MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Contributor ranking changing  (Read 46432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: November 29, 2008, 11:38 »
0
I believe classic is the one that is not sub 


traveler1116

« Reply #76 on: November 29, 2008, 12:21 »
0
Subscription sales count as 1/4th of regular sales, four sub sales equal one classic sale which is used to determine your rank.

AVAVA

« Reply #77 on: November 29, 2008, 12:24 »
0
Hi Peter,

Yep, you need 4 subs ( it was three till last week, I think ) to equal one sale towards your sales count. So if you only sold subs you would have to sell 100,000 subs to become Emerald.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #78 on: November 29, 2008, 13:21 »
0
This is a useless post and I apologize, but it's always times like this that makes me want to take something expensive and throw it out a window. Of course the only loser is myself, however I can't help but think I'd feel better.

Peter


AVAVA

« Reply #79 on: November 29, 2008, 14:38 »
0
Peter,

 If you have small children with some really noisy obnoxious toys like ray guns that make terrible squeals when the trigger is pulled or fire engines that blare three different sirens. I would start with these items first and throw them very far. Then lean out the window and scream " I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore " . Then go take some more photos, you know you're addicted to it.  8)

Peace,
Jonathan
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 20:36 by AVAVA »

« Reply #80 on: December 01, 2008, 02:33 »
0
Hi Peter,

Yep, you need 4 subs ( it was three till last week, I think ) to equal one sale towards your sales count. So if you only sold subs you would have to sell 100,000 subs to become Emerald.

Best,
AVAVA

It has always been 4 to 1 - just not very well publicised

AVAVA

« Reply #81 on: December 01, 2008, 12:29 »
0
Thanks for clearing it up Tom,

 I could have sworn I was just told 3 by one of their employees but we were having a long conversation and I could have easily made that mistake. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I want everyone to know what the right answer is. Thanks again.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #82 on: December 01, 2008, 13:45 »
0
If I remember correctly, subs didn't count towards ranking at all when they introduced them.  A bunch of us protested and they raised the subs commission twice and made 4 subs equal 1 ordinary sale for ranking purposes.

« Reply #83 on: December 02, 2008, 01:53 »
0
If I remember correctly, subs didn't count towards ranking at all when they introduced them.  A bunch of us protested and they raised the subs commission twice and made 4 subs equal 1 ordinary sale for ranking purposes.

yes, that is right.

« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2008, 05:17 »
0
*. I have had Fotolia on the do not upload list for 3 months because of the way they handled the subs and the fact that every sub license fotolia issues on one of my image pays me 8 cents less then Shutterstock does. However just last week I looked at my stats and saw increasing sales at a rate that I felt offset the loss on subs so I start uploading again. Then tonight I visit their forums and discover this wagon load of greed and it is back to no more new uploads for them for me. This change pushes Emerald 3 years instead of 3 months away for me.


The only difference this time is that now my upload ban for them is permanent. As long as they are owned by the same greedy management that they are owned by now I will never give them another image.

« Reply #85 on: December 03, 2008, 06:43 »
0
Just copying a post I made on Fotolia's forum, in case it gets deleted, or I get banned.:

I think it's actually in Fotolia's benefit to hear our opinions on this issue, rather than just assume everyone is OK with the way they have handled things.

I understand that there are larger business issues at stake, and Fotolia is perfectly within their rights to make any business decision they want.  However, I think they handled the whole affair in the worst way possible.

I don't presume to speak for everyone, but for me, here's why I am so upset over this issue:

1. Rankings and ratings systems are as much an emotional issue as a financial one.  People who are achievement-oriented (as I assume most microstockers are) strive towards certain milestones and goals.  Many organizations and systems, including microstock sites, implement this type of ranking system.  Some of these ranking systems are not monetized, and changes in rankings do not affect earnings.  By suddenly changing ranking requirements, this creates a feeling of "chasing the dragon" with contributors and, in effect, reduces the effectiveness of the system.

2.  Fotolia has a long reputation of poor communication with contributors.  Many contributors have taken this as an indication that Fotolia holds them in poor regard.  Despite many complaints and discussions every time Fotolia has done this, Fotolia has chosen to handle the rank change in the exact same manner.

3. Yes, I understand that Fotolia feels certain changes have to be made in order to stay competitive. There are many different ways to address this issue.  Basically, what Fotolia did is to squeeze their suppliers (meaning us) in order to be more attractive to their customers.  Yes, it was a business decision in order to (hopefully) achieve certain goals. However, make no mistake about it, we are the ones being squeezed.  Squeezing the supplier is a legitimate, time-honored practice, by the way.  The squeezee typically doesn't appreciate it though.

4. The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a)  a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics or b) they don't care about contributors.  To take a business owner - employee analogy (yes, I understand we are not Fotolia employees, but we are in a many to 1 relationship, with Fotolia having the position of power, so close enough), imagine a business owner promising a pizza party to his team if they achieve 100 sales.  Then, when they achieve 100 sales, he says "well, times are tough, the company needs to be leaner and meaner, so we will postpone the pizza party to when we achieve 200 sales. With your hard work, 200 sales shouldn't be a problem. This is for your own good.".  Well, the pizza's not a big deal. I can buy my own pizza, but then it's not the pizza that's the issue is it?

5. What is Fotolia selling? Photographs and Images from contributors.  So, Fotolia has had so much success selling these photographs and images that they need to change the ranking/rewards system to be less favorable than it was previously? We have somehow contributed to the success of Fotolia in a manner that results in less favorable terms for us. Go Team!

Basically, I can understand that they are facing a legitimate business issue.  Is there a way to address the issue that doesn't automatically put us, the contributors, at a disadvantage?  Was squeezing us the last or first option on their list? Could they have handled implementing the change in a better way?  Do I have to buy my own pizza, then cry in it?

Would be nice if Fotolia could officially answer these questions.  Because that would mean they care.

« Reply #86 on: December 03, 2008, 07:32 »
0
I'm pretty sure that they are perfectly aware of all your points, that they have never given (and will never give) a sh*t about any contributor's opinions and that there (if this posting is actually reaching its receiver) will be a big laugh about your naivity. Sorry, but how many people do you know who left fotolia after one of all the past communication "disasters"? I do know only one, and that's me ...

Quote
The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a)  a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics ...

IMO it actually demonstrates a very, very good understanding.

« Reply #87 on: December 03, 2008, 07:35 »
0
*. I have had Fotolia on the do not upload list for 3 months because of the way they handled the subs and the fact that every sub license fotolia issues on one of my image pays me 8 cents less then Shutterstock does. However just last week I looked at my stats and saw increasing sales at a rate that I felt offset the loss on subs so I start uploading again. Then tonight I visit their forums and discover this wagon load of greed and it is back to no more new uploads for them for me. This change pushes Emerald 3 years instead of 3 months away for me.


The only difference this time is that now my upload ban for them is permanent. As long as they are owned by the same greedy management that they are owned by now I will never give them another image.

Bobby:

I have to applaud you for your effort to try and make a change.  It is extremely rare that a high level contributor actually does anything about most of the drastic changes that are taking place.

I wish that some of the other high level contributors (and you know who you are) would take a stand as well.  Maybe this industry would change a little for the better if they did.



« Reply #88 on: December 03, 2008, 07:38 »
0
Just copying a post I made on Fotolia's forum, in case it gets deleted, or I get banned.:

I think it's actually in Fotolia's benefit to hear our opinions on this issue, rather than just assume everyone is OK with the way they have handled things.

I understand that there are larger business issues at stake, and Fotolia is perfectly within their rights to make any business decision they want.  However, I think they handled the whole affair in the worst way possible.

I don't presume to speak for everyone, but for me, here's why I am so upset over this issue:

1. Rankings and ratings systems are as much an emotional issue as a financial one.  People who are achievement-oriented (as I assume most microstockers are) strive towards certain milestones and goals.  Many organizations and systems, including microstock sites, implement this type of ranking system.  Some of these ranking systems are not monetized, and changes in rankings do not affect earnings.  By suddenly changing ranking requirements, this creates a feeling of "chasing the dragon" with contributors and, in effect, reduces the effectiveness of the system.

2.  Fotolia has a long reputation of poor communication with contributors.  Many contributors have taken this as an indication that Fotolia holds them in poor regard.  Despite many complaints and discussions every time Fotolia has done this, Fotolia has chosen to handle the rank change in the exact same manner.

3. Yes, I understand that Fotolia feels certain changes have to be made in order to stay competitive. There are many different ways to address this issue.  Basically, what Fotolia did is to squeeze their suppliers (meaning us) in order to be more attractive to their customers.  Yes, it was a business decision in order to (hopefully) achieve certain goals. However, make no mistake about it, we are the ones being squeezed.  Squeezing the supplier is a legitimate, time-honored practice, by the way.  The squeezee typically doesn't appreciate it though.

4. The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a)  a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics or b) they don't care about contributors.  To take a business owner - employee analogy (yes, I understand we are not Fotolia employees, but we are in a many to 1 relationship, with Fotolia having the position of power, so close enough), imagine a business owner promising a pizza party to his team if they achieve 100 sales.  Then, when they achieve 100 sales, he says "well, times are tough, the company needs to be leaner and meaner, so we will postpone the pizza party to when we achieve 200 sales. With your hard work, 200 sales shouldn't be a problem. This is for your own good.".  Well, the pizza's not a big deal. I can buy my own pizza, but then it's not the pizza that's the issue is it?

5. What is Fotolia selling? Photographs and Images from contributors.  So, Fotolia has had so much success selling these photographs and images that they need to change the ranking/rewards system to be less favorable than it was previously? We have somehow contributed to the success of Fotolia in a manner that results in less favorable terms for us. Go Team!

Basically, I can understand that they are facing a legitimate business issue.  Is there a way to address the issue that doesn't automatically put us, the contributors, at a disadvantage?  Was squeezing us the last or first option on their list? Could they have handled implementing the change in a better way?  Do I have to buy my own pizza, then cry in it?

Would be nice if Fotolia could officially answer these questions.  Because that would mean they care.

kgtoh:

That was an extremely well-written post.  I doubt that it will get any results, but we can always hope.


« Reply #89 on: December 03, 2008, 08:18 »
0
I'm pretty sure that they are perfectly aware of all your points, that they have never given (and will never give) a sh*t about any contributor's opinions and that there (if this posting is actually reaching its receiver) will be a big laugh about your naivity. Sorry, but how many people do you know who left fotolia after one of all the past communication "disasters"? I do know only one, and that's me ...

Quote
The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a)  a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics ...

IMO it actually demonstrates a very, very good understanding.



If they were giving out medals for misplaced frustration, you'd be the Michael Phelps of microstock.
I'm on your side, big guy.

Keeping in mind, the post was originally on Fotolia's forum, when I said:

a)  a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics or b) they don't care about contributors.

Point b was a polite way of communicating what you meant by
"that they have never given (and will never give) a sh*t about any contributor's opinions"

I agree with you.  They have concluded that individual contributors have very little power, and that they will abuse us as much as feasible.  This is true of every single stock site.  Basic business analysis, Porter's 5 forces and all that.  Fotolia is more "in your face" about it than others, that's all.

I mostly wrote my post because Saniphoto took the time to write an intelligent, though-out response to my questions.  Something nobody else on the Fotolia forums, even the moderator, took the time to do.

Do I expect my post to accomplish anything at Fotolia? No, I am realistic.  What am I going to do about it? Just grudgingly accept it because I am in a position of weakness.  People will still continue to submit to Fotolia because they want to make money.  Fotolia realizes that and will continue to abuse contributors.  Other stock sites realize this, but conduct their abuse with better table manners.

So, Fotolia has not jeopardized its supply of photos. In my opinion what has happened is it's cut off its supply of exclusive photos, because you'd have to be naive to expect any sort of relationship with Fotolia where they aren't constantly (and without warning) coming up with new ways to exploit you.

Out of curiosity, anyone here exclusive with Fotolia?

StockManiac: thanks for the props.

What I'm hoping is that Fotolia realizes that:
1) Contributors are pissed off
2) So what, they'll keep submitting if they want money. They have very little discretion in the matter
3) So we'll keep exploiting them. heehe, this is fun
4) Wait, most of our contributors have some sort of relationship or communication with designers
5) Designers are our customers and they have a whole lot of discretion in the matter
6) If we effectively alienate our contributors, who have very little stake in the success of Fotolia itself
7) Because most contributors submit to multiple sites, it doesn't matter where the customers shop
8 ) Contributors still make the same money (more or less) regardless where customers shop
9) So contributors will strongly recommend other sites over us. Some contributors are even customers, aiee!!!
10) Only exclusive contributors would continue to support us
11) Oh wait, we pissed them off already

I can't really mention this on Fotolia's forums, because that would be an implied threat of something that I may or may not do, and may or may not encourage other people to do.

In business, just because you can exploit a stakeholder until its rectum bleeds does not mean you should.  The business environment is always changing, so you shouldn't squander goodwill until you have to.  What Fotolia did should have been last option, not (apparently) first option.

« Reply #90 on: December 03, 2008, 10:26 »
0
Another post on Fotolia forums that I'm putting here, in case it gets deleted:

If you're bringing up Alamy, Alamy cut commissions to contributors by 5%.
Let's compare the way Alamy did it:

- announced months in advance, making every possible effort to ensure contributors find out about it
- provide detailed explanations of why they were reducing commissions and what they were going to do with the extra money (boost sales efforts, especially in new regions)
- allowed contributors to review the new contract and compare with the old one
- extend a courtesy grace period to opt out of the contract (ie, leave Alamy)

Compared to how Alamy might have chosen to do it

- not make any announcement
- quietly implement the change right before a major holiday when no-one is around
- allow contributors to find out about it by themselves
- a week after, release a small announcement.  Ignore all further questions and discussion on the issue

Which method makes me feel like a respected partner working with a professional agency?

Respecting a contract does not mean that a contract can never be changed.  Respecting a contract means treating the contract and the parties bound to the contract in a professional manner.

Edit:
The original post was censored and deleted from Fotolia's forums.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 17:35 by kgtoh »

« Reply #91 on: December 03, 2008, 14:55 »
0
. I have had Fotolia on the do not upload list for 3 months because of the way they handled the subs and the fact that every sub license fotolia issues on one of my image pays me 8 cents less then Shutterstock does. However just last week I looked at my stats and saw increasing sales at a rate that I felt offset the loss on subs so I start uploading again. Then tonight I visit their forums and discover this wagon load of greed and it is back to no more new uploads for them for me. This change pushes Emerald 3 years instead of 3 months away for me.


The only difference this time is that now my upload ban for them is permanent. As long as they are owned by the same greedy management that they are owned by now I will never give them another image.

Bobby:

I have to applaud you for your effort to try and make a change.  It is extremely rare that a high level contributor actually does anything about most of the drastic changes that are taking place.

I wish that some of the other high level contributors (and you know who you are) would take a stand as well.  Maybe this industry would change a little for the better if they did.




Thanks, appreantly though Oleg does not see me as a highlevel contributor even though I have spent most of the past 3+ years firmly entrenched within the top 50 ranking even with 3 previous upload boycotts.

I just received confirmation from Chad

"Hello Bobby,

 

As discussed in our phone conversation today Fotolia has decided to close your account. I have just spoken to my engineers and we have sent you your remaining money plus removed your images from the website and all partner sites. Please note that a $1 fee was incurred to send you the money on Paypal"

The funny thing is they think they have now silenced me LMAO. I guess Oleg has not paid attention these last 3 years.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 18:16 by photoshow »

grp_photo

« Reply #92 on: December 03, 2008, 15:05 »
0
I'm sorry to hear this Bobby  :-[ . I guess you have been banned from their forums long ago (like me  ;) ). So what was the reason that they removed your portfolio?

lisafx

« Reply #93 on: December 03, 2008, 16:15 »
0


Thanks, appreantly though Oleg does not see me as a highlevel contributor even though I have spent most of the past 3+ years firmly entrenched within the top 50 ranking even with 3 previous upload boycotts.

I just received confirmation from Chad

"Hello Bobby,

 

As discussed in our phone conversation today Fotolia has decided to close your account. I have just spoken to my engineers and we have sent you your remaining money plus removed your images from the website and all partner sites. Please note that a $1 fee was incurred to send you the money on Paypal"


Wow!  This is surprising! 

Did you ASK to have your account closed or was your phone conversation heated enough to cause them to want to remove you?   

If so it is a good indicator that none of us is a big enough fish to be irreplaceable.  Very sad to hear.....

jsnover

« Reply #94 on: December 03, 2008, 16:29 »
0
I just received confirmation from Chad
"Hello Bobby,
As discussed in our phone conversation today Fotolia has decided to close your account. I have just spoken to my engineers and we have sent you your remaining money plus removed your images from the website and all partner sites. Please note that a $1 fee was incurred to send you the money on Paypal"

The funny thing is *E* think they have now silenced me LMAO. I guess Oleg has not paid attention these last 3 years.

I can't say I'm surprised - *E*. I'm sorry that it came to this Bobby and I do hope that if the folks running that place think this will cower other contributors that it doesn't happen. I can't see what else they can be hoping to gain by tossing out a contributor. You spoke up and helped during the fight to get improved subscription terms and I guess they view your forthrightness as "trouble". Just lovely way to run a business.

Lump of coal for FT's stocking this Christmas :(

« Reply #95 on: December 03, 2008, 16:36 »
0
Wow!

« Reply #96 on: December 03, 2008, 16:55 »
0
what are all these *E*'s doing here....

well i think it is important that these forums keep open, but also name calling free... sorry :-[
instead of just putting words on the 'censor' list and having them disappear automatically, an *E* is put there instead just so you know something has been taken out.

jsnover

« Reply #97 on: December 03, 2008, 17:13 »
0
I'm not sure how far the censor can go into things that aren't even an expletive - such as the variation I used or others where you place symbols in place of letters.

I'll happily put *bleep* into posts on the few occasions when I think something is warranted as it will be crystal clear what the meaning was even in the bowlderized form.

grp_photo

« Reply #98 on: December 03, 2008, 17:14 »
0
If the whole thing wouldn't be so sad and disgusting the part of the 1 dollar fee could be good for a laugh. And yes i would like to  add my *E* too.

AVAVA

« Reply #99 on: December 03, 2008, 17:23 »
0
Hey Leaf,

 I think you are one letter short in the alphabet, try the next one up. ;D

Come on tell us the truth. The first girl that dumped you was Emily or Eve or something like that. ;)

Best,
AVAVA


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
12593 Views
Last post February 05, 2009, 11:37
by null
3 Replies
2863 Views
Last post June 21, 2010, 16:05
by luissantos84
3 Replies
3731 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
5 Replies
3704 Views
Last post November 26, 2011, 01:36
by FD
0 Replies
1658 Views
Last post October 13, 2017, 18:43
by StockStudio

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results