MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Phil on January 20, 2011, 04:48
-
like istock, yay! a boom year so we have to cut commissions.... what crap
emerald and above stay the same
Dear Fotolia Contributor,
2010 was another record year for the Fotolia community. We set new all-time highs for the number images in our collection, the number of members, and photographer royalty payouts. For 2011, we're implementing some changes in efforts to continue this trend.
Competition in the market is increasing, both amongst the photographers in the community, and amongst stock photography agencies. We've been monitoring the situation carefully, and have continued to increase our marketing spend in the number and frequency of ad campaigns. In addition, Fotolia continued its international leadership in new markets, with the opening of the Russian and Chinese web sites. With the increase in sales, the velocity of the rank changes has also accelerated. In order to sustain our continued efforts in marketing, we are making some changes to the royalty structures at the mid and lower tiers next week.
Fotolia continues to maintain photographer commissions at a significantly higher than those of our major competitors, and our increased efforts in marketing will result in an even higher velocity towards increased rankings.
Please note also that our new recency filter gives some priority to newer and fresher content, which means that the best new photographers with fresh content will have a better chance of rising to the higher ranks.
Thanks for your continued support, and we look forward to a great 2011 together.
Sincerely,
Fotolia.com
new rates (but I dont know the old)
Here is the price and royalty chart for non-exclusive files
Ranking Contributor royalty (%)
White 20
Bronze 23
Silver 25
Gold 31
Emerald 37
Sapphire 40
Rubis 43
Diamond 46
-
Was just about to post that, great - they've lopped 5% or 6% off the bottom few ranks for non exclusive earners.
old rates are
White 25
Bronze 28
Silver 31
Gold 34
Emerald 37
Sapphire 40
Rubis 43
Diamond 46
currently still at http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors)
-
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8417/1234931504682o.jpg)
-
Fotolia has the power to do so and probably was encouraged how the commission cut with iStock went through. Still this came as a surprise for me. WOW
Gold does not stay them same. It became the silver comission just when I am about to reach Gold.. :(
-
...In order to sustain our continued efforts in marketing...
Or, in other words, it would be unsustainable? :P *spits on the ground*
-
Oh boll*cks. I half-expected them to follow iStock on this, but it's still a blow to see it.
Thank God for SS and DT. (Don't prove me wrong SS and DT!)
-
Oh boll*cks. I half-expected them to follow iStock on this, but it's still a blow to see it.
Thank God for SS and DT. (Don't prove me wrong SS and DT!)
*
-
I frightened by this statement
With the increase in sales, the velocity of the rank changes has also accelerated.
Are they going to change the rank levels again?
Two years ago they upped the rank levels considerably, saying people were reaching them too fast. I was a couple months away from being emerald at the time. Once again... I am a couple months away from being emerald. If they move the goal posts again it appears that they are moving the goal posts at a very similar rate as the photographers are moving up the ranks which makes for very few people actually ever reaching emerald and above.
I gathered some of the old pricing and commissions back to 2007 on the Fotolia wiki page (http://wiki.microstockgroup.com/index.php?title=Fotolia#2010)
-
IN the end, if all of them keep cutting our commission, we are the one who lose, they will keep getting more and more.
-
Well let's try to give our worst to FT and not our best! I actually never liked FT although it is my third earner. They can't handle criticism and their search machine is very strange (to say it mildly). And they pay lousy (even more now!)
-
It seems really transparent that they just saw IS get away with it and thought "great we'll have a bit of that shafting pie too"
Read this line:
"Fotolia continues to maintain photographer commissions at a significantly higher than those of our major competitors"
-
Two years ago they upped the rank levels considerably, saying people were reaching them too fast. I was a couple months away from being emerald at the time. Once again... I am a couple months away from being emerald. If they move the goal posts again it appears that they are moving the goal posts at a very similar rate as the photographers are moving up the ranks which makes for very few people actually ever reaching emerald and above.
Ditto - I was very close to Emerald last time and I am 800-900 sales away now. They better not change it again.
-
This is sickening but it's no surprise. I have to sell a lot more just to get back to the commission I'm unhappy with now. Looks like microstock is going to be unsustainable for me, unless something drastic happens and we all leave the sites that pay ridiculously low commissions. I just can't see that happening, the vast majority will continue to accept more and more commission cuts. Now I'm even more motivated to find another way to make a living.
-
Looks like microstock is going to be unsustainable for me
If this trend continues, it will be unsustainable for all but the protected uppier tier. Those who feel shafted and disrespected will pull out, and the agencies will have a lot of images with similar-feel, or will have to resort to a Getty-style intake of old RM works to bump up their numbers.
As LisaFX often says, attacking the vast numbers of 'little guys' will dilute the variety of their collections - and variety of choice is the reason that many buyers supposedly enjoy using microstock.
As others have said, if all the agencies focused on perfecting the search, taking out the old dross that is no longer up to standard (I think they should approach photographers who have vastly improved their standard, and ask them to re-shoot those images), and dealing effectively with keyword spam, they'd probably see a huge increase in sales overall and possibly wouldn't have to keep killing people's aspirations after all their investment in time, equipment and skill-building.
-
This move was actually very clever from Fotolia.
They upset mainly those with smaller portfolios and who produce lower quality images, while keeping the succesfull contributors which mostly have high quality images happy.
If those smaller contributors stop uploading out of protest or occassionaly delete their portfolios, Fotolia probably really does not care much about it.
-
I think this is where I start handing out some i-told-ya-so's.
-
I frightened by this statement
With the increase in sales, the velocity of the rank changes has also accelerated.
Are they going to change the rank levels again?
Two years ago they upped the rank levels considerably, saying people were reaching them too fast. I was a couple months away from being emerald at the time. Once again... I am a couple months away from being emerald. If they move the goal posts again it appears that they are moving the goal posts at a very similar rate as the photographers are moving up the ranks which makes for very few people actually ever reaching emerald and above.
Same here, 1 month away from gold and a couple of months last time... I hope they aren't going to change the rank system...
-
This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end but it might be the end of the beginning. Blood, sweat, toil and tears. Cheer up everyone!! ;D
-
I'm speechless. I need about 1,000 sales to get the same royalty (31%) as before. And my dream of better royalties just went 15,000 sales farther away.
I set some goals for me for 2011. I son't see them happening. This is sickening. I'm really seriously thinking about dumping microstock alltogether, I haven't seen any macros pulling stunts like these (IS, FT)
I really hope SS and DT don't jump on the bandwagon.
-
b*strds
I bet the base commission level is even lower than iStock's 15% now (remember, they pay a percentage on a magical fotolia widget which has no relationship at all to what the customers are paying for credits).
-
just posted a handy roll-over comparison thingy - shame it won't make you feel any better
http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates (http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates)
-
The worst cast scenario is this
Buyer buys credits in Euro with the smallest package size .. which is now 1.20 Euro /credit for 25 credits ($1.61860 USD/credit)
The buyer then buys an image from a white ranked photographer with a USA account and the photographer gets (with 2011 commissions) 20% of a credit, which is US$1.00, so $0.20
So the buyer spent $1.62 and the photographer gets $0.20 = 12.3%
Here is the blog post explaining it in a bit more detail (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/) with more calculations (albeit older numbers)
-
I really hate Fotolia and IStock now.
Instead of attacking contributors, they should all cooperate and increase the price for buyers.
Buyers don't really care if it is $249/month or $299/month.
But contributors feels the pain when you decrease the revenue by even 5%.
SS, don't you dare to follow them. If SS has exclusivity now (yes, I know exclusivity is bad), but I will just join SS exclusivity as a sign of protest again IS and FT.
-
just posted a handy roll-over comparison thingy - shame it won't make you feel any better
[url]http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates[/url] ([url]http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates[/url])
thanks for the roll over.. that makes it nice to compare
-
just posted a handy roll-over comparison thingy - shame it won't make you feel any better
[url]http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates[/url] ([url]http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates[/url])
Nice page. To make it even nicer, put the rankings there too http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_3 (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_3)
-
Hahahaha.... to get the same percentage I have now (31%) I would have to sell my files as exclusive files. Are they stupid or what is their problem?
-
The biggest drop is with silvers - from 31 to 25%. They comprise the majority of fotolia contributors. Why don't I wonder... ?
-
Instead of attacking contributors, they should all cooperate and increase the price for buyers.
They did increase prices... we just don't get any of the increase.. :(
Feb 2010
Price for 21 credits: $1.14/credit
Price for 3200 credits: $.75/credit
Jan 2011
Price for 25 credits: $1.20/credit
Price for 3000 credits: $0.80/credit
our cut is always based on a single credit no matter what the buyer pays for it.
-
We are so screwed. Again.
-
just posted a handy roll-over comparison thingy - shame it won't make you feel any better
[url]http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates[/url] ([url]http://microstockinsider.com/news/fotolia-new-commission-rates[/url])
Nice page. To make it even nicer, put the rankings there too [url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_3[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_3[/url])
I looked at those, they are still the same (did I miss something?)
don't tempt fate I might need to do one in a few week/months!
-
Doesnt bother me too much, FT and IS, cuts in commissions. What does bother me is that within 6 months, ALL top 6 agencies will do the same thing and then suddenly its NOT worthwhile, too much work for too little return.
Never thought I would say this but Im seriously considering Exclusivity and with the one that gives me the best return. Cant really see any other way.
-
"Competition in the market is increasing, both amongst the photographers in the community, and amongst stock photography agencies. We've been monitoring the situation carefully, and have continued to increase our marketing spend in the number and frequency of ad campaigns. In addition, Fotolia continued its international leadership in new markets, with the opening of the Russian and Chinese web sites. With the increase in sales, the velocity of the rank changes has also accelerated. In order to sustain our continued efforts in marketing, we are making some changes to the royalty structures at the mid and lower tiers next week."
International leadership = we cut commissions for the 2nd time - IS and DT have only done it once
Please undertake your extra marketing out of the +70% you already take.
I encourage everybody to direct customers away from IS and FT to agencies that provide you and the customers a better deal
-
Never thought I would say this but Im seriously considering Exclusivity and with the one that gives me the best return. Cant really see any other way.
I'm with you there - the only problem being that SS doesn't offer exclusivity (yet) ;D
On a different note: Were any changes in the subscriptions prices on FT mentioned?
-
Oh Crap.
As a iStock exclusive I was thinking about my options a whether it is worthwhile to go non-exclusive again (I was on majority of the sites about 2 years ago).
This Fotolia cut just tells me that the whole industry is doing down the drain.
I have no clue why Apple pays 70% to their APP (for smartphones) developers and we get ~30% (if that). It is pretty much the same process (I create it, they approve it and sell it).
-
This is sickening but it's no surprise. I have to sell a lot more just to get back to the commission I'm unhappy with now. Looks like microstock is going to be unsustainable for me, unless something drastic happens and we all leave the sites that pay ridiculously low commissions. I just can't see that happening, the vast majority will continue to accept more and more commission cuts. Now I'm even more motivated to find another way to make a living.
Maybe it's a temporary thing because of the economic crisis, things should get back to normal at some point. The last couple of days i've noticed in horror that almost every single site i upload to has some sort of problem. Be it uploads not working, be it files missing, not showing up, uploaded but not showing, no views, disappearing sales, sites down for repair, delayed earnings, etc, etc. I don't remember this sort of mess in the past.
About fotolia, the main problem is that they don't know what files they want in the collection, they only now how many they can accept each month.
This year they accept a lot of landscapes for example where in the past they were known for not accepting them. In the end the have accepted less of my files from the big4 and so they are making me less money than any of the big4. I don't think it's irrelevant.
-
Haha :D no surprise at all FUtolia!
-
anyone dares to delete from fotolia?
-
It may only be symbolic... but it felt good to delete a couple this morning.
-
This is sickening but it's no surprise. I have to sell a lot more just to get back to the commission I'm unhappy with now. Looks like microstock is going to be unsustainable for me, unless something drastic happens and we all leave the sites that pay ridiculously low commissions. I just can't see that happening, the vast majority will continue to accept more and more commission cuts. Now I'm even more motivated to find another way to make a living.
Maybe it's a temporary thing because of the economic crisis, things should get back to normal at some point.
Don't kid yourself. This is permanent and more cuts will be coming. This is the new normal. Raise prices and cut commissions.
Right now there is way more supply than demand and the value of contributors have dropped. This is pretty obvious from the way we're being treated. A couple years ago contributors were being courted. Now we're being taken advantage of pretty regularly.
The bottom isn't here yet. And it won't be until enough good performing contributors stop submitting to go make money elsewhere, outside of stock. Then after there is a shortage of good performing contributors and a lot of stale low production images the top tier sites may start a "we love you, come back to us" program with more incentives. We're a long way off from that. But I think this is the start.
-
anyone dares to delete from fotolia?
-
It may only be symbolic... but it felt good to delete a couple this morning.
I think this will change soon too. The only tool contributors have is to delete images. The sites have all been watching this unfold in public and most sites will eventually change to a minimum time or will even remove the ability to delete.
In some ways open public forums are hurting contributors. People are airing out their thoughts and strategies for all of the sites to see. The sites are taking that info and making changes based on it to their advantage. Hard to win when you know nothing about your opponent's strategy and they know everything about yours.
"Let's delete our photos" = remove ability to delete
"Let's go to other sites" = more power for other sites to cut commissions
"I can't afford to leave, I have to put food on table" = make more changes because contributors are powerless
-
Fotolia silvers will be getting a 19,4% cut in their royalty payout. Maybe Fotolia could be hurting themselves more than they realize with such a slaughter. A very large number of pro top notch quality producers that have entered microstock in the last 1-2 years are still silvers and will not advance within the next year - at which time Fotolia will move the goal post again. These new pro top notch quality producers are the same people that will do (relatively) well under iStocks new redeemed credit race system..
Are they sending the new pros to iStock?
As it has already been pointed out here, we should also not forget that these "royalty %'s" actually has nothing to do with the actual royalty % that we recieve after the obsure credit and currency conversions that they have put in place to further milk contributers. The legislation is clearly lagging behind on this issue and I'm sure most contributers are completely in the blind about this, as it is human nature to assume that "royalty %" also means "royalty %".
I know microstock is the wild west, but A 19,4% paycut (with one weeks notice) is outrages.
-
Doesnt bother me too much, FT and IS, cuts in commissions. What does bother me is that within 6 months, ALL top 6 agencies will do the same thing and then suddenly its NOT worthwhile, too much work for too little return.
Never thought I would say this but Im seriously considering Exclusivity and with the one that gives me the best return. Cant really see any other way.
Pretty much resumes my thoughts . It was bound to happen , the question was who was going to be first follower of iS . Unfortunately the cruel logic shows that the other agencies will follow too - otherwise they are automaticaly handicapped . Exclusivity with any of the big ones seems more attractive than ever before . It would be a "funny" situation - the big contributors selling everywhere and all the mid and low tier ones going exclusive
-
My feeling is that some agencies acknowledge their own part and responsibility in boosting their own profits (beyond just marketing), while others take the easy way out by putting all the onus on what they are paying contributors.
IMO, those who address the issues at agency-end and treat contributors with respect for their work (both in respectful correspondence and in their pockets) will be the ones who ultimately have longevity.
-
I encourage everybody to direct customers away from IS and FT to agencies that provide you and the customers a better deal
And if that actually worked then those sites would have a huge amount of leverage to also cut your commissions.
There are too many contributors. Too much competition and too many images. There is way more supply than demand and until that flip-flops contributors are at a disadvantage in almost every way.
Some people keep saying this is a community and competition doesn't matter. It's common sense. The more people that need to share a loaf of bread, the less each of us will have to eat.
-
I encourage everybody to direct customers away from IS and FT to agencies that provide you and the customers a better deal
And if that actually worked then those sites would have a huge amount of leverage to also cut your commissions.
There are too many contributors. Too much competition and too many images. There is way more supply than demand and until that flip-flops contributors are at a disadvantage in almost every way.
Some people keep saying this is a community and competition doesn't matter. It's common sense. The more people that need to share a loaf of bread, the less each of us will have to eat.
Exactely!
Add to add that some of the competition (as seen in another thread here) are willing to submit to sites that pay $0,02 commission as long as the end balance yields up.... the future looks bleak, very bleak...
-
I just hope Shutterstock will not do that. I am am almost certain Dreamstime will not do that (though who knows)
-
I just hope Shutterstock will not do that. I am am almost certain Dreamstime will not do that (though who knows)
Why wouldn't they?
-
My remaining ounces of hope are with those two (DT and SS). I trust them. If they take this route, that will be the time I'll consider throwing the towel in.
(I trust CanStock too - but my earnings there aren't high enough to keep me in the game).
They'd be my three 'hang on to the bitter end' agencies... although I hope SS and DT will buck the trend and do something positive for us all (God knows we need it now).
-
I know microstock is the wild west, but A 19,4% paycut (with one weeks notice) is outrages.
It's not one week's notice: they announced big news a few weeks ago, and I was pretty sure from the start that it was going to be a paycut. With certain agencies one can stay assured ;D
I just hope Shutterstock will not do that. I am am almost certain Dreamstime will not do that (though who knows)
Why wouldn't they?
Since I joined SS 3+ years ago, I never heard bad news from them. This may well mean nothing about the future, but so far so good. Some mid/low earners are fair (scanstock, panthermedia, canstock and more...) but I can't say the same for any other big site. Thanks SS.
-
rant all you can . nothing will ever change.
-
the future looks bleak, very bleak...
I think the future of stock in general is bright for a small percentage of contributors who are the right type. This is a culling and the people who are not the right type, or are the right type and are just fed-up, will leave.
-
rant all you can . nothing will ever change.
Things can change, but not by ranting.
-
We are guilty for all of this... We can expect more and more agencies to do the same, especially from "...top tier"
Fees for mediation and marketing should not exceed the manufacturer's profit, in this case the ours!!!
Everything below 50% is thievery because this is Agency bussines...
We can tolerate till 40% but below that isn't good...
So, there is many ways how to fight against this, not only deleting of photos and closing account because these are top agencies...
-
anyone dares to delete from fotolia?
I might talk to Pat Lor about it first, but squeezing the littlest guys does not sit well with me.
-
Fotolia has become a distant 4th for me. Coupled with bizarre and inconsistent rejections, they basically sell the same few images over and over for less and less money. Most of my sales there are becoming subs anyway, so it's rapidly getting to the point where it's not worth the trouble. Just when Istock screws everyone over, Fotolia blows a chance to bring in new contributors and instead plays follow the leader- all the way down, it seems. So far, they are just proving that SS and DT are the only ones with a good chance of using Istock's folly to their advantage. Let's hope they don't do the same thing.
-
As I said, doesnt bother me, a cut in commissions! happens all the time and in various busineses. IS, got away with it because IS has become for many a way of living, reached almost cult status and inspite of the cut, people with fairly large ports, will still earn good money.
Few years back I said, buyers leaving agencies will not have any effect, since new buyers are coming all the time. The only thing which can ruin Micro are the Micros themselves and we are slowly, slowly seeing this industry falling apart.
The only kind of contributor that will persevere are newbies, beginners and small ports, i.e. havent really got anything to loose.
Exclusivity!! has all of a sudden got a very nice cling to it and lets be fair, many of us I imagine are fulltime commercial photographers with lots of obligations to meet, when all the other agencies are following suite, who on earth have got the time to sit there uploading, keywording, post-processing and all and in the end for less then half of what we are getting now.
-
Edited- Never mind.
-
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. And I shouldn't feel offended, but I do. Fotolia had moved into 2nd for me, thanks to iStock lowering my royalty and tanking in general. I took a stand against iStock, deleting a few images every day, and I'll do the same with Fotolia. My uploads there stop now, and I've begun to delete my port. I'm doing it slowly; might as well get whatever money I can from them. And I won't miss their one-at-a-time submission process.
-
I just hope Shutterstock will not do that. I am am almost certain Dreamstime will not do that (though who knows)
Why wouldn't they?
DT has done it before and if they do you are stuck for 6 months with no way to leave even though they changed their %, it's in the TOS is what they'll say too.
-
I love Shutterstock and I am really not happy about commissions decrease at Fotolia.
But to be fair - Fotolia's revenue for subscription download is still higher that on SS. (..and for me personally RPD at Fotolia is 3 x higher)
Seems that Shutterstock prepared long-term financial balance better than others.
On the other hand - this gives me hope that Shutterstock will not follow iS and Fotolia.
-
I'd say it was unbelievable, but unfortunately, I believe it :(
If anything will keep me as an IS exclusive - and my finger keeps wobbling over the big red button to push to start the 30 day clock on canceling exclusivity - perhaps it's the scummy tactics of other agencies. Of which this change is the latest shining example.
Congrats to those who get to keep their commissions, but for heavens sakes keep a weather eye out as the saying goes. They'll be looking to cut your take too as soon as they figure out how to do it without you walking.
-
Seems that Shutterstock prepared long-term financial balance better than others.
This is my feeling too. So many frequent changes elsewhere strongly suggest short-term thinking to me. (Or clumsy adjustments to inaccurate forecasting).
-
It is like a bunch of gas stations on a busy corner. FT raises prices a few cents and DT across the street does too and then IS on the opposite corner does also and FT sees that they are still just as busy, but they make more money, so they raise them another 5%. Except in this case they are lowering contributors % age.
SS on the final corner maybe started out a bit higher and now they are still just as busy as they have always been.
Maybe that is a poor analogy, but it still sucks for the contributors, especially the mid to bottom tier ones.
-
anyone dares to delete from fotolia?
Yes. I'm so unfamiliar with the site and/or they did hide the payout link so well that I can't find it.
-
Credits -> Conversions -> Convert Credits
(it is well hidden though!)
-
the future looks bleak, very bleak...
I think the future of stock in general is bright for a small percentage of contributors who are the right type. This is a culling and the people who are not the right type, or are the right type and are just fed-up, will leave.
The right type may be those which will survive until the day the most will find it unsustainable and leave. This has little to do with style and abilities, and a lot to do with luck: already having a large port and doing this as a second job helps. I feel very sorry for newbies and for people living on microstock alone.
-
Oh crap. We can only expect DT doing the same next.
Change of rank level? That is something so unlikely these days. Yes, I know I have a small portfolio, but anyway, they make it sound like everyone was getting a high commission.
I see myself each time further away from microstock.
-
Credits -> Conversions -> Convert Credits
Thanks.
-
Fotolia has become a distant 4th for me. Coupled with bizarre and inconsistent rejections, they basically sell the same few images over and over for less and less money. Most of my sales there are becoming subs anyway, so it's rapidly getting to the point where it's not worth the trouble. Just when Istock screws everyone over, Fotolia blows a chance to bring in new contributors and instead plays follow the leader- all the way down, it seems. So far, they are just proving that SS and DT are the only ones with a good chance of using Istock's folly to their advantage. Let's hope they don't do the same thing.
I hope your right but with Microstock being a business the focus is on the buyers first! If buyers are happy with the product and prices then the business will always find ways to maintain and/or maximize profit. It's more important now for us contributors to know your worth to this industry and act on it when neccessary!
-
FT, has really handed IS, the one excuse to photographers, to go exclusive with IS and on a GIANT GOLDEN plate! the actual timing of this is in one word, DREADFUL,
never have IS, had so few to thank for so much.
-
FT, has really handed IS, the one excuse to photographers, to go exclusive with IS and on a GIANT GOLDEN plate! the actual timing of this is in one word, DREADFUL,
never have IS, had so few to thank for so much.
It may also keep a few from dropping IS exclusivity.
-
Well, I won't be sorry to say goodbye to these b*stards. Not to mention, my rpd this month at FT is 50.7 cents. My rpd at SS is $1.69. Can someone please remind me which one is the subs agency again?
You can't believe what a good job I did at masking my real emotions in this post.
-
It may also keep a few from dropping IS exclusivity.
Bingo. FT just gave istock a nice New Year's gift. Why drop the crown in favor of the competition when the competition is cutting rates too?
Kind of makes microstock in general start to look "unsustainable." Too many more of these cuts and I think I could call it quits and focus entirely on my design business.
-
cannot belive in this SHI*.. a person is doing his best to reach other ranks levels and now for what??.. to reach 25 instead of 31??.. another 5% cut sweet :)
thanks IS :)
-
I received a Fotolia "Hot Shots January 2011" Newsletter. Design - pretty much like Istock's.
Treatment of contributors - pretty much like Istock's.
Did I miss the news where it said: Getty bought Fotolia too?
-
It may also keep a few from dropping IS exclusivity.
Bingo. FT just gave istock a nice New Year's gift. Why drop the crown in favor of the competition when the competition is cutting rates too?
Kind of makes microstock in general start to look "unsustainable." Too many more of these cuts and I think I could call it quits and focus entirely on my design business.
exactly! its a crying shame since I reached Gold and was doing very well with FT. As if it wasnt enough theyve also changed their search and for the worse.
-
from 2007 (33%) to 2011 (20%).. this is unbelievable, how can they do this? instead of been once with contributors and tell IS they suck..
-
It kind of takes the WOT out of SWOT analysis, doesn't it? ;)
-
It may also keep a few from dropping IS exclusivity.
Bingo. FT just gave istock a nice New Year's gift. Why drop the crown in favor of the competition when the competition is cutting rates too?
Kind of makes microstock in general start to look "unsustainable." Too many more of these cuts and I think I could call it quits and focus entirely on my design business.
Bingo! Me too, I have already started getting my ducks in a row with my website upgrade and new print materials to start picking up new clients and start forgeting about microstock. I will probably still submit some macro stuff, but I have all but given up on micro.
I imagine the only way to turn this around is to have a union of sorts that can fight it as a whole, but we've discussed this before and it doesn't seem likely because the majority of microstockers are hobbyists and don't want to put in the effort and the ones who do make a living at this or at least a good portion of it (below the elite few mega ports) are a minority so they wouldn't have much say without the mega ports being on board like Yuri, Sean, Lise, Andres etc. but they really don't seem to care or want to cause any waves for themselves, because they don't really get touched in all these cuts as the agencies don't want to piss them off.. So the hobbyists don't really want to put in the effort and the big players I imagine don't want to fight for the other guy's so the small few in the middle that it really makes a difference to are kind of left out to dry even though the hobbyists are out to dry as well they don't care all that much.. It takes the contributors to make a difference as a whole but like it has been said so many times before it will not happen.. So we all watch and bitch as the micro ship sinks..
-
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
-
Think on the bright side people.
This move will surely eliminate some of your future competition if your already doing pretty well in micro. If your struggling, this hobby might not be worth your efforts anymore. Everyone acknowledges that this market has too much supply.
yes, money is the root of all evil.
-
So if I understand that * email correctly that all the peeps who are considered little fish (including myself) are getting screwed over while the ones that are on the top tier remain unaffected? Completely unfair to do that. At this rate those of us who are little fish won't ever get the chance to become big fish with all the cuts. I'm still stuck at the white level which is going to make it impossible to attain other levels then? It sure as hell isn't our fault people are reaching other levels too fast so why punish those of us sell but not a lot? Course I'm close to payout there and they do this. Now it's going to take me forever to reach the last $8.00 at this rate.
Are all files like say vectors taking a cut too? I get mainly subs and vector sales. I should probably go back and check the links in this thread. That would f'n suck.
Happy Screw Year...* tossers.
-
Cutting thro all the spin I blame the IS/Getty greed fest for this......
Oh well thats SS and Dreamstime getting my best work from now on! 2 DOWN 2 TO GO hope they hold out rather than follow like over zealous sheep ::)
-
Are all files like say vectors taking a cut too? I get mainly subs and vector sales. I should probably go back and check the links in this thread. That would f'n suck.
Happy Screw Year... tossers.
Here's a nice little bit of history:
http://microstock.sys-con.com/node/1225951 (http://microstock.sys-con.com/node/1225951)
I don't think that even mentions the 3% they knocked off royalties in 2009. Also, doesn't mention the vector price cut in 2009 when they switched to a 4-6-8 pricing model instead of all 8 credits.
-
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
and I believe some IS exclusives left and now this..
-
Every time percents get cut it seems we need a quickie math refresher for us number-challenged artists....for all those that are referring to this as a 5% cut...that is NOT correct. Your commission percent is 5% less, but to find out how much less your earnings would be simply divide your old percent by your new percent. For example if you are going from 25% to 20% that is 20/25=.80 or a 20% cut! So a 5 point drop in your overall commission really translates to 20% less earnings! That is a huge drop.
This is outrageous! Usually when any other company anounces record profits they also anounce a small raise for their employees not a pay-cut.
I think the only thing we can do short of forming an artists guild/union with price standards, would be to publicly thank and support those companies that have not made cuts. Could you imagine if in the wake of all these cuts if some company (DT or SS) had the nerve to actually raise commissions, you would see every single microstocker flock to their site immediately, its such a no brainer business decision you would have every single microstock photographer flocking to that site. You would instantly become the number one microstock site overnight. That is all it would take to have professional photographers start referring clients to your site. A 10% increase in commission's could easily bring way more than 10% more business to your site, not to mention what the positive vibe would do for word of mouth advertising and contributers productivity. Come on SS and dreamstime ...step to the plate...show us what you are really made of do you want to be number one or do you want to force your contributers to all quit uploading to micro and start applying to the macros...the amateur days are long over and the work is now good enough to be put up on macros who pay good commissions. Alamy is not even really a macro since it sells $5 images now and it still maintains giving their photographers 60% of the commission as opposed to 12% or whatever it is now. Fotolia just made the worst business decision ever! Just when disgruntled istockers were looking for other more fair agencies to go with they chose to be greedy.
Edit: for bad math earlier :-[
-
<.. snip..>
I think the only thing we can do short of forming an artists guild/union with price standards, would be to publicly thank and support those companies that have not made cuts. Could you imagine if in the wake of all these cuts if some company (DT or SS) had the nerve to actually raise commissions, you would see every single microstocker flock to their site immediately, its such a no brainer business decision you would have every single microstock photographer flocking to that site. You would instantly become the number one microstock site overnight. That is all it would take to have professional photographers start referring clients to your site. A 10% increase in commission's could easily bring way more than 10% more business to your site, not to mention what the positive vibe would do for word of mouth advertising and contributers productivity. Come on SS and dreamstime ...step to the plate...show us what you are really made of do you want to be number one or do you want to force your contributers to all quit uploading to micro and start applying to the macros...the amateur days are long over and the work is now good enough to be put up on macros who pay good commissions. Alamy is not even really a macro since it sells $5 images now and it still maintains giving their photographers 60% of the commission as opposed to 12% or whatever it is now. Fotolia just made the worst business decision ever! Just when disgruntled istockers were looking for other more fair agencies to go with they chose to be greedy.
exactly what I was thinking.
-
The worst cast scenario is this
Buyer buys credits in Euro with the smallest package size .. which is now 1.20 Euro /credit for 25 credits ($1.61860 USD/credit)
The buyer then buys an image from a white ranked photographer with a USA account and the photographer gets (with 2011 commissions) 20% of a credit, which is US$1.00, so $0.20
So the buyer spent $1.62 and the photographer gets $0.20 = 12.3%
Here is the blog post explaining it in a bit more detail ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/[/url]) with more calculations (albeit older numbers)
It's about time someone with a bit of web-programming skills come up with online calculator to calculate our real Fotolia comission %. We can check the US sales % in stats, put it in online calculator alone with Fotolia rank and have our real cut calculated.
-
Request to delete my Fotolia account sent. 38 euro credits forfeited. Whatever. One year into microstock sure has been waste of time, not many agencies left on my list.
-
Request to delete my Fotolia account sent. 38 euro credits forfeited. Whatever. One year into microstock sure has been waste of time, not many agencies left on my list.
Have they changed their policy on payout as well? With FT you could always request a payout even before you reach the payout amout, you just forfeited a percentage of your money.
Anyway, both FT and iS have changed from top agencies 3 years ago to about no 8 and 9 on my list now. Not woth uploading anymore. My top 3 are SS, Zoonar and DT at the moment (in that order).
-
I may be wrong, but did I notice correctly that the subscription royalties did NOT go down?
I cannot find the old charts, but right now (I'm gold) I get 0.33 and 0.38, and the new charts show the same.
If that's correct, then the lowering of the royalty % will only affect half of my sales (and probably everybody's sales), since about 50% of my Fotolia sales are subscriptions.
Wrong calculation?
-
Great, at 21267 downloads I was close to rising to emerald. The last time I got close they moved the target further away, and now I get shafted once again. I'm considering stopping all uploads to Fotolia, I haven't decided yet. If I didn't need the money I would take down my entire portfolio on both IS and FT. If I find a way to compensate for the potential drop in income, I will leave both sites altogether.
-
Im erasing over 1300 images over the weekend, so is another 5 to 8 Golds in Scandinavia, England and Germany. We will join up with IS. Why?? well for starters, why set the bar at Emeralds? cheaper then Gold on the stock-market, also, you cant trust the game any more. FT, made that an infamnia, which means an impossibillity to remain.
We had time over for IS, given the fact they were the first ones, this however? no! no way, its upstart mentality.
-
Im erasing over 1300 images over the weekend, so is another 5 to 8 Golds in Scandinavia, England and Germany. We will join up with IS. Why?? well for starters, why set the bar at Emeralds? cheaper then Gold on the stock-market, also, you cant trust the game any more. FT, made that an infamnia, which means an impossibillity to remain.
We had time over for IS, given the fact they were the first ones, this however? no! no way, its upstart mentality.
As a fellow gold I feel the opposite is true - for me, at least. All this commission cutting has shown me just how risky it is to go exclusive with any agency. You can't trust any of them, least of all IS.
-
Im erasing over 1300 images over the weekend, so is another 5 to 8 Golds in Scandinavia, England and Germany. We will join up with IS. Why?? well for starters, why set the bar at Emeralds? cheaper then Gold on the stock-market, also, you cant trust the game any more. FT, made that an infamnia, which means an impossibillity to remain.
We had time over for IS, given the fact they were the first ones, this however? no! no way, its upstart mentality.
It's a perfect domino effect for IS. IS cuts commissions, then others do the same and in the end more exclusive content falls into IS hands like ripe apples from a tree.
-
Im erasing over 1300 images over the weekend, so is another 5 to 8 Golds in Scandinavia, England and Germany. We will join up with IS. Why?? well for starters, why set the bar at Emeralds? cheaper then Gold on the stock-market, also, you cant trust the game any more. FT, made that an infamnia, which means an impossibillity to remain.
We had time over for IS, given the fact they were the first ones, this however? no! no way, its upstart mentality.
It's a perfect domino effect for IS. IS cuts commissions, then others do the same and in the end more exclusive content falls into IS hands like ripe apples from a tree.
Well good luck to them in that case, FT loss and IS gain! sorry but FT hasnt got the same clout as IS.
-
Are all files like say vectors taking a cut too? I get mainly subs and vector sales. I should probably go back and check the links in this thread. That would f'n suck.
Happy Screw Year... tossers.
Here's a nice little bit of history:
[url]http://microstock.sys-con.com/node/1225951[/url] ([url]http://microstock.sys-con.com/node/1225951[/url])
I don't think that even mentions the 3% they knocked off royalties in 2009. Also, doesn't mention the vector price cut in 2009 when they switched to a 4-6-8 pricing model instead of all 8 credits.
Okay that's just extremely confusing. Is there a way to tell if we have a 4, 6 or 8 vector? I'm gonna have to go look. *edit* I see it a lot of 4s and one 6 so far in my looking.
Which leads me to another question...is this effective now or at a later date?
-
We had time over for IS, given the fact they were the first ones, this however? no! no way, its upstart mentality.
From what I recall FT started this all - first they moved the goalposts to move up a level, then they dropped the commissions, then DT followed, then IS followed, now back to FT. will DT follow for round 2? I sure hope not.
Sorry if you meant IS was the first microstock, not the first to drop commissions.
-
I just hope Shutterstock will not do that. I am am almost certain Dreamstime will not do that (though who knows)
Didn't DT cut commissions last year? :-\
-
My fellow Aussies will know what I mean when I say "Not happy JAN !"
-
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
I remember it well. In fact it was the first thing I thought of when I heard FT cut commissions. Isn't this the point where May Hayward shows up to tell us about how great FT is, and how we should be exclusive with them?
-
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
I remember it well. In fact it was the first thing I thought of when I heard FT cut commissions. Isn't this the point where May Hayward shows up to tell us about how great FT is, and how we should be exclusive with them?
^^^ Hahaha..
I was thinking the same thing.. He's pretty quiet.. As well as in the FT forum.. Gues he's at a loss for words at this point, there's only so far you can go to try to play people for stupid, and try to sugar coat sh&%$..
-
Im erasing over 1300 images over the weekend, so is another 5 to 8 Golds in Scandinavia, England and Germany. We will join up with IS. Why?? well for starters, why set the bar at Emeralds? cheaper then Gold on the stock-market, also, you cant trust the game any more. FT, made that an infamnia, which means an impossibillity to remain.
We had time over for IS, given the fact they were the first ones, this however? no! no way, its upstart mentality.
It's a perfect domino effect for IS. IS cuts commissions, then others do the same and in the end more exclusive content falls into IS hands like ripe apples from a tree.
I think of it as if I had intended to stay an honest woman, but as I find myself on the streets and beaten by various pimps, the best option seems to be to find the biggest, ugliest, strongest pimp and hope he beats me the least :)
-
Just went and registered thevectorshop.com and vektorgrafik.dk
Looking forward to buying and setting up a ktools webshop and selling the images I created on my own premises. Even if it's just one sale a year, it's going to feel G-O-O-D whenever that happens.
What I once found fascinating and relieving about the microstock industry was the fact that I could earn money whenever I wanted, proportionally to my own performance. This dream of financial security in microstock is long gone, and with every sneaky commission cut I'm getting I feel more cautious and bitter. How is this going to keep me motivated to continue? I'm already struggling to keep up my own performance and feeling completely uninspired compared to a year ago, this won't help me.
At this point having a boss yell in my face and stressing me to perform better sounds attractive, because at least he won't cut my commission every month and make me CONSTANTLY worry about the future. Add to that my blood pressure would stabilize and I'd live 10 years longer. This is business, some might say, well it hurts me personally. They don't give a crap.
-
I'm here, I just don't think it's appropriate for me to chime in as I am still receiving a 54% commission on my sales. I can and do totally understand your frustration however as the cut in maximum prices for me in December had a significant impact on my income. I honestly would have considered going non-exclusive had IS not made the changes they did, I cannot comprehend receiving 15% at IS though, no matter how many more buyers they have. The timing of this FT change is a head-scratcher but I can honestly say I personally feel I've been treated very fair by FT. Sadly, there is just no perfect scenario anywhere for anyone in this industry that I can see right now.
Mat
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
I remember it well. In fact it was the first thing I thought of when I heard FT cut commissions. Isn't this the point where May Hayward shows up to tell us about how great FT is, and how we should be exclusive with them?
^^^ Hahaha..
I was thinking the same thing.. He's pretty quiet.. As well as in the FT forum.. Gues he's at a loss for words at this point, there's only so far you can go to try to play people for stupid, and try to sugar coat sh&%$..
-
I appreciate your candor Mat. You are right about declining options in this industry, which is why I feel it is imperative we look beyond this industry and leave it behind eventually.
-
Deleted post
-
They have been going down hill just the direction of Istock, I deleted my files from Istock years ago and today the last of my Fotolia files are gone. With their recent deal Deviantart there was just no point in leaving my files up there. My files haven't sold well there for over two years, no extended licenses lower prices all I sold were subs for less than SS.
Good luck to those who stay.
-
For example if you are going from 25% to 20% that is 25/20=1.25 so a 5 point drop in your overall commission really translates to 25% less earnings!
Erm - are you serious with your math? 25 % of 25 is 5? :D
-
I'm here, I just don't think it's appropriate for me to chime in as I am still receiving a 54% commission on my sales. I can and do totally understand your frustration however as the cut in maximum prices for me in December had a significant impact on my income. I honestly would have considered going non-exclusive had IS not made the changes they did, I cannot comprehend receiving 15% at IS though, no matter how many more buyers they have. The timing of this FT change is a head-scratcher but I can honestly say I personally feel I've been treated very fair by FT. Sadly, there is just no perfect scenario anywhere for anyone in this industry that I can see right now.
Mat
First of all, the best month I've ever had at Fotolia doesn't equal the worst week i've ever had at Istock. Fotolia is fast becoming a cut rate subs site anyway, so it's not that big a deal for the price cut to me. And second, isn't it nice to be able to mention other sites and really say what you think, in this forum at least. Unlike the soviet era forums at fotolia, for example.
-
And second, isn't it nice to be able to mention other sites and really say what you think, in this forum at least. Unlike the soviet era forums at fotolia, for example.
Haha good one.. all kinds of posts censored and deleted over there.. Kinda like Iran and China..
-
I think the only thing we can do short of forming an artists guild/union with price standards, would be to publicly thank and support those companies that have not made cuts. Could you imagine if in the wake of all these cuts if some company (DT or SS) had the nerve to actually raise commissions, you would see every single microstocker flock to their site immediately, its such a no brainer business decision you would have every single microstock photographer flocking to that site. You would instantly become the number one microstock site overnight.
The number one microstock site of what? The most contributors?
Here's the problem with this approach. Every site already has too many microstockers and images and adding more isn't the top priority for any of the top sites. It's only a priority for new sites that don't have any images and need contributors and images in order to attract buyers.
It's clear the agencies' top priorities are to A) increase revenue by attracting buyers, which is a struggle in today's economy, and B) increase profitability as quickly as possible which is easily done by reducing commissions. Money/sales/revenue/profitability drives their every decision. Make more sales, pay contributors less.
The more quickly contributors start thinking like an agency owner and less like a contributor the better off you'll be.
-
I think the only thing we can do short of forming an artists guild/union with price standards, would be to publicly thank and support those companies that have not made cuts. Could you imagine if in the wake of all these cuts if some company (DT or SS) had the nerve to actually raise commissions, you would see every single microstocker flock to their site immediately, its such a no brainer business decision you would have every single microstock photographer flocking to that site. You would instantly become the number one microstock site overnight.
The number one microstock site of what? The most contributors?
Here's the problem with this approach. Every site already has too many microstockers and images and adding more isn't the top priority for any of the top sites. It's only a priority for new sites that don't have any images and need contributors and images in order to attract buyers.
It's clear the agencies' top priorities are to A) increase revenue by attracting buyers, which is a struggle in today's economy, and B) increase profitability as quickly as possible which is easily done by reducing commissions. Money/sales/revenue/profitability drives their every decision. Make more sales, pay contributors less.
The more quickly contributors start thinking like an agency owner and less like a contributor the better off you'll be.
didn´t get what you are saying.. everybody should stop and leave so "gold/whatever" stay good?
I am not saying I don´t agree but I don´t see how that will be good current "low" contributors (I guess not that low once Gold are going down 6%) honestly I just think that will be nice to top earners but actually if only top contributors stay.. royalties would go up? most certaintly no
yep a lot of images etc this is not a problem for contributors, if they are approving nothing there.. contributors arent guilty of what is happening.. it is pure greed
-
Sadly, there is just no perfect scenario anywhere for anyone in this industry that I can see right now.
Definitely true. I think that is the reality that many of us are facing as the goalposts keep moving farther away. You have to make the best decisions for your own business.
-
Okay that's just extremely confusing. Is there a way to tell if we have a 4, 6 or 8 vector? I'm gonna have to go look. *edit* I see it a lot of 4s and one 6 so far in my looking.
Which leads me to another question...is this effective now or at a later date?
They price them according to complexity. Most EPS files get priced at 4 or 6 and very few are priced at 8. My point was that in 2008, they were all priced at 8 credits (now that is the top tier). In 2009, they switched from SVG files to EPS files and made that tiered pricing change. I stopped uploading for several months after the switch, then realized there was a loophole. If you upload an SVG file (no jpeg required), they will still be priced at 8 credits. I figured I'd share my secret since the majority of my portfolio went in the dumpster there today. ;D
-
For example if you are going from 25% to 20% that is 25/20=1.25 so a 5 point drop in your overall commission really translates to 25% less earnings!
Erm - are you serious with your math? 25 % of 25 is 5? :D
Wow! :-[ Holy crap, what was I thinking....I am really bad at math....it should have been 20/25 = .80 or 20% less in earnings 20% is still an enormous cut to my earnings.... warranting an exclamation point!
-
Reminded me of the investigative journalism by Amos in October last year... Fotolia Interview auf der Buchmesse über Honorarveränderungen, Polylooks und Stock Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFw9SR99E6g#ws) I was watching this thinking: I bet this guy is lying...
For those that don't understand the German... @ about 2:30 mins: "We're looking at the situation at the moment.... but we don't have any ambitions to change things in the near future" (in response to Amos' questions about the IS royalty cuts).
Despite the words, you watch this interview and how shifty the answers are (watch the guy's eyes when he answers the question) and get the impression that the real answer is "we'll continue to make whatever cuts to commissions that we think we can get away with." I didn't believe they'd do it quite this quickly, but doubt its the last round there - more like an annual event. Stay tuned for an announcement of annual targets there soon...
Sorry to the independents who are getting hurt by this. Even though this time round I'm not affected directly, I think its bad news for everyone in microstock.
-
I appreciate your candor Mat. You are right about declining options in this industry, which is why I feel it is imperative we look beyond this industry and leave it behind eventually.
My thoughts exactly... .
-
This move was actually very clever from Fotolia.
They upset mainly those with smaller portfolios and who produce lower quality images, while keeping the succesfull contributors which mostly have high quality images happy.
If those smaller contributors stop uploading out of protest or occassionaly delete their portfolios, Fotolia probably really does not care much about it.
Pretty much the way I think they are headed. This is the second time they have shafted the lower jewels and nipped percentages when people are about ready to move up to the next level.
Had anyone ever call this a donkey with a carrot? Oh yes, that was me. LOL :D
I think this is where I start handing out some i-told-ya-so's.
Please Do!
I think of it as if I had intended to stay an honest woman, but as I find myself on the streets and beaten by various pimps, the best option seems to be to find the biggest, ugliest, strongest pimp and hope he beats me the least :)
Nice analogy which leads to the only conclusion I could come up with. So you're staying with Getty now? LOL :D
Personally I'm still holding out for SS / BS to introduce an exclusive program and be done with all of this drama and change. Otherwise, I really feel like the serious IS exclusives are getting the best overall deal.
-
This move was actually very clever from Fotolia.
They upset mainly those with smaller portfolios and who produce lower quality images, while keeping the succesfull contributors which mostly have high quality images happy.
If those smaller contributors stop uploading out of protest or occassionaly delete their portfolios, Fotolia probably really does not care much about it.
The probably p*ssed off the upper-level contributors when they lowered possible maximum prices for higher level contributors - had they cut commissions from these contributors now, they would have risked loosing those contributors (at least several of them). So they slashed at the lower level ones. And I am afraid it is a general trend - to boot out small contributors/ hobbyists.
-
This move was actually very clever from Fotolia.
They upset mainly those with smaller portfolios and who produce lower quality images, while keeping the succesfull contributors which mostly have high quality images happy.
If those smaller contributors stop uploading out of protest or occassionaly delete their portfolios, Fotolia probably really does not care much about it.
The probably p*ssed off the upper-level contributors when they lowered possible maximum prices for higher level contributors - had they cut commissions from these contributors now, they would have risked loosing those contributors (at least several of them). So they slashed at the lower level ones. And I am afraid it is a general trend - to boot out small contributors/ hobbyists.
No its the opposite! contributors with thousands of shots in their ports doesnt at all automatically mean great images? it could be thousands of just generic, mediocre stuff. means nothing, quantity does no mean quality at all.
However, quanttity means the contributor is going to think very, very carefully before deleting or erazing images.
Friend of mine has got a port in the Getty-RM, just 250 shots, thats all but extremly unique material and selling for incredible amouts of money. Quantity means nothing, in that respect but its a safeguard that the contributor will probably stay on.
-
What did you expect? It's january - any january FT cuts comissions...and/or raise levels. That's their normal behavior.
-
No its the opposite! contributors with thousands of shots in their ports doesnt at all automatically mean great images? it could be thousands of just generic, mediocre stuff. means nothing, quantity does no mean quality at all.
However, quanttity means the contributor is going to think very, very carefully before deleting or erazing images.
Friend of mine has got a port in the Getty-RM, just 250 shots, thats all but extremly unique material and selling for incredible amouts of money. Quantity means nothing, in that respect but its a safeguard that the contributor will probably stay on.
I dare to disagree to some extend. Because other changes FT made are counterproductive to get more unique images. FT also introduced a filter that helps customers looking for newer images. What does that say to contributors? If I want to sell images for popular themes and I want mine to be found, I need to produce these kind of images on a very regular base. That doesn't mean these images will get better, no, more of the same will be flooding in that way. At least there is a big incentive to go back to work on themes that are popular, just to get images sold - and maybe also my older ones seen (because they may show up in "similar images by this artist"). So I am afraid this will be quantity raiser, but not neccessarily a quality raiser move. The only thing that may change is that hobbyists/ newbies won't join anymore - or at FT and Istock last, because they will first try where percentages for commissions are higher and FT and Istock are not attractive enough for these new talents.
-
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
I remember it well. In fact it was the first thing I thought of when I heard FT cut commissions. Isn't this the point where May Hayward shows up to tell us about how great FT is, and how we should be exclusive with them?
Little changed from September for emeralds...........except that perhaps min. credit has been revised from 5 to 3.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/why-i-love-fotolia (http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/why-i-love-fotolia)!/
-
Little changed from September for emeralds...........except that perhaps min. credit has been revised from 5 to 3.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/why-i-love-fotolia[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/why-i-love-fotolia[/url])!/
As well as ELS. I originally got 80$ per EL then it went to 74$ and now it has gone down to 37$. On the months where I get a few it makes a huge difference to earnings.
-
I would feel much better about this if we had some assurance from Fotolia admin that they do not intend to change the number of downloads needed to advance up a level in rank at any time in the foreseeable future. I'm close enough to emerald where I would be (very resentfully) willing put up with the pay cut until I reach emerald and get my old commission rate restored.
-
Just curious...do these agencies have sales teams? There is plenty in the announcement about increased marketing but anyone with direct sales experience knows that marketing doesn't amount to wren s**t without people working the phones and meeting face to face with the bean counters.
-
For Fotolia I can at least say that the German part of it has an office with a sales team. Whether or not that expanded since I saw it last (I visited the agency's Berlin office once a few years back) I do not know though.
-
I haven't had a sale since I got to within $5 of a payout. That was in early Nov.
-
I haven't had a sale since I got to within $5 of a payout. That was in early Nov.
I don't see your portfolio on FT at all - could be why no sales :) I tried searching for your user name when the link from the forum didn't work, but that said 0 files found.
Some of the other links in your forum bar no longer go to active portfolios - perhaps it needs an update to remove those no longer applicable?
-
I must say; upon my request to delete my account, Fotolia offered to pay out even though I have not reached minimum requirement yet. That is a completely different tune to when I closed my account at 123RF. Too bad about Fotolia, really, my images had just started to sell really well there.
-
I must say; upon my request to delete my account, Fotolia offered to pay out even though I have not reached minimum requirement yet. That is a completely different tune to when I closed my account at 123RF. Too bad about Fotolia, really, my images had just started to sell really well there.
Go back to them!! there is nothing wrong with FT! they got plenty of selling power and this cut in commissions, well thats just a few bucks, no more, worse is the carte blanche to all other agencies to do the same. Thats whats damaging, not the money.
Upload to them again, youre silly deleting an account for nothing really.
-
Go back to them!! there is nothing wrong with FT! they got plenty of selling power and this cut in commissions, well thats just a few bucks, no more, worse is the carte blanche to all other agencies to do the same. Thats whats damaging, not the money.
Upload to them again, youre silly deleting an account for nothing really.
Thank you for the advice, but no thanks.
I have now spent a year testing microstock as a contributor, and find that I do not feel comfortable with the business model. Too much is given away at too low prices and commissions are even declining. Feels like prostitution with age working in my disfavour. Unsustainable.
I am more comfortable with PODs, where my average $5 commission per sale only give use for that particular one time product. No carte blanche on use, no basically free use when downloaded. When the e.g. T-shirt is worn out, another one must be bought. Etc.
Other than that I’ll be focusing more on Alamy, other mid- and macrostock options and commissioned work. More focus on raising the bar on my photography skills, less on producing volume and uploading. I don’t care if sales volume is lower, or even if short term income is less. I feel more comfortable selling at prices more in tune with how I perceive my work's value.
Dreamstime, BS, Yay, GL, SF and some others will still be on the list (until they too slash commissions). Just to see how things go.
-
I must say; upon my request to delete my account, Fotolia offered to pay out even though I have not reached minimum requirement yet. That is a completely different tune to when I closed my account at 123RF. Too bad about Fotolia, really, my images had just started to sell really well there.
Go back to them!! there is nothing wrong with FT! they got plenty of selling power and this cut in commissions, well thats just a few bucks, no more, worse is the carte blanche to all other agencies to do the same. Thats whats damaging, not the money.
Upload to them again, youre silly deleting an account for nothing really.
There is nothing wrong with FT?!! Imho they're about the worst. They ban people and close their accounts when things are posted in their, or other forums which they dont like. They make a lot of sneaky changes and when contributors ask about that the reply is: "why? because we can" (that helpdesk reply is still floating around here somewhere). They have absolutely zero transparency and your commission part depends on where you registered (euro vs dollar). And the list goes on and on. This all BEFORE the istock fiasco. They and their incredible arrogance are the first one i ditched, and im still very happy i did.
-
I haven't had a sale since I got to within $5 of a payout. That was in early Nov.
I don't see your portfolio on FT at all - could be why no sales :) I tried searching for your user name when the link from the forum didn't work, but that said 0 files found.
Some of the other links in your forum bar no longer go to active portfolios - perhaps it needs an update to remove those no longer applicable?
That's weird. The links all have my user name "azurelaroux" listed. No idea why they wouldn't work.
-
That's weird. The links all have my user name "azurelaroux" listed. No idea why they wouldn't work.
Fotolia uses user #, not username. For example, this link to my portfolio works: http://us.fotolia.com/p/3824 (http://us.fotolia.com/p/3824).
-
http://google.com/#q=site:fotolia.com+azurelaroux (http://google.com/#q=site:fotolia.com+azurelaroux)
-
I just noticed that there was a thread at the FT forum about the cuts and it has removed... Typical FT!
-
I haven't noticed a change yet so does anyone know when this is supposed to take effect? I haven't seen a change in royalties with the downloads I've gotten since the announcement and I can't seem to find that information anywhere as it wasn't in the newsletter either.
-
I haven't noticed a change yet so does anyone know when this is supposed to take effect? I haven't seen a change in royalties with the downloads I've gotten since the announcement and I can't seem to find that information anywhere as it wasn't in the newsletter either.
this minute, just had one great 23%.. less than when I started at 25%.. just awesome!
-
It's live, had two sales today, both at the reduced rates. >:(
-
Yes - it's live. I just celebrated it with the first X-license in ages. $25 for me instead of $31 - well money isn't going to make me happy, anyway.
No, wait, that was at that other place... :P
-
I'm $5 shy of a payout. Guess I'll wait it out and then make a final decision once I hit that.
-
Maybe I did see it today. Had a sub sale for .25 but I've had that before this month. Ahhhh this is really friggen confusing. I too am close to payout so I'll wait as I need that money for bills.
-
The thread has been closed by Fotolia and I have been banned from the Forum for being a little bit to firm ..... no rule broken as far as I know (maybe they just made a new rule up !!).
I have to be careful what I say here as the last thing I want happening is my portfolio being pulled by them so will leave it at that ...... this is one of the reasons I havent posted here in a long time :-(
Take care ( all those who matter anyway!!)
Warren
-
The thread has been closed by Fotolia and I have been banned from the Forum for being a little bit to firm ..... no rule broken as far as I know (maybe they just made a new rule up !!).
I have to be careful what I say here as the last thing I want happening is my portfolio being pulled by them so will leave it at that ...... this is one of the reasons I havent posted here in a long time :-(
Take care ( all those who matter anyway!!)
Warren
I am disgusted how fotolia acts.
And 25% royalties is too low to motivate me to upload new images.
Also RPD at fotolia is lowest of all agencies where I am contributing.
-
The thread has been closed by Fotolia and I have been banned from the Forum for being a little bit to firm ..... no rule broken as far as I know (maybe they just made a new rule up !!).
I have to be careful what I say here as the last thing I want happening is my portfolio being pulled by them so will leave it at that ...... this is one of the reasons I havent posted here in a long time :-(
Which is why a number of long term contributors with good size portfolios are anonymous here - they don't want to put their income at risk given the extraordinarily broad notion FT has of what speech they should be able to control. It's not a good situation, but you're wise to be cautious.
-
Now I really noticed it with a new file upload. When I clicked on the extended license button it said 8 and not 10. Guess it's not just my imagination anymore.
Will see how things fair with them in the next few months. I'm due for the unsold files section come this June (2 years with no files sold) so I'm not making any decisions on anything.
I'm still having a hard time understanding the statistical data of how much it's going down. Can someone way smarter than me put something up that's in like dollars and cents? I've never been good with statistics esp. with percentages. What makes it harder is that they have so many different subscription models I can't figure out where I'm losing at.
-
Now I really noticed it with a new file upload. When I clicked on the extended license button it said 8 and not 10. Guess it's not just my imagination anymore.
Will see how things fair with them in the next few months. I'm due for the unsold files section come this June (2 years with no files sold) so I'm not making any decisions on anything.
I'm still having a hard time understanding the statistical data of how much it's going down. Can someone way smarter than me put something up that's in like dollars and cents? I've never been good with statistics esp. with percentages. What makes it harder is that they have so many different subscription models I can't figure out where I'm losing at.
your earnings have dropped by around 20% depending on what level you are at. So if you made $100/month you will now make $80 It is a bit more complicated than that but for the most part you will be losing 20 cents on the dollar.
-
Now I really noticed it with a new file upload. When I clicked on the extended license button it said 8 and not 10. Guess it's not just my imagination anymore.
Will see how things fair with them in the next few months. I'm due for the unsold files section come this June (2 years with no files sold) so I'm not making any decisions on anything.
I'm still having a hard time understanding the statistical data of how much it's going down. Can someone way smarter than me put something up that's in like dollars and cents? I've never been good with statistics esp. with percentages. What makes it harder is that they have so many different subscription models I can't figure out where I'm losing at.
your earnings have dropped by around 20% depending on what level you are at. So if you made $100/month you will now make $80 It is a bit more complicated than that but for the most part you will be losing 20 cents on the dollar.
Ahhhh that makes much more sense to me now. Thank you :)
-
Maybe its time for Leaf to update the chart again: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/)
Am I right in thinking that with the combination of FT increasing some credit prices and decreasing the percentage of $1 that they pay some contributors are now getting as low as 13% commissions?
-
I would feel much better about this if we had some assurance from Fotolia admin that they do not intend to change the number of downloads needed to advance up a level in rank at any time in the foreseeable future. I'm close enough to emerald where I would be (very resentfully) willing put up with the pay cut until I reach emerald and get my old commission rate restored.
There's a steady increase in that anyway, as there seem to be gradually more and more subscription DLs in the mix and you need four times as many of those as you do credit downloads to get allowed one "download credit" towards your rank.
I see that 24 out of my last 100 downloads were on credits, so that moved me towards the next rank by 24 + 76/4 = 43credit dls. If my sales are average you have to multiply the sales requirements for every level by 2.3
So only fairly serious contributors will get to silver 2,300dl and hardly any will get to gold 23,000dl, let alone emerald (c.60,000dl).
I'm about 10,000 sales short of gold and I'm among the top 1,000 on Fotolia and it will take me two or three years to get to the next level and another decade to reach emerald (by which time they will certainly have put it further out of reach).
-
I'm Silver too. And wow what a pleasant surprise these days when XL sales went drastically from $2.48 to $2.00!!
-
I've deleted part of my Fotolia portfolio and not going to upload new content. Also asked their support to make all of my images unavailable for Extended license sale. Wasn't it enough that most of my buyers are non-US paying in euro and I'm getting my % in $ ? It's not even peanuts now, it's a peanuts shell. >:(
-
I'm Silver too. And wow what a pleasant surprise these days when XL sales went drastically from $2.48 to $2.00!!
Wow! I guess that is about 20%. It looks more dramatic when you look at it like that. I used to get a ton of those for 8 credit vector sales. That makes me feel better about my decision to leave FT.
-
I think there is a lot of problem with Fotolia, I don't like decrease of royalties, and I don't like subscription (but when subscriptions come no one tell about it's not good). But when some people kill their content or stop uploading new content, I'm not sure there is anyone of Fotolia top manager know. And unfortunatly I don't know how to force Fotolia do their changes back. Anyone knows?
Killing all photos, part of photos, stopping of upload - I think it's doesn't matter for Fotolia, when it do just a few people... Any idea of real method?
-
IMHO, the only way to stop microstocks (not only fotolia) from becoming too greedy is a mass photo deleting/stopping uploads and the public reaction of the top contributors. By doing nothing we're just encouraging them.
-
IMHO, the only way stop microstocks (not only fotolia) to stop from becoming too greedy is a mass photo deleting/stopping uploads and the public reaction of the top contributors. By doing nothing we're just encouraging them.
It'll never happen.
-
never say never.
It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.
-
never say never.
It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.
Never.
There are too many people involved, with too many different motivators. Microstock began with hobbyists receiving little or no money for their/our work. If it returns to its origins, I bet there are plenty of new hobbyists who'll replace those of us who decide we've had enough. Personally, I'll abandon agencies that get too greedy, but I know that's only to make myself feel like less of a patsy. I'm a drop of rain to Fotolia, and my departure will go unnoticed.
-
I think the problem is not only low commission, Main problem is that with these steps Fotolia, Istock and other agencies who decide to make such action will Kill Mickrostock business.
What I mean? As many others contributors who are affected from last changes in royalty structure I decide to stop uploading. But there are many other people mostly from poor countries and the "third world" who dont really care about the price, they can live with 100$ per month and that is Ok for them. So, if few contributors stop uploading, many other will come - but lets be honest competition will slow, quality of images will drop, therefore Byers will disappear and this excellent opportunity for graphic artists and photographers - mickrostock will crash.
I have few ideas about what we can do about Fotolia (and Istock) greed.
- Make petition
- Ask directly top contributors to join Us (not only complaining in forums that they did not support us)
- Write a "Open Letter" to Fotolia administration about our opinion.
What I mean when I say "Open letter" - a letter addressed not only to Fotolia, but to buyers and partners of Fotolia, they should know whats going on - that many contributors stop serving Fotolia and they (buyers) can find new content created by these contributors in Dreamstime, Shutterstock and other agencies with fair attitude to people. This letter can be published in all possible places in internet personal blogs, forums and etc.
- Make photo/design contest with subject "Fotolia greed" and spread images all over the net
- and off course stop uploading :)
I posted this clip time age, but unfortunately its still actually
Al Pacino's Inspirational Speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk#)
-
never say never.
It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.
Which outcome is more likely: Enough contributors boycott an agency to make a dent in their bottom line, or enough contributors always support an agency enough to keep them from feeling the effects of a boycott?
Agencies know which outcome is more likely, and that's why they're behaving this way. They know that there will always be enough contributors left when the dust settles.
We can't change what these companies are doing. Not now, not ever. The agencies know they have all the power and can do whatever they want. This is the new reality of microstock.
-
Maybe its time for Leaf to update the chart again: [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])
Am I right in thinking that with the combination of FT increasing some credit prices and decreasing the percentage of $1 that they pay some contributors are now getting as low as 13% commissions?
12.3% actually
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-cuts-commissions-again/msg180662/#msg180662 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-cuts-commissions-again/msg180662/#msg180662)
-
Shouldn't we be kicking them back where it hurts the most? In their wallet and their pride?
If we had a union they would likely be doing this already. A well crafted statement (advertisement) in specific publications clearly stating how these agencies are treating their artist (the words raping and pillaging come to mind ;)). I dont even know what the publications would be Layers, GDUSA?
We would need the publications that creatives/artists read. Creatives will feel our pain - if we tell a creative that our commissions have been reduced by (20%) - that the agencies keep as much as 85% of the licensing fees, and that whenever they feel so inclined they take more and more and more - it will get their attention. We could point out the offenders and we could point out the agencies we feel fair. They will be left to draw their own conclusions and shop where they would like to spend their dollars.
When I worked in Film and Television and read the trades this was very common, and it wasn't just the unions that would place a full page advert in Variety to get your attention when there was a big issue.
-
I think the problem is not only low commission, Main problem is that with these steps Fotolia, Istock and other agencies who decide to make such action will Kill Mickrostock business...
Absolutely agree with every word.
Which outcome is more likely: Enough contributors boycott an agency to make a dent in their bottom line, or enough contributors always support an agency enough to keep them from feeling the effects of a boycott?
I doubt that agency can keep enough loyal contributors for a long time by permanent infringe contributor's interests. And in the end, as Marinini said: competition will slow, quality of images will drop, therefore Byers will disappear and this excellent opportunity for graphic artists and photographers - mickrostock will crash.
R.I.P.)))
-
IMHO, the only way stop microstocks (not only fotolia) to stop from becoming too greedy is a mass photo deleting/stopping uploads and the public reaction of the top contributors. By doing nothing we're just encouraging them.
It'll never happen.
... and they know it.
-
Again!!!!
They cut commissions few days ago, why again!? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Your target (microstock submitters) is wrong.
Agencies exist because of buyers.
Give buyers what they need elsewhere, and they drop those agencies what you don't like.
Look in the history. Slavery didn't ended because slaves stopped working, but because there were people who stood up and made other people understand that it's not ethical to benefit from slaves work.
-
Your target (microstock submitters) is wrong.
Agencies exist because of buyers.
Give buyers what they need elsewhere, and they drop those agencies what you don't like.
Look in the history. Slavery didn't ended because slaves stopped working, but because there were people who stood up and made other people understand that it's not ethical to benefit from slaves work.
Point taken, but there is no obvious place for contributors to take their work. Even the agencies who get highest marks from contributors have reduced commissions to increase their share of the take. I can't think of one agency (not even SS) who hasn't done this. And I'm not counting minuscule agencies with no marketing budget who give 90% to the photographer as 90% of almost-zero is still almost-zero.
When the microstock end of the business was new and agencies needed images, contributors had more leverage. Now that there is real money in it, all the agencies want a bigger piece of the pie and are not as motivated to keep contributors happy.
We (contributors) are both beneficiaries and victims of microstock's sucess.
-
Marinini and Pixart -> your ideas seem very plausible and DOABLE.
Maybe consider creating a new thread in the general forum ? Here they may get unnoticed...
Cheers,
-
Point taken, but there is no obvious place for contributors to take their work. Even the agencies who get highest marks from contributors have reduced commissions to increase their share of the take.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. (I'm not very good in English, sorry.) When we spend long hours to invite and convince contributors to fight against greedy agencies, it possibly might turn out just lots of wasted energy. It's much better to focus the energy into figuring out what could be that "other place" (a new business model?), where contributors could take their work, find customers and get fair pay.
-
We deleted our port at FT in March of 2009 because of credit card fraud, mass rejections, incorrect crediting on our account and other such things.
As tempting as it has been to re-activate our account and grab some money, it's topics like this that make me glad that I never did. Money doesn't buy happiness, ethical treatment does.
-
And I'm not counting minuscule agencies with no marketing budget who give 90% to the photographer as 90% of almost-zero is still almost-zero.
Well, if you started promoting those agencies a little more they might actually sell more. I think people forget some of the biggest advertisers for these micros is us contributors. I've sent plenty of traffic to these agencies with links, referrals and affiliates. Maybe, you can't just will something to happen, but you can certainly be proactive in trying to make it happen.
-
How's this one. quote from fotolia forum. Yeah they screwed us over again lets make them the best. what ? I thought there were some ass kissers at Istock but this one takes the cake.
"There are a couple of ways we can treat this, either get fed up and give up and just stop uploading or delete our portfolios which seems a shame after all the work that has gone into them or do totally the opposite.
If we continue to upload, and make those images that we do upload the best we can do then we will make Fotolia somewhere that the buyers/licencees want to come and the more that come and buy, the more of our images will be sold, it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases but imagine that, as the UK government keeps telling us - "things may get worse before they get better" but they will get better, they always do it just takes time and a lot of effort.
I think I will treat this as a challenge rather than just accept it as a defeat and try and start shooting again so I can replace some of those images that the rest of you are deleting or not uploading "
-
I'm just shocked that they believe what governments tell them. :D
-
"...it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases ... "
The element the quoted poster is missing is that the cuts were not done because Fotolia or the market had hit hard times, but rather the opposite. It was because the business was doing so well that they made the earlier cuts, increase in downloads required to get various levels and the current cuts.
I don't see any reason to believe that FT (or IS - the grand copycat of FT in this particular regard) will reverse the cuts unless they are hard up for images at some point in the future.
-
The element the quoted poster is missing is that the cuts were not done because Fotolia or the market had hit hard times, but rather the opposite. It was because the business was doing so well that they made the earlier cuts, increase in downloads required to get various levels and the current cuts.
I don't see any reason to believe that FT (or IS - the grand copycat of FT in this particular regard) will reverse the cuts unless they are hard up for images at some point in the future.
It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.
-
It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.
I agree with you about iStock, but don't see it in Fotolia's actions. Feels more to me like they're seeing how much abuse we'll take before it affects their business. This is after all not the first time they've cut our royalties. And they offered sweetheart deals to iStock exclusives that the rest of us will never see. Unlike iStock, Fotolia management has never pretended to be anything but greedy *insult removed*, at least after those long ago days when Chad was being friendly with the supplier community. Haven't heard much from him in recent years, have we?
-
How's this one. quote from fotolia forum. Yeah they screwed us over again lets make them the best. what ? I thought there were some ass kissers at Istock but this one takes the cake.
"There are a couple of ways we can treat this, either get fed up and give up and just stop uploading or delete our portfolios which seems a shame after all the work that has gone into them or do totally the opposite.
If we continue to upload, and make those images that we do upload the best we can do then we will make Fotolia somewhere that the buyers/licencees want to come and the more that come and buy, the more of our images will be sold, it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases but imagine that, as the UK government keeps telling us - "things may get worse before they get better" but they will get better, they always do it just takes time and a lot of effort.
I think I will treat this as a challenge rather than just accept it as a defeat and try and start shooting again so I can replace some of those images that the rest of you are deleting or not uploading "
Is that like drinking yourself sober? ;D
-
never say never.
It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.
Never.
There are too many people involved, with too many different motivators. Microstock began with hobbyists receiving little or no money for their/our work. If it returns to its origins, I bet there are plenty of new hobbyists who'll replace those of us who decide we've had enough. Personally, I'll abandon agencies that get too greedy, but I know that's only to make myself feel like less of a patsy. I'm a drop of rain to Fotolia, and my departure will go unnoticed.
There won't be mass boycott unless something really drastic happens. Like if they do major commission cut.
What is probably already happening is that top contributors are looking for other sources of income because they can see this is becoming less sustainable and are getting scared. Mid-level hobbyists are already backing off uploading because it's becoming a waste of time. And snaptshooters don't care and will continue uploading sunsets.
After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?
-
There won't be mass boycott unless something really drastic happens. Like if they do major commission cut.
What is probably already happening is that top contributors are looking for other sources of income because they can see this is becoming less sustainable and are getting scared. Mid-level hobbyists are already backing off uploading because it's becoming a waste of time. And snaptshooters don't care and will continue uploading sunsets.
After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?
So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?
-
There won't be mass boycott unless something really drastic happens. Like if they do major commission cut.
What is probably already happening is that top contributors are looking for other sources of income because they can see this is becoming less sustainable and are getting scared. Mid-level hobbyists are already backing off uploading because it's becoming a waste of time. And snaptshooters don't care and will continue uploading sunsets.
After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?
So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?
Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.
-
So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?
Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.
wasnt that what the reduced RC target levels were for?
-
The only way "revenge" can be taken is when 90% of the independent contributor from IS and FT delete their portfolio.
And that will only happen when SS offers exclusivity.
-
So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?
Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.
wasnt that what the reduced RC target levels were for?
That was a little anesthetic to ease the pain of the cut. They haven't hit the artery yet.
-
The only way "revenge" can be taken is when 90% of the independent contributor from IS and FT delete their portfolio.
And that will only happen when SS offers exclusivity.
I can't see SS ever offering exclusivity. They just don't care about premium or exclusive stuff - only about having a regular supply of new images to keep subscribers happy. They have nothing to gain - they actually make more the fewer images a subscriber downloads every month.
-
Delete image.... delete image... I know it's symbolic but it still makes me feel good in the morning.
-
...I set some goals for me for 2011. I son't see them happening. This is sickening. I'm really seriously thinking about dumping microstock alltogether, I haven't seen any macros pulling stunts like these (IS, FT)
...
Hahahah... are you serious? Maybe it's because you don't sell through them? The trad boards are pretty much up in arms, as is the trad shooters that come into the shop... "Web Licence" on Getty = $4.99 (or something to that effect) Getty selling iStock, Corbis marketing trad and micro together through Veer... All eating into the Trad markets and sales...
One of our customers said he dropped 75% since Getty bought IS...
-
Microstock began with hobbyists receiving little or no money for their/our work. If it returns to its origins, I bet there are plenty of new hobbyists who'll replace those of us who decide we've had enough.
The one thing wrong with that assumption is that at the beginning hobbyists had an incentive to keep going. We uploaded cr*p images and they promptly downloaded five or six times a month to give us $1 a month per image in income from just one site. It felt good and it was rewarding. That was when there were 100,000 microstock images for sale worldwide. The same image today would get zero earnings so there would be no incentive for the hobbyist to submit any more. The "newbies" who make money now are trained pros with studios, lights and perfect technique who decide they want a slice of the cake.
-
After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?
This is the good part, actually. When it will happen, they'll either have to change or die. And if they die, there's plenty of other agencies ready to replace them: just to screw us again in 3 years of course, but who cares? good while it lasts.
-
agencies ready to replace them: just to screw us again in 3 years of course, but who cares? good while it lasts.
I care. Or I will if every three years I have to go to new agencies and upload thousands and thousands of images and keyword and categorise them all.
-
Istock price policy : Reloaded
I just hope the other agencies doesn't get the same ideas (really) soon!
This business will be about the top performes and the really poor people, who can get by with 10-15% ... sadly ...
-
" what a good thing for governments, that people do not think"
-adolf hitler-
-
I got an EL on Fotolia the other day-- they got 20 and I got 4.60.
-
I got an EL on Fotolia the other day-- they got 20 and I got 4.60.
pull them a little up Ali
-
It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.
I agree with you about iStock, but don't see it in Fotolia's actions. Feels more to me like they're seeing how much abuse we'll take before it affects their business. This is after all not the first time they've cut our royalties. And they offered sweetheart deals to iStock exclusives that the rest of us will never see. Unlike iStock, Fotolia management has never pretended to be anything but greedy *insult removed*, at least after those long ago days when Chad was being friendly with the supplier community. Haven't heard much from him in recent years, have we?
Agreed with a slight modification. They are making all they can now, because the model is failing and they might not be raking in the big profits in the future. They don't have to worry about selling, there may be no buyers for a dying concept, they need to worry about staying in business.
This is a Qwerty Quote but he didn't write it, it was quote from the FT forums. "If we continue to upload, and make those images that we do upload the best we can do then we will make Fotolia somewhere that the buyers/licencees want to come and the more that come and buy, the more of our images will be sold, it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases but imagine that, as the UK government keeps telling us - "things may get worse before they get better" but they will get better, they always do it just takes time and a lot of effort."
This person needs to wake up that FT is never going to increase anything and is more likely to go out of business and leave the market, than be sold or ever raise commissions again.
Gostwyk: Would you buy a business that's losing income year after year, losing market share, losing contributors and could go out of business? Is that something you would see as a good investment? I don't think that FT is raising short term income and pumping up profits for a sale, because the only way someone would buy it, would be for them to be a complete fool and not look at the books to see the truth. Do you really think someone would spend millions on a dying business that has scammed their profits to look better than they are?
-
The element the quoted poster is missing is that the cuts were not done because Fotolia or the market had hit hard times, but rather the opposite. It was because the business was doing so well that they made the earlier cuts, increase in downloads required to get various levels and the current cuts.
I don't see any reason to believe that FT (or IS - the grand copycat of FT in this particular regard) will reverse the cuts unless they are hard up for images at some point in the future.
It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.
Pretty obvious where this was going when Mr. Bridewell appeared on the forum under his newly adopted handle, 'THE CHAD'. Admittedly, he was quite early in this, as only recently does one see references on financial sites to THE BEN BERNANKE and THE GOLDMAN SACHS. ;D