pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Co-Founder of iStockphoto Joins Rival Fotolia As North American President  (Read 21035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alias

« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2009, 16:35 »
0
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 ?


« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2009, 16:37 »
0
What do you not like about the CV ?

It's very time-consuming and many words don't have certain meanings.  I sent suggestion about these, with dictionary texts - so I am not "creating" meanings - and I haven't seen any of these suggestions accepted yet. 

« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2009, 16:38 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 16:42 by leaf »

lisafx

« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2009, 17:44 »
0
I don't know Patrick Lor (not long enough in this business), so maybe I am missing a point of the positive news here.
But what I read is that the main statement in that press release is that Istock is too expensive (and Mr. Lor is disappointed about that) and that Fotolia is cheaper.
(Not to mention that the numbers quoted show a completely wrong picture).

So we are all happy to have more focus on price war, more emphasis on being the cheapest?

At least that part worries me a bit...

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.

« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2009, 03:04 »
0
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.

RT


« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2009, 03:14 »
0
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.



« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2009, 03:24 »
0
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....

« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2009, 05:13 »
0

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.


Besides this, FL pays in Euros to me which is a big advantage with the weak dollar.

Still, I consider FL the least trustworthy micro as they make unilateral changes, many of which against the interests and opinion of contributors, and especially do not announce anything, which implies bad faith in their intentions. In the least it's extremely unprofessional and disrespectful for contributors.

I make some money with them (my 3rd micro) but hardly trust them.

« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2009, 06:45 »
0
Actually, to contributors with high ranked status, the ones most liked by the buyers, Fotolia is more expensive than istock.

« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2009, 10:40 »
0
What do you not like about the CV ?

Everything.

« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2009, 11:09 »
0
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.

batman

« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2009, 11:48 »
0
Oh me oh mine, the captain has joined another ship. The titanic is sinking ! the titanic is sinking ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4567 Views
Last post June 15, 2009, 18:31
by bittersweet
38 Replies
18262 Views
Last post October 18, 2009, 11:47
by Jonathan Ross
1 Replies
3049 Views
Last post December 18, 2009, 09:04
by sharpshot
41 Replies
7289 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 10:06
by Uncle Pete
97 Replies
24615 Views
Last post March 30, 2015, 07:06
by dirkr

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle