MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: click_click on April 18, 2012, 19:55
-
I've been Emerald for about 2 years now and at some point this rule was enforced that if our images have been set to 2+ credits for the smallest size (which probably every Emerald+ did anyway) but didn't get enough/regular downloads, they will be demoted to 1 credit.
I'm particularly surprised about files that get downloaded fairly regularly but somehow "earned" a 1 credit ranking. I try to monitor them as best as I can to switch them back to 2 asap.
But what I really don't understand is that some of my files that I uploaded 4 or 5 years ago that have only 1 or 2 downloads, still are listed with 2 credits and that can't be right. I mean, I'd contact Fotolia to have it investigated but I'm afraid that it will turn out to be all changed into their favor.
Did anyone else experience something along these lines?
-
I checked, but I don't have the impression that Fotolia changed anything from 2 to 1. I must say "impression", because I have chosen my 2-credit-files based on number of downloads combined with "uniqueness", and I don't have a list of them (and what I feel as "unique" can change over time).
-
offtopic: click_click is it possible you're the only one with more DLs at DT than FT (judging by your speedometers)?
-
offtopic: click_click is it possible you're the only one with more DLs at DT than FT (judging by your speedometers)?
When I was on Fotolia it always lagged way, way behind DT for sales, like 10 to 1.
-
offtopic: click_click is it possible you're the only one with more DLs at DT than FT (judging by your speedometers)?
When I was on Fotolia it always lagged way, way behind DT for sales, like 10 to 1.
Ooops, I messed it up, I meant DT vs IS (according to speedometers). Funnily, they were always on par for me, in the first year or so sales were identical, I was always getting to the payout at the same time. Now FT is getting me 20-100% more
-
offtopic: click_click is it possible you're the only one with more DLs at DT than FT (judging by your speedometers)?
No, I have more sales at FT than DT, why would you think that I have more sales at DT than FT?
-
offtopic: click_click is it possible you're the only one with more DLs at DT than FT (judging by your speedometers)?
No, I have more sales at FT than DT, why would you think that I have more sales at DT than FT?
I messed it up, pls read my previous post ;)
-
Ooops, I messed it up, I meant DT vs IS (according to speedometers). Funnily, they were always on par for me, in the first year or so sales were identical, I was always getting to the payout at the same time. Now FT is getting me 20-100% more
Oh, so you wanted to know whether I have more sales at DT than IS? I joined IS several years after DT so I'm still in the process of uploading my portfolio at IS. Therefore my speedos are looking funky.
-
Ooops, I messed it up, I meant DT vs IS (according to speedometers). Funnily, they were always on par for me, in the first year or so sales were identical, I was always getting to the payout at the same time. Now FT is getting me 20-100% more
Oh, so you wanted to know whether I have more sales at DT than IS? I joined IS several years after DT so I'm still in the process of uploading my portfolio at IS. Therefore my speedos are looking funky.
Yes, that makes sense. Because usually the ratio between IS:DT is somewhere between 1:4 and 1:5 (but usually ppl with lots of DLs have lots of images selling at the higher levels so their RPD is a lot better than at IS)
-
Yes, that makes sense. Because usually the ratio between IS:DT is somewhere between 1:4 and 1:5 (but usually ppl with lots of DLs have lots of images selling at the higher levels so their RPD is a lot better than at IS)
It's a close call for me, especially since DT introduced this trial pricing at the moment, so even with less dls at DT I'm pretty close to IS's royalties.
-
I've been Emerald for about 2 years now and at some point this rule was enforced that if our images have been set to 2+ credits for the smallest size (which probably every Emerald+ did anyway) but didn't get enough/regular downloads, they will be demoted to 1 credit.
I'm particularly surprised about files that get downloaded fairly regularly but somehow "earned" a 1 credit ranking. I try to monitor them as best as I can to switch them back to 2 asap.
But what I really don't understand is that some of my files that I uploaded 4 or 5 years ago that have only 1 or 2 downloads, still are listed with 2 credits and that can't be right. I mean, I'd contact Fotolia to have it investigated but I'm afraid that it will turn out to be all changed into their favor.
Did anyone else experience something along these lines?
Their "demoting" does seem random to me too! I know what you mean. I don't try to understand their system, they are well known to do whatever they please without proper explanations - but yes looking at some other contribotors' portfolios (like Yuri's:)) you see files that's been around for a few years, had a couple of dls and are still in higher price range. On the other hands, I have files with more than a 100 dls that are demoted to "1". Today this one got sold: http://us.fotolia.com/id/838141 (http://us.fotolia.com/id/838141) 78 dls and demoted to a 1 credit ranking.
So whatever system they use, it's either way more complicated than they claim it to be, or totally random.
The thing is I don't understand why they are doing it. As soon as I am able to bump up the price again, the image goes on selling just fine. Lowering the prices doesn't bring more sales. Both the agency and the contributor end up with less money for no good reason; Fotolia claim that they have to bring down prices because of competition doesn't hold water since number of sales are not affected by that; maybe they should rethink their advertising strategy instead.
-
... As soon as I am able to bump up the price again, the image goes on selling just fine. Lowering the prices doesn't bring more sales...
I feel the same about that and my experience is also like yours. I bump them back up, a day later they sell, go figure.
I can even understand that a former good seller might have lost its commercial value and begins to sink, so a demotion may be "in order" but why are files that sold twice in 5 years still at a higher level?
-
... As soon as I am able to bump up the price again, the image goes on selling just fine. Lowering the prices doesn't bring more sales...
I feel the same about that and my experience is also like yours. I bump them back up, a day later they sell, go figure.
I can even understand that a former good seller might have lost its commercial value and begins to sink, so a demotion may be "in order" but why are files that sold twice in 5 years still at a higher level?
Well, like I said noone knows what kind of system they are using, but it's out of our hands anyway. You can ask them why, and they they'd go - oh right, we should be demoting those too... :)
-
How do you guys manage to keep track of what images are eligible to be bumped back up?
-
How do you guys manage to keep track of what images are eligible to be bumped back up?
Lisa, by painfully looking at each recently sold one and seeing if the price can be adjusted... it's a great way to procrastinate and avoid doing retouching work on new images:)
-
How do you guys manage to keep track of what images are eligible to be bumped back up?
Lisa, by painfully looking at each recently sold one and seeing if the price can be adjusted... it's a great way to procrastinate and avoid doing retouching work on new images:)
Oh... Ouch! Painful indeed. I seem to be finding other ways to procrastinate ;D
Thanks for the answer, Elena.
-
For top performers this is some sort of masochistic way to get through the day.
I go through the list once a day and that's it. Sometimes it's really worth doing.
-
I'm kinda sorry I asked. Just spent the better part of an hour going through my last 500 sales. I found maybe 15 that were able to be bumped up. Just enough to keep going, but not enough to keep me from tearing my hair out ;)
From here on out I will try to do it each day or couple of days so I don't have to spend a large block of time on it.
One thing I noticed that was frustrating, is that some of these images have a LOT of sales, just maybe not in the last 6 months. Some are my best sellers elsewhere and continue to sell regularly. Kind of discouraging that some of my best selling images are getting buried on FT and not seen.
-
I've noticed the same thing.
Seems like the demoted ones just aren't getting enough views to sell anymore, so I won't be able to bump them back up.
And I'm wondering if something has happened to FT today. Change in best match? My FT total so far this morning is down about 80% from a typical weekday. Anyone else seeing this? I'm hoping it's just a delay in reporting.
-
All this procrastination, sounds like bloody hard work to me.
-
it might be quicker to load your fotolia portfolio and sort by 'popular' and 'most download' and make sure those files are at 2 credits. You can easily see in the search results what the price is. That way you are sure to at least update the images which would make the biggest difference in terms of sales.
-
it might be quicker to load your fotolia portfolio and sort by 'popular' and 'most download' and make sure those files are at 2 credits. You can easily see in the search results what the price is. That way you are sure to at least update the images which would make the biggest difference in terms of sales.
Very good suggestion. That should help get me through my backlog :)
-
I didnt see any differance in sales then but now, some time later, I have to admit, sales are way down. I dont know what they are doing really, is it the sale of the company which has an effect or what?
The best match, seems to be just about the same, or is it?
All I know is, during the last 2 weeks, sales are terrible and for no reason?
anybody?
-
My dls have actually gone up a bit the last couple of weeks but so many subs that earnings are still just as bad.
-
I didnt see any differance in sales then but now, some time later, I have to admit, sales are way down. I dont know what they are doing really, is it the sale of the company which has an effect or what?
The best match, seems to be just about the same, or is it?
All I know is, during the last 2 weeks, sales are terrible and for no reason?
anybody?
Fiddled with the search. Newer uploads are being bumped up to the first pages of the ordinary search. Search any subject in the default setting and mostly images with 41,40 starting digits appear. To see the 'old' best sellers you'll need to change from 'relevance' to 'downloads'. Take a look at this page for Yuri's image:
http://en.fotolia.com/id/17954443 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/17954443)
All the 'suggestions' and 'similia' are very recent uploads (and most are neither sensible as 'suggestions' or in any way 'similar').
People must have been complaining that their new uploads just weren't being seen, so they turned everything upside down and show only new work ( thinned down a little by their insertion of 'infinity' images; the price of which only serves to induce apoplectic fits in potential, budget-minded buyers)!
-
All the 'suggestions' and 'similia' are very recent uploads (and most are neither sensible as 'suggestions' or in any way 'similar').
People must have been complaining that their new uploads just weren't being seen, so they turned everything upside down and show only new work ( thinned down a little by their insertion of 'infinity' images; the price of which only serves to induce apoplectic fits in potential, budget-minded buyers)!
The more likely answer is that Fotolia wants to bury the high-priced, high-commissioned work of Emeralds and above, because they make less money on those. Perhaps they think that if a customer initially sees a lot of images at high prices, they will flee to a site offering the same or similar images for half the price. So by showing newest stuff first, they ensure only the cheap stuff sells... another way of punishing Emeralds who are supporting the "cheap" sites. (Remember the email?)
-
All the 'suggestions' and 'similia' are very recent uploads (and most are neither sensible as 'suggestions' or in any way 'similar').
People must have been complaining that their new uploads just weren't being seen, so they turned everything upside down and show only new work ( thinned down a little by their insertion of 'infinity' images; the price of which only serves to induce apoplectic fits in potential, budget-minded buyers)!
The more likely answer is that Fotolia wants to bury the high-priced, high-commissioned work of Emeralds and above, because they make less money on those. Perhaps they think that if a customer initially sees a lot of images at high prices, they will flee to a site offering the same or similar images for half the price. So by showing newest stuff first, they ensure only the cheap stuff sells... another way of punishing Emeralds who are supporting the "cheap" sites. (Remember the email?)
I fear you could be right on this one, in which case that would explain the plumeting of sales. Its a crazy move because bona-fide commercial sellers will attract attention, new files are thirteen to the dozen and after 10 pages of that, buyers will move on anyway.
Well I made myself a promise in the beginning of the year and that was: no more supporting sites that deliberatly induce sabotage.
FT, has been good to me for the last couple of years, so it would be a pitty.
-
Lower raked contributors like me have also seen a sales slump. Perhaps all the istock exclusives that went non-exclusive have hit our earnings? The commission cuts have really made a difference to me. Some people must be still doing OK with them, as they're above DT in the earnings poll. They used to be above DT for me but now they're nowhere near.
-
On one hand I still see my best sellers on page 1 when I do a search, on the other hand, May is the first month this year that I had -15% growth compared to last year (compared to an average of +10% growth in the first 4 months of 2012). Let's see what June brings, though as a good pessimist, I expect further decline.