I hope he steals one idea from IS to FT.  Not the CV, but the more decent credits subs plan!

What do you not like about the CV ?

Funny that that happened after just recently iStock hired one of the guys who ran Fotolia Germany 

That's what i was thinking.  Everyone is jumping to the other side

... iStockphoto and and Fotolia, which were both launched around the same time  ...

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/06/co-founder-of-istockphoto-joins-rival-fotolia-as-new-ceo/

Istockphoto was founded in spring 2000
Fotolia was founded in late 2005

I wouldn't exactly call that 'launched around the same time' ... Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Bigstock, Canstock etc... were all well before Fotolia.

Fotolia's prices are indeed cheaper, but their royalties are significantly higher to non-exclusives - which is most of their contributor base.  They start you at 30%, I believe.  As an emerald (roughly equivalent to istock's diamond) get 38% plus was able to double my prices. 

So ITLR for most people the RPI is higher at Fotolia then IS, even with the lower prices.  My RPI on istock is 1.10 and 1.55 on Fotolia.  For a Fotolia exclusive the payout starts at 41% for white level and goes up to 61% for diamond level. 

And yes, they do have subscriptions, and yes that sucks.  But at least I get a guaranteed .35/DL and they count 1/4 toward new levels.

Lisa, I have to agree, the contributors share is better at Fotolia - currently.

I was more concerned with the main message of that statement being who is cheaper. If that is the most important diffentiating factor (or even the only one) I am disappointed.

I would love to see the micros (all of them!!) being able to raise prices. I believe there is room for that and customers wouldn't buy significantly less if prices were doubled or tripled.
Of course that only works if the majority of agencies goes that road. And the big ones are the ones that can lead them there.

But if the big agencies decide to compete on price, that will not happen.

And Fotolia recently has lowered commissions. An aggressive price war to gain market share would just be an "excuse" to do so again.

Quote from: dirkr on May 07, 2009, 03:04

I was more concerned with the main message of that statement being who is cheaper.

The whole of the statement and especially the part about Fotolia being cheaper is aimed at any potential buyers who may read it, I don't think there's any hidden agenda to be read into it.

Think logically about how a buyer might read the statement - so a guy moved from one company to another so what, what difference would that make to any buyer out there, however add the little comment about the other place being cheaper and now they have a reason to look.

Let's hope you are right. Maybe I am too busy looking for hidden agendas....

Actually, to contributors with high ranked status, the ones most liked by the buyers, Fotolia is more expensive than istock.

I would love to see the micros (all of them!!) being able to raise prices. I believe there is room for that and customers wouldn't buy significantly less if prices were doubled or tripled.

I agree with that.  We see that in DT, a level 3 image still sells. 

That's why I don't like subs.  I prefer that the buyer, istead of getting 250 images for US$100, buys only 10 for US$10 each - even if they are not mine.