has reached the ranking (Emerald I think) that enables them to double or triple their credits please check:
A photo(s) that has not sold in 6 months with less than 5 sales
to see if the price has dropped to level 1 with that little red box stating something about not changing the price until it has more than 5 sales.
The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
Oh yeah! FT have never, ever cut commissions have they? Plus, how do you know what % you receive anyway? If your account is in USD then you won't be receiving anything remotely close to the 37% that you are supposed to get from any sales in Euros or GBP's. Let's face it, FT severely penalizes any contributor who is paid in USD. That'll be you then. Why don't you go exclusive with FT if you think they are so 'fair'?
The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
Oh yeah! FT have never, ever cut commissions have they? Plus, how do you know what % you receive anyway? If your account is in USD then you won't be receiving anything remotely close to the 37% that you are supposed to get from any sales in Euros or GBP's. Let's face it, FT severely penalizes any contributor who is paid in USD. That'll be you then. Why don't you go exclusive with FT if you think they are so 'fair'?
Did you read what I wrote, where did I say they never cut commissions? I even acknowledged they cut commissions after IStock's lead in the same post you quoted above on....Wow.
I took a huge hit from Fotolia's best match change awhile back, so their not exactly top of my favorite agency list, but I like this move, and that is only what I've commented on, and will write to ShutterStock/Dreamstime to consider it as well, I'm tired of getting my commissions cut while agencies try to counter IStocks race to the bottom due to the continued support from contributors.
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.
I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.
8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.
In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.
The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.
I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.
but i don't get how, with this reasoning, Fotolia is accomplishing anything for the better (for the photographers)
Say iStock cuts rates to 10% and reduces prices by 50%. Fotolia tells me I have to either leave iStock or they cut my commissions by 50% (put me at white). If, as you say, I (or photographers in general) don't leave Fotolia and don't leave iStock, then both iStock and Fotolia will reduce my commissions by 50%. It's a win win for the agencies. If i leave iStock, or Fotolia then my earnings are again taking a hit.
The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
Could someone who has reached the ranking (Emerald I think) that enables them to double or triple their credits please check:I've just been through my images and anything that hasn't had 5 sales in the last 15 months has gone back to level 1. It hasn't magically made those images start selling so is a bit of a waste of time.
A photo(s) that has not sold in 6 months with less than 5 sales
to see if the price has dropped to level 1 with that little red box stating something about not changing the price until it has more than 5 sales.
The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
@Mellimages,
I agree.
Problem with an agency giving incentives is that the plan doesn't really work in real life. While happily taking bonuses / incentives from more generous sites, photographers do not stop uploading to the lower paying ones. They want it all. Every single cent, from every single site.
It's not about money, or necessity. This is about greed.
So you want DT to cut those $1.05 subs commissions to the SS $0.38 or lower? I really don't get it, unless you're just being sarcastic.The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
Oh yeah! FT have never, ever cut commissions have they? Plus, how do you know what % you receive anyway? If your account is in USD then you won't be receiving anything remotely close to the 37% that you are supposed to get from any sales in Euros or GBP's. Let's face it, FT severely penalizes any contributor who is paid in USD. That'll be you then. Why don't you go exclusive with FT if you think they are so 'fair'?
Did you read what I wrote, where did I say they never cut commissions? I even acknowledged they cut commissions after IStock's lead in the same post you quoted above on....Wow.
I took a huge hit from Fotolia's best match change awhile back, so their not exactly top of my favorite agency list, but I like this move, and that is only what I've commented on, and will write to ShutterStock/Dreamstime to consider it as well, I'm tired of getting my commissions cut while agencies try to counter IStocks race to the bottom due to the continued support from contributors.
@Luis, others
let's make something clear. For the 3-rd and last time.
This is not about 'other' sites. Fotolia's move is obviously in response to IStock's decision to force independents to upload to ThinkStock. This is about ThinkStock, not other, unkown sites.
But alright.
I've only been doing this for over 2 years. You're a pro, I'm a hobbist and I shouldn't be posting here.
You're right.
Enough.
Have it your way, happy uploading :)
Most people stand to lose a lot more by giving up IS than by dropping to white level or leaving fotolia and the PTB at fotolia know this so my guess is that they are going after places like photodune not IS. Most people would drop photodune with no problem to save themselves from dropping levels in fotolia but anybody that would consider dropping IS probably already has done.
Most people stand to lose a lot more by giving up IS than by dropping to white level or leaving fotolia and the PTB at fotolia know this so my guess is that they are going after places like photodune not IS. Most people would drop photodune with no problem to save themselves from dropping levels in fotolia but anybody that would consider dropping IS probably already has done.
...snip...
almost nobody is going to drop Istock in favour of keeping their FT ranking. The only thing FT are likely to achieve is the loss of many valuable portfolios if they do actually take action.
This is a threat to our business
Most important part.
This sounds like extortion.
They...don't want anyone to be squeezing us any harder then them. This has been FL's strategy from the start, screw contributors as hard as possible without making them leave.
No comments here from the world's number 1 and 2 independent microstock companies? This isn't big enough to cause any action or comment?
No comments here from the world's number 1 and 2 independent microstock companies? This isn't big enough to cause any action or comment?
In a strange way I wish they would put me back at white ranking.
Do they talk of this at their forums (FT)? What people in these forums say?
is there even a post about it over there?
The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.
Oh yeah! FT have never, ever cut commissions have they? Plus, how do you know what % you receive anyway? If your account is in USD then you won't be receiving anything remotely close to the 37% that you are supposed to get from any sales in Euros or GBP's. Let's face it, FT severely penalizes any contributor who is paid in USD. That'll be you then. Why don't you go exclusive with FT if you think they are so 'fair'?
Did you read what I wrote, where did I say they never cut commissions? I even acknowledged they cut commissions after IStock's lead in the same post you quoted above on....Wow.
I took a huge hit from Fotolia's best match change awhile back, so their not exactly top of my favorite agency list, but I like this move, and that is only what I've commented on, and will write to ShutterStock/Dreamstime to consider it as well, I'm tired of getting my commissions cut while agencies try to counter IStocks race to the bottom due to the continued support from contributors.
you are talking like this because you havenīt got the "email", I havenīt also so I can talk any crap I want
have you dropped IS? if not I donīt understand why you are supporting this, they pay 15% to 20% which has the lowest royalties %
Don't know how long this will stay up:
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url])
Don't know how long this will stay up:
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url])
Those of us who don't have accounts at Fotolia can't read that (even IS lets those not logged in read the forums even if they can't post). Is it short enough you can cut and paste here?
Folks,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies.
Folks,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
Folks,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Chad's a spokesperson for Fotolia, not a policy maker. Characterizing him versus the policy is what I think changes fair commentary into an insult.
Several people have made the point that Fotolia's commissions are among the lowest anywhere and those posts have stayed. I think we can say everything that needs to be said, plainly, without characterizing the messenger.
... they don't have the same high return per download that (for example) iStock does, ...
Folks,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action.
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.
Chad
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.
Chad
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.
Yeah, I think this is the thing I never understood. Is a credit one Euro in Europe and one Dollar in the US, but I'm only getting $.37 for each Euro as well as $.37 for each dollar? Is Fotolia the only site that does this?
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.
Yeah, I think this is the thing I never understood. Is a credit one Euro in Europe and one Dollar in the US, but I'm only getting $.37 for each Euro as well as $.37 for each dollar? Is Fotolia the only site that does this?
Yeah, that is about how it works in a nutshell. Here is a log post from early 2010 that explains it (with old pricing)
[url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/[/url] ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/[/url])
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.
Chad
Funny how your solution is lowering commissions then.
Exactly, Fotolia is entirely responsible for the fact that I have started to upload to the smaller agencies. I was always perfectly happy to upload to 6 agencies until virtually overnight my fotolia earnings were cut to about a third and I had to start looking for ways to make up the lost earnings. I have now doubled the amount of agencies that I upload to.
2. Contributors start contributing to smaller agencies to make up for their losses.
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.
Chad
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is aboutI believe that lower commissions make microstock much less appealing to contributors. That will eventually hit sales for FT. Just look at Shutterstock. Significantly higher commissions than FT now, sales have gone up and up and buyers seem to be moving there.
commissions.
Chad
Folks,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Thanks for bravely coming in here. ...
Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions. Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock. Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites. So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.
Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions. Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock. Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites. So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.
You know I think there is a huge amount of truth in this. When (almost) everyone was happy with both Istock and Fotolia they were both doing well and growing strongly. Ever since each of them started pissing off their contributors they stalled almost immediately and now appear to be heading downwards in a tailspin. Meanwhile, both SS and DT continue to sail serenely onwards, presumably benefiting from their competitors' demise.
Funny thing is I think both FT and IS are owned by people who have no long term interest in their businesses. They just want to sell them on at a vast profit as quickly as possible. Unfortunately their impatience and their greed is destroying their ambition.
Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions. Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock. Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites. So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.
You know I think there is a huge amount of truth in this. When (almost) everyone was happy with both Istock and Fotolia they were both doing well and growing strongly. Ever since each of them started pissing off their contributors they stalled almost immediately and now appear to be heading downwards in a tailspin. Meanwhile, both SS and DT continue to sail serenely onwards, presumably benefiting from their competitors' demise.
Funny thing is I think both FT and IS are owned by people who have no long term interest in their businesses. They just want to sell them on at a vast profit as quickly as possible. Unfortunately their impatience and their greed is destroying their ambition.
When I started with Fotolia years ago, I received a commission of 33% as a complete Newbie, and was upgraded to 35% when I became bronze.
Now I receive 23% as bronze, close to silver.
If you really want to ... encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. then start thinking about your own commission schedule first.
Fotolia has been leading commission cuts across the microstock industry. You should not be the one talking about "fair commissions" before implementing changes (upwards) on your own site.
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.
Chad
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?
He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...
Folks,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
BEST PRICES GUARANTEED*
The packages that fit your needs, the prices that fit your wallet. PhotoXpress offers the best packages you won't get anywhere else. Guaranteed! If you find a lower price package, we will match it!* Packages start at just $10 dollars. Now that makes better sense!
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?
He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...
fixed
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?
He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...
fixed
I see Leaf isn't 'verified' either. How do we know this is the REAL Leaf?
Who's actually able to verify Leaf, assuming that it really is him, come to think of it. Hmmm?
'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D
'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D
But we were hacked! Who knows who's running the place now? 'Admin', as you call him, might be some Bangladeshi geek controlling us all from his bedroom.
Chad, just so you know how poorly your agency pays, my 2011 stats tell the truth.
My 2011 return per download averages so far:
$U.S.00.60 at Fotolia
$U.S.00.61 at Shutterstock
$U.S.01.73 at Dreamstime
$U.S.02.02 at Istock
So, its not me - it's you who is pushing me into the arms of someone new and promising.
I have uploaded only a part of my portfolio to PhotoDune (I had to start uploading there to compensate for my FT ranking change :)), and so far my revenue per download has been $0.73.
Fotolia's revenue per download this month has been $0.72.
It definitely can't be PhotoDune Fotolia is talking about.
(SS last month $0.66 IS (inclusive ThinkStock etc.) last month $0.87 DT last month $1.44)
'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D
But we were hacked! Who knows who's running the place now? 'Admin', as you call him, might be some Bangladeshi geek controlling us all from his bedroom.
For all those asking Chad to name names, don't expect a real answerChad is the person who, few months before Fotolia introduce subscriptions, explained us how subscription's model was destructive and bad for the stock industry. Later he became a big fan...
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url])
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url])
Can't read their forums.
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.
Chad
How I understand it now it's with DepositPhotos, that is currently selling
images at up to 6x less than Fotolia. Not sure what is to be done over this.
Maybe they should fight this thing out together. This certainly is not my fault. :(
How I understand it now it's with DepositPhotos, that is currently selling
images at up to 6x less than Fotolia. Not sure what is to be done over this.
Maybe they should fight this thing out together. This certainly is not my fault. :(
how do we know it is DP?
How I understand it now it's with DepositPhotos, that is currently selling
images at up to 6x less than Fotolia. Not sure what is to be done over this.
Maybe they should fight this thing out together. This certainly is not my fault. :(
how do we know it is DP?
I won't go into detail more than that and Antonio has also heard it mentioned on an FT forum.
I have had an excellent relationship with FT and want to find a solution to this problem but I'm not sure what is the solution for me right now.
How I understand it now it's with DepositPhotos, that is currently selling
images at up to 6x less than Fotolia. Not sure what is to be done over this.
Maybe they should fight this thing out together. This certainly is not my fault. :(
how do we know it is DP?
I won't go into detail more than that and Antonio has also heard it mentioned on an FT forum.
I have had an excellent relationship with FT and want to find a solution to this problem but I'm not sure what is the solution for me right now.
I have read that post from Antonio, I was looking for more, I havenīt received the email but I am curious to see how this will go
Dont get it and what kind of people that are running these agencies nowdays. Isnt it bloody obvious that putting thumbscrews on something and with threats, etc, has NEVER worked, it didnt even prevent two worldwars, let alone little micros.
This has just the opposite effect and will ofcourse backfire something chronic. People will leave, errasing their ports, spread gossip all over the internet, etc. This is just a perfect way of serving Getty/TS, right smack into their lap, might as well present it on a golden plate for them.
How stupid, I cant really believe it.
Dont get it and what kind of people that are running these agencies nowdays. Isnt it bloody obvious that putting thumbscrews on something and with threats, etc, has NEVER worked, it didnt even prevent two worldwars, let alone little micros.
This has just the opposite effect and will ofcourse backfire something chronic. People will leave, errasing their ports, spread gossip all over the internet, etc. This is just a perfect way of serving Getty/TS, right smack into their lap, might as well present it on a golden plate for them.
How stupid, I cant really believe it.
Dont get it and what kind of people that are running these agencies nowdays. Isnt it bloody obvious that putting thumbscrews on something and with threats, etc, has NEVER worked, it didnt even prevent two worldwars, let alone little micros.
This has just the opposite effect and will ofcourse backfire something chronic. People will leave, errasing their ports, spread gossip all over the internet, etc. This is just a perfect way of serving Getty/TS, right smack into their lap, might as well present it on a golden plate for them.
How stupid, I cant really believe it.
+1 from me too. I couldn't have put it better.
Oh, you mean things like selling most vectors for 4 and 6 credits. Now, which site does that? hmm... Oh yeah, it's Fotolia.
This policy is so hypocritical it's unbelievable. Look if you want to be the cheapest and lowest paying agency, that's fine. Then, just say that's what you want to do, but don't pretend like you're doing anybody any favors. Because FT is more a part of the problem than the solution. That's why I deleted my portfolio there and others have deleted their ports for the same reason.
It may be harder, but maybe, just maybe, you should try developing some actual customer and contributor loyalty. You could start by offering some incentives instead of punishments to be part of or shop at your site. I know it's a novel concept in this day and age, and it's a long road to gain back the trust, goodwill and reputation that you squandered away. But, think about it.
Our commission cuts were usually matched with a price rise, to soften the blow. Have they forgotten that? I haven't.
I think Leaf does a great job here. We can say what we want as long as it's not too insulting. My only complaint would be that some people seem to have multiple accounts here or keep using different names. They do get easy to spot after a while though.Oh, you mean things like selling most vectors for 4 and 6 credits. Now, which site does that? hmm... Oh yeah, it's Fotolia.
This policy is so hypocritical it's unbelievable. Look if you want to be the cheapest and lowest paying agency, that's fine. Then, just say that's what you want to do, but don't pretend like you're doing anybody any favors. Because FT is more a part of the problem than the solution. That's why I deleted my portfolio there and others have deleted their ports for the same reason.
It may be harder, but maybe, just maybe, you should try developing some actual customer and contributor loyalty. You could start by offering some incentives instead of punishments to be part of or shop at your site. I know it's a novel concept in this day and age, and it's a long road to gain back the trust, goodwill and reputation that you squandered away. But, think about it.
That word's not allowed apparently. You can expect to have your contribution removed for daring to answer back to one of our illustrious overlords to whom we should be respectful at all times no matter what greedy stunts they pull. Right Leaf?
I think Leaf does a great job here. We can say what we want as long as it's not too insulting. My only complaint would be that some people seem to have multiple accounts here or keep using different names. They do get easy to spot after a while though.Oh, you mean things like selling most vectors for 4 and 6 credits. Now, which site does that? hmm... Oh yeah, it's Fotolia.
This policy is so hypocritical it's unbelievable. Look if you want to be the cheapest and lowest paying agency, that's fine. Then, just say that's what you want to do, but don't pretend like you're doing anybody any favors. Because FT is more a part of the problem than the solution. That's why I deleted my portfolio there and others have deleted their ports for the same reason.
It may be harder, but maybe, just maybe, you should try developing some actual customer and contributor loyalty. You could start by offering some incentives instead of punishments to be part of or shop at your site. I know it's a novel concept in this day and age, and it's a long road to gain back the trust, goodwill and reputation that you squandered away. But, think about it.
That word's not allowed apparently. You can expect to have your contribution removed for daring to answer back to one of our illustrious overlords to whom we should be respectful at all times no matter what greedy stunts they pull. Right Leaf?
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247[/url])
Can't read their forums.
Oh, you mean things like selling most vectors for 4 and 6 credits. Now, which site does that? hmm... Oh yeah, it's Fotolia.
This policy is so hypocritical it's unbelievable. Look if you want to be the cheapest and lowest paying agency, that's fine. Then, just say that's what you want to do, but don't pretend like you're doing anybody any favors. Because FT is more a part of the problem than the solution. That's why I deleted my portfolio there and others have deleted their ports for the same reason.
It may be harder, but maybe, just maybe, you should try developing some actual customer and contributor loyalty. You could start by offering some incentives instead of punishments to be part of or shop at your site. I know it's a novel concept in this day and age, and it's a long road to gain back the trust, goodwill and reputation that you squandered away. But, think about it.
That word's not allowed apparently. You can expect to have your contribution removed for daring to answer back to one of our illustrious overlords to whom we should be respectful at all times no matter what greedy stunts they pull. Right Leaf?
I know very little about law, but something in the distant recesses of my brainbox remembered something about anti-competitive law.
Doesn't the paragraph on 'Principle' in the link below cover the area FT is concerned about, and wouldn't this be a more appropriate avenue to take rather than taking such a dictatorial stance towards contributors?
Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of such things could enlighten me.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law[/url])
Now that the Fotolia website is more confusing than ever, WHERE do I find what my ranking currently is? I can't seem to find it anywhere...
Folks,
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency. And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.
Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same. Just beware that a few of these sites require that members keep
their images online for 1 year. We're not listing the agencies, but
some have been named here already. If you are selling images at prices
much lower than the top 4 microstock sites then you might want to
review your options.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Folks,
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency.
If Fotlia says they have no problem with the Big 4, do they have a problem with the partner programs of the big 4?
I am sure there are a few macro agencies that would consider anything under a few hundred bucks to be destructive.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.
I think FT is miscalculating just how valuable they are to the average contributor. IS forced us to go to Thinkstock or leave IS. Most people earn so much money with IS, they cant afford to leave, so IS won.
FT seems to think they are in a similar enough position that they can do the same and win too. A year or two ago, Im sure they would have, but now, based on what Ive seen in sales threads, FT is less and less important to many contributors.
If FT actually starts busting contributors down to white, they are probably just about done as an agency and will be sold in the near future.
I think that deleting files from agencies with lower-than-fotolia commission sounds reasonable and could be discussed. However, I am really concerned that immediately after removing files from these unnamed sites fotolia will drop down commission again without any excuses.You are missing the whole point here, it is according to them not about commission but about retail price. I doubt if there are many agencies left with much lower commission than Fotolia, seeing they are the big driver behind the contributor earnings demise.
You are missing the whole point here, it is according to them not about commission but about retail price. I doubt if there are many agencies left with much lower commission than Fotolia, seeing they are the big driver behind the contributor earnings demise.
I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites. Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price. That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.
Now I know why my sales suddenly down 30%, 7 days rank from 150 down to 500.
Well, well, if it is DP the big guys like Yuri are under the threat as well. And I see Fotolia putting them back to white as funny... Ha ha, this could be the last thing Fotolia might do before falling under the level of those small sites they are challanging now.
Warren Millar
29/09/2011 21:57
be very interesting to know if some of the very top sellers here also sell images with the so called "Cheap sites" ....... are they also under the same restictions then CHAD ?
THE CHAD
30/09/2011 00:47
Warren it applies to all members even the top sellers.
Rimglow not sure what you mean by partner programs?
Chad Bridwell
Folks,I want to ask about this but I can't really figure out how to put it. There is a threat to lower people's rank and therefore money because they are contributing to some sites that can't be named, which you say they are locked into for a year while this policy is imminent so they couldn't change even if they wanted to? I saw someone say Kafkaesque earlier, it seems to fit pretty well.
Just beware that a few of these sites require that members keep
their images online for 1 year. We're not listing the agencies, but
some have been named here already.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites. Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price. That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.
I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites. Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price. That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency. And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.
Soooo ... are you going to apply your new rules to Yuri or Andres or Monkey Business for example ... any time soon? It's the image factories who have their vast portfolios everywhere that are doing the most to undermine your pricing architecture. Why hammer the smaller contributor whilst turning a blind eye to the image factories?
They are now thinking to modify the agreement to demand you send them your lunch every day.
I was just trying to think of a better option than the one FT are implementing now but I agree. If FT did get away with this, the sites with higher prices and higher commissions than FT could try the same trick. They really need to forget about this and concentrate on the real reason why FT is failing. The sites that are thriving haven't cut commissions as severely and they have kept their buyers. FT need to make a massive change in direction, making the site more popular with contributors will bring in more buyers than forcing them into yet another commission cut.I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites. Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price. That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.
This is just nuts. What's next. Tick here if you [insert std or colour of skin] so we can turn your rank to white. Exclusive or not exclusive, that's all they need to know.
Well, well, if it is DP the big guys like Yuri are under the threat as well. And I see Fotolia putting them back to white as funny... Ha ha, this could be the last thing Fotolia might do before falling under the level of those small sites they are challanging now.
Last post from Chad on FT................no Murphy even on the big boyz! Still no sites mentioned.QuoteWarren Millar
29/09/2011 21:57
be very interesting to know if some of the very top sellers here also sell images with the so called "Cheap sites" ....... are they also under the same restictions then CHAD ?
THE CHAD
30/09/2011 00:47
Warren it applies to all members even the top sellers.
Rimglow not sure what you mean by partner programs?
Chad Bridwell
Folks,
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency.
I'll believe that Yuri's being downgraded when I see it. No way will he bow to pressure from Fotolia. Be aware that this can "apply" to Yuri and yet he can just go on untouched because the rule says it's entirely at Fotolia's discretion who they choose to penalise. It isn't "If you do A we do B" it is "If you do A we can decide whether or not to do B".
.... And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen......
I'll believe that Yuri's being downgraded when I see it. No way will he bow to pressure from Fotolia. Be aware that this can "apply" to Yuri and yet he can just go on untouched because the rule says it's entirely at Fotolia's discretion who they choose to penalise. It isn't "If you do A we do B" it is "If you do A we can decide whether or not to do B".
With a load of legal wrangling, it could take a few years..........by which time Yuri is a TV CELEB and then it wouldn't matter so much. ;)
I'll only believe it when Yuri comes here personally to complain about it. He'll likely arrange his own little side deal just like other places.
I'll believe that Yuri's being downgraded when I see it. No way will he bow to pressure from Fotolia. Be aware that this can "apply" to Yuri and yet he can just go on untouched because the rule says it's entirely at Fotolia's discretion who they choose to penalise. It isn't "If you do A we do B" it is "If you do A we can decide whether or not to do B".
With a load of legal wrangling, it could take a few years..........by which time Yuri is a TV CELEB and then it wouldn't matter so much. ;)
I'll only believe it when Yuri comes here personally to complain about it. He'll likely arrange his own little side deal just like other places.
.... And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen......
.....and what exactly does this mean? The email implied that you would allow the above to happen but ensure that we get screwed while it does. ie. we would still be selling the same images elsewhere for less than on Fotolia, we would just be busted down to white on Fotolia and receive less money per download.
Sorry to spoil the bashing party just a little bit, but Chad has a point that the issue is not about contributor share but solely about the price the buyer has to pay. Contributor shares are strictly between the contributor and the agent (FT) while the sore point is what the buyer will do when he sees the same image at a lower price point elsewhere than FT. FT might even go down to 1% contributor share, the buyer won't care (unless he's also a contributor and knows the situation).
That was the reason it was fine to upload to iStock till they changed the terms. Sales at iStock then were just an extra for the (independent) contributor since their price point for the buyers was so high that it wouldn't cannibalize sales elsewhere.
As has been said, a contributor might have a higher total revenue at other sites than FT (by the appalling low % at FT) while the price is still lower for the buyer, and here lies the conflict but only for the contributor. Chad said he didn't want to address this point, and that's fair enough. IMHO, he's right that the two issues can't be mixed.
Personally, I can't get worked up about all this since I didn't agree with the new iStock terms and de-activated my entire portfolio there. That hurt, but hey, money won't make us happy :-\. My main motivation was that I don't want images (especially the higher levels) that sell well on DT to turn up on a Google Images or Picscout search at a much lower price point on Stinkstock, thereby cannibalizing my DT sales. I'm not on PD and I canceled DP a year after cashing in the upload bonus. I can just observe that Chad made exactly the same point.
Apart from all this, one could ask if the unilateral change of contributor terms on FT without any consent doesn't constitute a breach of contract. Another interesting point is what will happen if for instance DT would introduce the same clause for their level 2+ images that are sold at a much higher price point than at FT. In that case, FT's initiative would be a sword that cuts on both edges, and if I ever had to chose between FT and DT, I know what to do.
Sorry to spoil the bashing party just a little bit, but Chad has a point that the issue is not about contributor share but solely about the price the buyer has to pay.
If it's not about the contributors share, why does Fotolia seemingly plan to cut the commission rate but not alter its price to buyers (though he seemed to say something different in that last post)?
What they appear to be saying is that if you take a lower rate anywhere, we will pay you that rate while still charging customers our rate, not the cheaper site's rate.
That is ALL about contributor share and nothing to do with the price the buyer pays.
Well, actually it's all about Fotolia's share, they're not interested in contributors.
...Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen. In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content, Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices...
...We're not listing the agencies, but some have been named here already. If you are selling images at prices much lower than the top 4 microstock sites then you might want to review your options.
No, you missed the point. FT do intend dropping people back to White and dropping the prices of their images accordingly. We'll know if this 'rule' is being applied to the top sellers by seeing how many credits their images are priced at in the future.
What if I undercut Fotilia's price on photos sold from my personal website? Will I have to raise my prices to match Fotlia's?
What if I undercut Fotilia's price on photos sold from my personal website? Will I have to raise my prices to match Fotlia's?
Not if you don't tell 'em! ;) Seriously though, FT has to police this measure that they've announced and remember, it's arbitrary. My guess would also be that it's illegal anyway. Since when, as an independent supplier of a commodity/service can you be forced to reveal who all your other customers are and at what price you supply them?
Folks,
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency. And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.
Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same. Just beware that a few of these sites require that members keep
their images online for 1 year. We're not listing the agencies, but
some have been named here already. If you are selling images at prices
much lower than the top 4 microstock sites then you might want to
review your options.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Folks,
I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency. And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.
Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same. Just beware that a few of these sites require that members keep
their images online for 1 year. We're not listing the agencies, but
some have been named here already. If you are selling images at prices
much lower than the top 4 microstock sites then you might want to
review your options.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Chad, I very much understand your concern about difference in retail pricing of images. However, what I fail to see is how it is a contributor's problem. What some people are trying to say here is that for a contributor, it's the royalties he receives matters, not the retail price of the image. Let's say agency A manages to operate on 30% from the image sale because of low overhead, smart business practices and selling big volume of images cheaper, and agency B takes 85% from the sale, sells at higher prices and lower volume. As a supplier of images I may receive the same compensation for my portfolio from both agencies, in spite of difference in retail pricing. But it seems to me that Fotolia is saying now that I should be supplying agency B, and not agency A, although for me they both generate the same income, because agency B is finding it hard to compete with agency A. This doesn't make much sense. The point is, your retail pricing is your business, not contributors. You can change your retail pricing any time, and I as a contributor will decide if it makes business sense for me to supply you - but for me, the business sense is based only on the monthly royalties I receive (=wholesale prices), not your retail prices.
Chad, I very much understand your concern about difference in retail pricing of images. However, what I fail to see is how it is a contributor's problem. What some people are trying to say here is that for a contributor, it's the royalties he receives matters, not the retail price of the image. Let's say agency A manages to operate on 30% from the image sale because of low overhead, smart business practices and selling big volume of images cheaper, and agency B takes 85% from the sale, sells at higher prices and lower volume. As a supplier of images I may receive the same compensation for my portfolio from both agencies, in spite of difference in retail pricing. But it seems to me that Fotolia is saying now that I should be supplying agency B, and not agency A, although for me they both generate the same income, because agency B is finding it hard to compete with agency A. This doesn't make much sense. The point is, your retail pricing is your business, not contributors. You can change your retail pricing any time, and I as a contributor will decide if it makes business sense for me to supply you - but for me, the business sense is based only on the monthly royalties I receive (=wholesale prices), not your retail prices.
Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same.
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.
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.
For anyone late to the party, Sean just wrote a nice summarizing blog post of this issue
[url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/how-fotolia-missed-an-opportunity/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/how-fotolia-missed-an-opportunity/[/url])
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.
@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.
@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...
@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.
@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....
@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.
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.@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...
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.
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.@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...
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.
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, and Sapphire 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, you're saying that since these two companies sell on iStock, where work is available for 1 credit, as opposed to fotolia's 3 credit level, for an XS for example, which is 1/3 of the price, that you'll be dropping them both to the lowest tier? How did that fly with them?
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.
So, you're saying that since these two companies sell on iStock, where work is available for 1 credit, as opposed to fotolia's 3 credit level, for an XS for example, which is 1/3 of the price, that you'll be dropping them both to the lowest tier? How did that fly with them?
Erm ... I think that was probably covered in FT's original 'rule change' which appeared to discount the 'Top 4' agencies from their latest master plan. FT's words and deeds appear riddled with inconsistency and contradiction.
What Yuri can do, might be possible for us too, but only if we work together. I wonder if it had any effect if we all wrote to Istock/Thinkstock with only 1 simple request : raise the subscription price at Thinkstock with X %. That would benefit us, Thinkstock, and the whole microstock industry in one go. (if they listened, like Fotolia did this time).
What Yuri can do, might be possible for us too, but only if we work together. I wonder if it had any effect if we all wrote to Istock/Thinkstock with only 1 simple request : raise the subscription price at Thinkstock with X %. That would benefit us, Thinkstock, and the whole microstock industry in one go. (if they listened, like Fotolia did this time).
You will have to write to Shutterstock telling them to raise their subscription price first, since Thinkstock's is currently higher than Shutterstock's.
Christian, Chad appears to be saying that images will be dropped to level-one prices but the percentage commission paid will be according to the existing ranking level. Basically, it is scrapping the ability to promote the price of a file if you are an independent on a site they don't like. Unless you are exempt from the punishment for some reason or other.
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
...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....Does this mean that Deposit Photos are raising their prices? Perhaps Yuri can tell us what's happening? He seems quite active with his own threads here but it would be appreciated if he could spend some time clarifying what's going on with this. Mark is probably looking here too, would be nice to know what's going on, even if all you can say is that you can't say anything about it.
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
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.
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.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
I finally reached silver today and I hope they won't throw me back into white level.
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.
Maybe it is, I don't know... but it is not a bit less hilarious than watching nruboc calling out constantly istock while submitting to Fotolia and affiliates and supporting their new policies.
I've submitted to both agencies, so yes I can clearly say, IStock is 10x worse. ;D
I'm always interested in what Sean has to say even about sites he doesn't contribute too.Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.
Maybe it is, I don't know... but it is not a bit less hilarious than watching nruboc calling out constantly istock while submitting to Fotolia and affiliates and supporting their new policies.
I've submitted to both agencies, so yes I can clearly say, IStock is 10x worse. ;D
I'm always interested in what Sean has to say even about sites he doesn't contribute too.Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.
Maybe it is, I don't know... but it is not a bit less hilarious than watching nruboc calling out constantly istock while submitting to Fotolia and affiliates and supporting their new policies.
I've submitted to both agencies, so yes I can clearly say, IStock is 10x worse. ;D
I finally reached silver today and I hope they won't throw me back into white level.
I finally reached silver today and I hope they won't throw me back into white level.
I finally reached silver today and I hope they won't throw me back into white level.
congrats! you should be at 31% not 25% :P
Sooo trippy. What is FT saying here, I mean, if we are concerned about "destructive retail pricing" Fotolia will be about the second of the many sites we submit to to be dropped. I'm not sure how their minds are working on this one if at all.
Again, if they were one of the higher priced agencies it may make a bit of sense, but they have been leading the race to the bottom as far as the retail price goes. Suddenly now that their bottom line isn't sustainable it's a problem. They've had no concern at all about our bottom line all these years. I don't know where they get the balls.
His influence? Never heard of him.
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.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Mentioning Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler puts them in a spot. It will make it easier to put blame not only you, but also Yuri and Mark for any negotiations that will not benefit Fotolia contributors. Since you have worked with them, I think contributors will expect replies from both of these industry leaders. Fotolia contributors have a right to hear from Yuri and Mark since you put them in the middle! Now, if you wrote what you wrote without their consent, in my opinion it is unprofessional coming from a Director of Operations. But that's just my opinion!
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.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Mentioning Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler puts them in a spot. It will make it easier to put blame not only you, but also Yuri and Mark for any negotiations that will not benefit Fotolia contributors. Since you have worked with them, I think contributors will expect replies from both of these industry leaders. Fotolia contributors have a right to hear from Yuri and Mark since you put them in the middle! Now, if you wrote what you wrote without their consent, in my opinion it is unprofessional coming from a Director of Operations. But that's just my opinion!
No comment ?
Yuri posts here when he wants our opinions. It would be good to know what he thinks about this. If he said that he can't talk about it, that's fine. At least we would know why there's no response from him.
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.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
Mentioning Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler puts them in a spot. It will make it easier to put blame not only you, but also Yuri and Mark for any negotiations that will not benefit Fotolia contributors. Since you have worked with them, I think contributors will expect replies from both of these industry leaders. Fotolia contributors have a right to hear from Yuri and Mark since you put them in the middle! Now, if you wrote what you wrote without their consent, in my opinion it is unprofessional coming from a Director of Operations. But that's just my opinion!
No comment ?
We have "a right" to hear from them? I'd love to hear from them as well to hear about the deals they struck, but do you really think they're going to come in here and tell us all about it? They don't owe us anything. Face it, we're all capitalists here. We're all trying to create the best images and hoping that buyers will choose our stuff over everyone else's. If you were in Yuri's or Mark's shoes, would you feel obligated to put your competition's interests on the same plane as yours, and report back to your competitors about deals you're striking with agencies?
I don't see Yuri and Mark as carrying my fate in their hands. If I want to succeed, it's on me to make that happen. Yuri and Mark got where they are because they're good, and if I want their success I have to reach out and grab it for myself.
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
I don't see Yuri and Mark as carrying my fate in their hands. If I want to succeed, it's on me to make that happen. Yuri and Mark got where they are because they're good, and if I want their success I have to reach out and grab it for myself.
Hi everybody,
We've seen a lot of guesswork going on in this thread as to what's happening, and we'd like to make it absolutely clear that we are not part of any sort of arrangement with Fotolia to keep prices in the industry at a certain level.
That being said, it is true that we here at Yuri Arcurs Photography, as many other photographers, have contacted amongst others Deposit Photos to make them aware of where the industry will be heading in a short time if they continue to drop prices. This has resulted in Deposit Photos having raised their prices. We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission. The agencies cannot and should not agree on prices amongst them, so Fotolia will never negotiate any deals with Deposit Photos, but the photographers who submit images to the agencies can and should do so.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions which have been raised in this thread.
Best
Alessa
Yuri's personal assistant
We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission.
Well I have managed so far to negotiate my percentages with 2 agencies, its no big deal and they will listen.
I can just see the agencies rolling their eyes when I say "Yuri told me to negotiate with you for a better percentage" for my images. I'd rather they just offer a decent percentage and not make any changes for anyone.
Well I have managed so far to negotiate my percentages with 2 agencies, its no big deal and they will listen.
Details?
We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission. The agencies cannot and should not agree on prices amongst them, so Fotolia will never negotiate any deals with Deposit Photos, but the photographers who submit images to the agencies can and should do so.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions which have been raised in this thread.
Best
Alessa
Yuri's personal assistant
Hi everybody,
We've seen a lot of guesswork going on in this thread as to what's happening, and we'd like to make it absolutely clear that we are not part of any sort of arrangement with Fotolia to keep prices in the industry at a certain level.
That being said, it is true that we here at Yuri Arcurs Photography, as many other photographers, have contacted amongst others Deposit Photos to make them aware of where the industry will be heading in a short time if they continue to drop prices. This has resulted in Deposit Photos having raised their prices. We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission. The agencies cannot and should not agree on prices amongst them, so Fotolia will never negotiate any deals with Deposit Photos, but the photographers who submit images to the agencies can and should do so.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions which have been raised in this thread.
Best
Alessa
Yuri's personal assistant
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
Note to anyone who dislikes fotolia- what theyve done is illegal and they would be fined for it in most countries. If one company tells another (via a supplier or otherwise) to raise their prices, it's called "price fixing". You can read about it here:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing[/url])
Anyone who has an issue with this company is advised to contact the relevant authorities in their countries.
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
Ahh there, he did name names after all.
No doubt negotiations can now start with those other awful agencies like Photoexpress so that they stop selling Yuri's XXL images for $1 instead of 30 credits like on Fotolia.
(eg. [url]http://www.photoxpress.com/stock-photos/bulb/man/light/13461974[/url] ([url]http://www.photoxpress.com/stock-photos/bulb/man/light/13461974[/url]) vs. $30 [url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/9588771[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/id/9588771[/url]))
You know Fotolia and Photoxpress are the same company, right?
So maybe Fotolia will send you back to white if they sell your images for nothing on Photoxpress.
I can just see the agencies rolling their eyes when I say "Yuri told me to negotiate with you for a better percentage" for my images. I'd rather they just offer a decent percentage and not make any changes for anyone.
I can just see the agencies rolling their eyes when I say "Yuri told me to negotiate with you for a better percentage" for my images. I'd rather they just offer a decent percentage and not make any changes for anyone.
Where do you see "Yuri told me"?
What I read was:
"We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission."
I can just see the agencies rolling their eyes when I say "Yuri told me to negotiate with you for a better percentage" for my images. I'd rather they just offer a decent percentage and not make any changes for anyone.
Where do you see "Yuri told me"?
What I read was:
"We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission."
Since the "We" was from his personal assistant, one would assume "Yuri told me" was the message's originator.
what is photoexpress? I find mountains of my images there, but when I try to download one I get referred to a sign-up page, when I try to find the pricing it isn't there. Is this a live site or something in limbo?
I can just see the agencies rolling their eyes when I say "Yuri told me to negotiate with you for a better percentage" for my images. I'd rather they just offer a decent percentage and not make any changes for anyone.
Where do you see "Yuri told me"?
What I read was:
"We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission."
Since the "We" was from his personal assistant, one would assume "Yuri told me" was the message's originator.
"Yuri told me" comes across as forcing someone to do something while "we encourage" is more about giving advice or support. But I could be wrong.
The original originator is chad, no? ::)
Fair enough. It's still fine to know those things happen and thanks for sharing the info.NO! secret, and you will understand.Well I have managed so far to negotiate my percentages with 2 agencies, its no big deal and they will listen.Details?
Fair enough. It's still fine to know those things happen and thanks for sharing the info.NO! secret, and you will understand.Well I have managed so far to negotiate my percentages with 2 agencies, its no big deal and they will listen.Details?
Apparently, it's all about divide and conquer from the agencies' side. To obtain enough leverage, you must be big.
An average contributor will never be big, but nothing prevents him to team up with 9 other average contributors (preferably with non-competing images and covering several niches) like Monkeybusiness did and be big (and have leverage) as a group.
The problem as I see it with DepositPhotos is NOT the normal credit pricing BUT their offer to download images and pay by SMS for about 1 EURO (high resolution, no subcription attached). I tested that with Yuris images a while ago ([url]http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/02/23/billig-billiger-depositphotos-warnung-an-fotografen/[/url] ([url]http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/02/23/billig-billiger-depositphotos-warnung-an-fotografen/[/url])) and it worked. So maybe Yuri is getting a higher percentage in the back, but that doesn't stop this low pricing structure.
Yuri was informed by a fellow photographer via Facebook and responded, but no changes so far...
Hi everybody,
We've seen a lot of guesswork going on in this thread as to what's happening, and we'd like to make it absolutely clear that we are not part of any sort of arrangement with Fotolia to keep prices in the industry at a certain level.
That being said, it is true that we here at Yuri Arcurs Photography, as many other photographers, have contacted amongst others Deposit Photos to make them aware of where the industry will be heading in a short time if they continue to drop prices. This has resulted in Deposit Photos having raised their prices. We encourage every photographer to engage in negotiations with whatever agency they submit images to in order to get a fair commission. The agencies cannot and should not agree on prices amongst them, so Fotolia will never negotiate any deals with Deposit Photos, but the photographers who submit images to the agencies can and should do so.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions which have been raised in this thread.
Best
Alessa
Yuri's personal assistantFolks,
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
Note to anyone who dislikes fotolia- what theyve done is illegal and they would be fined for it in most countries. If one company tells another (via a supplier or otherwise) to raise their prices, it's called "price fixing". You can read about it here:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing[/url])
Anyone who has an issue with this company is advised to contact the relevant authorities in their countries.
The problem as I see it with DepositPhotos is NOT the normal credit pricing BUT their offer to download images and pay by SMS for about 1 EURO (high resolution, no subcription attached). I tested that with Yuris images a while ago ([url]http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/02/23/billig-billiger-depositphotos-warnung-an-fotografen/[/url] ([url]http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/02/23/billig-billiger-depositphotos-warnung-an-fotografen/[/url])) and it worked. So maybe Yuri is getting a higher percentage in the back, but that doesn't stop this low pricing structure.
Yuri was informed by a fellow photographer via Facebook and responded, but no changes so far...
How far back is "a while ago"? Because (Iīm a designer) i have tried to get Yuri pics via SMS on DP and itīs not possible and it hasnīt been for a while. That is, because he is platinum there and apparently platinum photographers are excluded from SMS. Again, i have found that out many month ago and asked DP why. So the "no changes so far" come across a bit strange...
The problem as I see it with DepositPhotos is NOT the normal credit pricing BUT their offer to download images and pay by SMS for about 1 EURO (high resolution, no subcription attached). I tested that with Yuris images a while ago ([url]http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/02/23/billig-billiger-depositphotos-warnung-an-fotografen/[/url] ([url]http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/02/23/billig-billiger-depositphotos-warnung-an-fotografen/[/url])) and it worked. So maybe Yuri is getting a higher percentage in the back, but that doesn't stop this low pricing structure.
Yuri was informed by a fellow photographer via Facebook and responded, but no changes so far...
How far back is "a while ago"? Because (Iīm a designer) i have tried to get Yuri pics via SMS on DP and itīs not possible and it hasnīt been for a while. That is, because he is platinum there and apparently platinum photographers are excluded from SMS. Again, i have found that out many month ago and asked DP why. So the "no changes so far" come across a bit strange...
@Gooner: My test was in the end of February and it still worked in March. Maybe he really managed to pull out his images of the SMS deal, BUT DepositPhotos does not mention anywhere that only some picture can be bought that way?
Exactly, finally someone actually paying attention to the important things, not this yada industry negotiate yada. Price fixing is a serious crime that can (and often did) land people in prison in many countries
Well, but making the rule of "if you sell your product elshewere cheaper we'll match this price" is not price fixing prices at all. And many internet business do that, beggining with Amazon.
I've browsed this with amusement more than interest. We all tend to get up in arms "frequently" but seldom do anything. Don't you think this is just more of the same "Noise?"
Another thought -- if we band together to negotiate --- wouldn't it make more sense to negotiate with the source of the problem ... Fotolia?
It is clear that Fotolia made their point and can stand by it, as they can clearly see that there is a lot of moaning and gowning going round (which will eventually quiet down) and no action. Lot of huff and puff, but when it come to any action which might influence my income (although it will be much less now), I will rather not stir.
It seems like Fotolia (I am sorry to say) know just how far to push their own income increases up at the cost of their contributors, without really risking loosing them.
It is clear that Fotolia made their point and can stand by it, as they can clearly see that there is a lot of moaning and gowning going round (which will eventually quiet down) and no action. Lot of huff and puff, but when it come to any action which might influence my income (although it will be much less now), I will rather not stir.
It seems like Fotolia (I am sorry to say) know just how far to push their own income increases up at the cost of their contributors, without really risking loosing them.
Actually, as far as I've heard, there has been no action on Fotolia's part. They have threatened to lower people to white IF they are selling cheaper elsewhere, but it hasn't yet been implemented. Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!
If FT actually lowers some emeralds to white level, then you will see people pull their ports and close accounts.
Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!Interesting. You ask a question and follow that up with an outcry as though you received an answer (get that sometimes from my wife as well......). Can not remember ever using the word "quit" or suggesting anything else than to stand together. Did I say "quit"? How ridiculous to read that into my post!
Ready - Fire - AimNow that is support for you.................. ??? :D
;D
Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!
So, in essence this thread is now really becoming warn out if no combined action can be achieved (which clearly it can not). All wait till it affects you and then one by one decide to quite or not.. End of story.Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!
Personally, I don't think it is ridiculous. If they are asserting the right to cut commissions just because you supply an unnamed site that they don't like, then they have changed the rules and it is reasonable to say that by doing so they have created conditions that are unacceptable.
It's also quite reasonable to be pragmatic and say that until you are affected you are not going to respond. It's a personal decision.
So, in essence this thread is now really becoming warn out if no combined action can be achieved (which clearly it can not). All wait till it affects you and then one by one decide to quite or not.. End of story.Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!
Personally, I don't think it is ridiculous. If they are asserting the right to cut commissions just because you supply an unnamed site that they don't like, then they have changed the rules and it is reasonable to say that by doing so they have created conditions that are unacceptable.
It's also quite reasonable to be pragmatic and say that until you are affected you are not going to respond. It's a personal decision.
So, in essence this thread is now really becoming warn out if no combined action can be achieved (which clearly it can not). All wait till it affects you and then one by one decide to quite or not.. End of story.Are you suggesting that people quit Fotolia based on a threat that they MIGHT lose earnings at some time in the future? That's ridiculous!
Personally, I don't think it is ridiculous. If they are asserting the right to cut commissions just because you supply an unnamed site that they don't like, then they have changed the rules and it is reasonable to say that by doing so they have created conditions that are unacceptable.
It's also quite reasonable to be pragmatic and say that until you are affected you are not going to respond. It's a personal decision.
What's left to do? Evaluate your personal situation and act accordingly. If the change affects you and you think it is unacceptable, then act.
Lisa! it seems the place all of a sudden is invaded by trade-union boyos. They want people to act on threats? jeez! fancy if all countries sprung into action because of threats?
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Very true. Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Very true. Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".
Even so, he had a point, " better to prevent then cure" by the time you have to cure something, its often too late.
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Very true. Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".
Even so, he had a point, " better to prevent then cure" by the time you have to cure something, its often too late.
However, killing people off with medicine while trying to prevent an ailment that was never going to affect them is worse than pointless.
However, killing people off with medicine while trying to prevent an ailment that was never going to affect them is worse than pointless.
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Very true. Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".
Even so, he had a point, " better to prevent then cure" by the time you have to cure something, its often too late.
However, killing people off with medicine while trying to prevent an ailment that was never going to affect them is worse than pointless.
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Very true. Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".
Even so, he had a point, " better to prevent then cure" by the time you have to cure something, its often too late.
However, killing people off with medicine while trying to prevent an ailment that was never going to affect them is worse than pointless.
I wasnt refering to the medical ethics.
Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.
Very true. Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".
Even so, he had a point, " better to prevent then cure" by the time you have to cure something, its often too late.
OK, so final conclusion, the American troops should invade Fotolia, remove the threat by toppling the management, get the contributors to vote for new Fotolia management, admit that they could not find evidence that Fotolia would have went through with the threat, withdraw their troops and start focusing on another website which might be a threat.------------------
Can the Subject now please be changed to include the words "The war against....."
I finally decided to pull all of my troops (I mean images) home. I just requested FT to cancel my account and remove all my images I hadn't already deleted. Looking back at my submission records show me that they had consistently rejected good images and contributed too little sales-wise to my earnings. I'd rather not have to face any more contributor humiliation at their hands.
any more contributor humiliation
You know Fotolia and Photoxpress are the same company, right?
So maybe Fotolia will send you back to white if they sell your images for nothing on Photoxpress.
Yeah that was exactly my point. Fotolia is the agency that's been leading the charge with "free image" sites, discounting & dodgy partner deals where its impossible to know what or whether you're even being paid for images that are sold.