DDAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...... I have been watching my sales one at a time for the last 12 months watching my stats get closer and closer to emerald........ waiting for the day to set up my prices... now i was literally a FEW days away from being emerald.... and it was ripped out of my hands :( boooooourns :(same here thats insane the Emerald was already incredible elusive if they change it i give up i hope its just a glitch but hard to believe it.
Mat has posted that he's trying to find out what happened in the FT forums.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15671[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15671[/url])
Mat has posted that he's trying to find out what happened in the FT forums.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15671[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15671[/url])
can you post it as i banned from their forums
Mat has posted that he's trying to find out what happened in the FT forums.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15671[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15671[/url])
can you post it as i banned from their forums
he didn't give any info other than that he was trying to find more about what happened himself.
Well if people become emerald and above fotolia will earn MORE because people will raise their prices.
Well if people become emerald and above fotolia will earn MORE because people will raise their prices.that's right actually.but could they be worried about loosing customers because of increasing prices?
DDAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...... I have been watching my sales one at a time for the last 12 months watching my stats get closer and closer to emerald........ waiting for the day to set up my prices... now i was literally a FEW days away from being emerald.... and it was ripped out of my hands :( boooooourns :(
I got a brief overview of what's going on. The change to the required number of sales for rank increases was made today. The numbers posted are accurate.
Your current rank will not change however. If you are silver for instance, you had earned that rank based on the existing criteria when you hit your sales goal. You will need to hit the new, current goal for the next rank increase however.
If I hear anything else, I'll be sure to share it with you right away.
Thanks,
Mat
I checked and luckily they do seem to have "grandfathered" people in. I would have died loosing my emerald status and all my files going back to 1 credit! Especially with the Istock fiasco. That would have been a double whammy! I guess I'll be hitting saphire in about 5 years! ;)
Typical for this site. *sigh* Was Fotolia ever actually GOOD to contributors? Or is that a part of our collective imagination? Why do people bother?
...One option would be the new change could exist for all the new members at Fotolia. The people that signed an agreement with a certain intention of sales increasing should be able to have that relation upheld....That is what they should of done. I made silver but was looking forward to reaching gold. This is very disappointing. If anyone wants to start an upload boycott, I'm in. Perhaps we can put some pressure on them?
Could this be a motivator to try and get people to go exclusive. You can set your price point. Is it a possible sale and they want to make their numbers look good. The problem here is they made a very big change without announcing it or trying to explain it before implementing it. This is poor business practice and I am very discourged with their choice.
AVAVA
It's not just disappointing, but very unprofessional to treat contributors like this. It is amazing that another change was introduced without prior notice, and this one completely detrimental to current members (even the ones in higher rankings, now they see the next level further away).
Even if FT finds it necessary to change ranking levels, couldn't it post a thread explaining its reasons? Couldn't changes have been more subtle? Why is it so difficult for FT admin to come forward and explain things to us members, who provide the material on which it profits?
Regards,
Adelaide
Well , before making any new calculations , you may want to consider that this can happen again in the future.Yes i agree next you reach 24999 Downloads they will push emerald to 50000. I'm 100% sure noone will come close to emerald in the next 12months (my personal calculation for my port is now three years). So whats the fuzz about this infinite collection if noone will reach emerald in the future ::)
I guess they build their pyramid structure , and they want to keep it the same it looks at this stage.
New changing after talking... but after silver, it's always hard...Well it looks I might be able to reach Silver in my lifetime :D
I'm just amazed at Chad's "It's too easy to become successful, so we're making it harder" post on the yahoo group.Yeah shameful
I'm just amazed at Chad's "It's too easy to become successful, so we're making it harder" post on the yahoo group.
He made it in the micropayment yahoo groupI'm just amazed at Chad's "It's too easy to become successful, so we're making it harder" post on the yahoo group.
Could you please show us the link to this statement.
Thanks.
My Bad Pixart,
That was my choice of words. I must be careful not to put crap in other peoples mouths ;D I apologize you are far more eloquent than I. Have a great day.
Best,
AVAVA
| Before 0 - 100 White 100 - 1000 Bronze 1,000-5,000 Silver 5,000-10,000 Gold 10,000 - 50,000 Emerald 50,000-100,000 Saphire 100,000 - 500,000 Rubis 500,000 + Diamond | After Less than 100 White Between 100 and 1000 Bronze Between 1000 and 10000 Silver Between 10000 and 25000 Gold Between 25000 and 100000 Emerald Between 100000 and 250000 Sapphire Between 250000 and 1000000 Rubis Above 1000000 Diamond |
I am a silver and I don't get anything more than a bronze.
I beleive before the change they considered three subs equal to a classic sale so there has been a change there as well. Now you need 25% more subs to equal a " classic sale ".
I beleive before the change they considered three subs equal to a classic sale so there has been a change there as well. Now you need 25% more subs to equal a " classic sale ".
Nope, it's always been 4 subs = 1 classic.
Another point, sorry if has been mentioned, is they have basically lowered commissions paid on regular sales. It used to be Gold was achieved at 5,000 now it's 10,000 so that is 5,000 sales at 35% instead of 37% by reaching gold earlier. I am averaging a bit over a buck for standard downloads. So that means a loss of $100 while waiting to reach Gold, $300 loss for waiting to reach Emerald from Gold and so on and so on. Never mind the 50,000 to get to where you can elevate prices. This loss is also seen on subs, since they go up incrementally a penny. This may have something to do with exclusives but really its just a good old fashioned lowering of payment percentages. Alamy just did, Corbis will do it on next contract flip, blah, blah, blah. Another squeeze of the tender areas.
Peter
Hi Zues,
I beleive before the change they considered three subs equal to a classic sale so there has been a change there as well. Now you need 25% more subs to equal a " classic sale ".
AVAVA
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
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.
The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a) a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics ...
*. 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.
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.
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 ...QuoteThe 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.
. 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"
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.
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.....
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 :(
Calling things by their true names and shining the light of publicity upon shameful practices is generally helpful in reining in unsavory behavior.
Calling things by their true names and shining the light of publicity upon shameful practices is generally helpful in reining in unsavory behavior.
I totally disagree. There are very few MS sites that seem to handle adverse commentary well and fotolia is definitely not one of them. DT is another in case you 're interested. The guy who runs that has an ego as fragile as a Canon sensor and you 'll get banned just for spelling his name wrong.
Fotolia have sent out a very clear message by dumping Photoshow and it's desgined to intimidate.
We don't give a crap who you are "if you speak out against us we will punish you" is the message. Interesting.
Calling things by their true names and shining the light of publicity upon shameful practices is generally helpful in reining in unsavory behavior.
I totally disagree. There are very few MS sites that seem to handle adverse commentary well and fotolia is definitely not one of them. DT is another in case you 're interested....
Calling things by their true names and shining the light of publicity upon shameful practices is generally helpful in reining in unsavory behavior.
I totally disagree. There are very few MS sites that seem to handle adverse commentary well and fotolia is definitely not one of them. DT is another in case you 're interested....
I think my experience with all these agencies over the last 4 years says you're mistaken. They don't like it when contributors speak out and work as a group to further our interests, but we have, as a group, managed to make a number of changes happen or not happen by refusing to just say "Yes sir!!" when a site tried to unilaterally change something that hurt contributors.
The sites don't like it, but up to a point they put up with it - it's a power struggle pure and simple. FT threatened to close my account, but they didn't go through with it. Hence my complete lack of surprise that they actually did it this time. If we keep quiet about this sort of stuff it just emboldens the agencies to pull an even bigger one next go around - and you know that there will be a next time, especially as the economy's not in great shape.
It is just about impossible (IMO) to get a regular group acting for contributors, but on an ad hoc basis you can often find enough people to work together to try and even the balance of power out a little when dealing with the agencies.
At my day job, they just laid off 600 people today. Luckily I survived. Changing the number of downloads to get to the next level at Fotolia, in todays economy, is the least of my worries
At my day job, they just laid off 600 people today. Luckily I survived. Changing the number of downloads to get to the next level at Fotolia, in todays economy, is the least of my worries
You must work for Adobe? I just read the news on PDN's blog and thought I should check on a buddy of mine who works there to see how he's doing.
I guess if there is more than one compnay laying off 600 people today, the economy's doing worse than I thought :)
I don't think the issue is that everyone must stand up for the same thing, but that if you are getting the raw end of a deal, it's worth trying to do what you can to improve it.
Realistically, there are a lot more people who aren't emerald than who are, and all of those below emerald had been working with a set of expectations about what was needed to get to the next commission level. That set of expectations was suddenly trashed. Those of you who were already emerald clearly were less drastically affected, but I'm sure you can see how the impact on gold and below was quite different from the impact on you.
Calling things by their true names and shining the light of publicity upon shameful practices is generally helpful in reining in unsavory behavior.
I totally disagree. There are very few MS sites that seem to handle adverse commentary well and fotolia is definitely not one of them. DT is another in case you 're interested....
I think my experience with all these agencies over the last 4 years says you're mistaken. They don't like it when contributors speak out and work as a group to further our interests, but we have, as a group, managed to make a number of changes happen or not happen by refusing to just say "Yes sir!!" when a site tried to unilaterally change something that hurt contributors.
The sites don't like it, but up to a point they put up with it - it's a power struggle pure and simple. FT threatened to close my account, but they didn't go through with it. Hence my complete lack of surprise that they actually did it this time. If we keep quiet about this sort of stuff it just emboldens the agencies to pull an even bigger one next go around - and you know that there will be a next time, especially as the economy's not in great shape.
It is just about impossible (IMO) to get a regular group acting for contributors, but on an ad hoc basis you can often find enough people to work together to try and even the balance of power out a little when dealing with the agencies.
And this is why they have tried to eliminate me from the move this time because they know I was at the heart of the push against the subscription plan they originally announced, and I was at the heart of the push with StockXpert when they tried to screw us around with the Jupiter Unlimited fiasco as I have been at the heart of the issue everytime an agency (even DT) has tried to make a change that I believed to be adverse to the contributing community.
I have to say that Dreamstime has proven to be one of the few that truly seems to have a desire to see to it that we are treated fairly. They may run their forum with an Eastern Block Iron fist but their business practices are definately above board. I can not say the same for Fotolia.
What I love is that Oleg and Chad think they have silenced me but the truth is that they have actually given me voice. They have already done the worst to me thay can do, as long as I play by the rules from here forward there is really nothing else they can hit me with.
I wonder how they are going to respond to my request for an Audit?
or to my demands for continuation of payments for referral sales from Emerald level photographers I referred to them that they are still obligated to pay me for the next 2 years? Yea the referral program had no mandatory tie to a contributor account I do believe that regardless of their desire to cease doing business with me they have no legal ground on which they can wiothold those earnings.
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.....
Please do not take what I am about to say as being in any way supportive of FT recent decision to change their ranking system. I do feel that this was not handled as well as it should have been but FT 's Terms and Conditions do cover this situation. If you don't agree with it the T&C clearly states how to proceed.
I will not sign the petition. First of all FT clearly stated that anyone speaking out against them may be removed from their forums and / or their website. They have not hidden this fact and it is actually listed in the T&C under section 4. Secondly, the petition clearly states that Bobby was "fired". For Bobby to have been fired he would have to be an employee of FT. He is not. He is a supplier and independent contractor. Lastly, I will not sign a petition that the petition writer will not or can not sign. How much will FT really care about a letter that is written by someone who is not a contributor to FT?
I doubt that anyone is happy about the ranking changes, but creating petitions without thinking them through is not going to solve any problems. When you signed up you agreed to play by their rules.
I have nothing against solidarity. As I said I'm not fond of the changes or the way things get handled on that site either. What I'm saying is that your rush to write your petition has some fundamental problems. FT is not an agent or an employer. Bobby was not an employee. He was an Independent Contractor. The T&C clearly states this. Bobby was not fired. He was removed from the site per the T&C that he agreed to when he signed up.
Good luck with your petition.
I have nothing against solidarity. As I said I'm not fond of the changes or the way things get handled on that site either. What I'm saying is that your rush to write your petition has some fundamental problems. FT is not an agent or an employer. Bobby was not an employee. He was an Independent Contractor. The T&C clearly states this. Bobby was not fired. He was removed from the site per the T&C that he agreed to when he signed up.
Good luck with your petition.
I agree with Joanne 100%
The only thing that has ever worked against any of the agencies has been the treat to cut off the supply. Remember we own the content therefore we do own the power. The question is do we have the courage of our own convictions to exert that power or are we going to surrender that power to the agencies by not standing up for ourselves.
...for, they have just raised the commision I receive on any sales which IMO is a good thing.
Bobby, I sympathise that your account was deleted.
However unlike the majority of people who have shown support I'm also a businessman and am fully aware that you are also, I appreciate that you have in the past taken part in a public campaign against certain changes, as have many, but like you I only do what is in my best interests, I'd be interested as to the nature of the phone call you made, where you asking for some kind of special treatment?
At the end of the day Fotolia have done nothing illegal in changing their terms, they owe you nothing, you are a supplier and nothing more, as such they have the right to terminate your account, you keep stating you were close to Emerald and now it would take three years, so what! were they supposed to wait for you to get to Emerald before making any changes, you had as much chance as the others who did reach that level but you didn't and they did, that's business.
You've mentioned them lining their pockets (or words to that effect) ummm... they're a business and how they run it and what they do with the proceeds is their business, they have just raised the price of the credits we get paid which I notice hasn't been mentioned much. Tell me when you have a good month do you give your models extra money? Do you explain to them how you spend your profits?
As has been pointed out they made it very clear anybody bad mouthing them would have their account deleted, you can't say you weren't warned, I would advise you to be careful regarding your future actions and statements on public forums regarding Fotolia because you could end up in a legal battle, you're pissed we can all see that and my advice would be to move on.
I'm annoyed about the recent change on Fotolia, however nothing they have done has changed the way my images are represented which is what I choose an agency for, they have just raised the commision I receive on any sales which IMO is a good thing.
As for the petition thing, then sorry I'm not signing it, and to whoever wrote it no he hasn't been fired because he didn't work for them.
Will I stop uploading there, nope sorry they're a reasonable source of revenue for me, and in case you're interested yes I was close to a rank change, but that's business and I have the freedom of choice whether to use them as a representative for me or not.
Same goes for iStock and their recent best match change which has effected me far more than Fotolia, again it's my choice.
I keep seeing a lot of people saying things like 'standing up for our rights' etc ..... what rights exactly? We do not work for them we are all self employed (technically speaking) they are an agency we we choose to represent our work in return for a commission on any sales they make on our behalf.
Apart from any rights regarding the usage of our work under the license they sell for us we don't have any.
For those who are going to stop uploading in support of Bobby, your choice but at the end of the day who do you think is going to lose out the most?
Bobby I wish you well for the future.
I did not make a phone call and I did not ask for special treatment. I sent an email that expressed my displeasure with the change and informed that I would cease uploading new content but not remove the nearly 5,000 images I already had there.
The phone call came from them the next day telling me they were deleting my account.
While their changing the terms of ranking may not be illegal it most certainly is unethical to have so many work for so long toward a published goal only to move the goal miles and miles down the road just as a large number of contributors who have worked long and hard are on the threshold of reaching that goal.
A proper move by Fotolia would have been to grandfather existing contributors to the original goal at least until they reached their next level upgrade and then they could apply the new standards. To move the goal that so many worked so hard to reach is tantamount to punishing those who have made you a success for working hard to help you build your business. Would you freeze your work staffs earnings because they worked hard and made you a success?
I would really appreciate some like-minded discussion (with actual economic and management theory) beyond
"I am a businessman, so if you call Fotolia greedy, you are naive"
and
"Fotolia is greedy. The *insult removed*."
If they had gotten a worse black eye over the introduction of subs, would they have pulled the current stunt?
I did not make a phone call and I did not ask for special treatment. I sent an email that expressed my displeasure with the change and informed that I would cease uploading new content but not remove the nearly 5,000 images I already had there.
The phone call came from them the next day telling me they were deleting my account.
While their changing the terms of ranking may not be illegal it most certainly is unethical to have so many work for so long toward a published goal only to move the goal miles and miles down the road just as a large number of contributors who have worked long and hard are on the threshold of reaching that goal.
A proper move by Fotolia would have been to grandfather existing contributors to the original goal at least until they reached their next level upgrade and then they could apply the new standards.
To move the goal that so many worked so hard to reach is tantamount to punishing those who have made you a success for working hard to help you build your business.
Would you freeze your work staffs earnings because they worked hard and made you a success?
I've just been sent this, it was posted by Chad Bridwell on the Yahoo micropayment forum:
"Hello Everyone,
Would any of you continue to do business with a grocery store, restaurant, beauty salon, airline, etc who continued to call you names and use derogatory language against you publicly?
No logical person would do this. Why should Fotolia be any different? What
Bobby Deal has done over the years is appalling and Fotolia has been
very tolerant until now. Calling us F**kers, *insult removed*, and Rapists, is
not professional and we do not have to tolerate this any longer.
After giving him many warnings we decided close his account.
Chad Bridwell
Director of US Operations
Fotolia.com"
Clearly there is a history involved here that goes way beyond the issue of recent changes.
I've just been sent this, it was posted by Chad Bridwell on the Yahoo micropayment forum:
"Hello Everyone,
Would any of you continue to do business with a grocery store, restaurant, beauty salon, airline, etc who continued to call you names and use derogatory language against you publicly?
No logical person would do this. Why should Fotolia be any different? What
Bobby Deal has done over the years is appalling and Fotolia has been
very tolerant until now. Calling us F**kers, *insult removed*, and Rapists, is
not professional and we do not have to tolerate this any longer.
After giving him many warnings we decided close his account.
Chad Bridwell
Director of US Operations
Fotolia.com"
Clearly there is a history involved here that goes way beyond the issue of recent changes.
If what has been quoted above is correct and if someone referred to me or my business using that sort of vocabulary I would kick their account from here to the other side of Mars and then sue their sorry ass for libel.
Count yourself lucky that the only thing you've lost is your account!!
If they had gotten a worse black eye over the introduction of subs, would they have pulled the current stunt?
No, they probably wouldn't and your comment only echoes what others have said on here already. Bobby is simply not going to get the support he is seeking and if you look at the numbers signing the petition - which is a futile exercise IMO - there is no significant numbers coming out in unity for this one man crusade against the autocrats.
What's more, I think it's rather selfish to try and drum up support for what amounts to a rash decision on the part of one contributor. Looking at the issue and the comments made one might reasonably conclude there was impulse involved here. Now the whole debate seems to have turned into a face saving exercise with the "isn't it awful fraternity" trying to be seen to say all the right things because one of our own has been injured or fallen on his own sword more to the point.
To heck with signing petitions. Show some true support, and pull your images if you don't want to be abused by this company anymore.
To heck with signing petitions. Show some true support, and pull your images if you don't want to be abused by this company anymore.
I'm a nobody at fotolia ... at all microstock sites, as a matter of fact. But, I have signed the petition with the comment that I would remain insignificant until the wrongs documented in this thread are corrected. I strongly believe that we are our own worst enemies. If you want to pull your images, please, do so. But would it hurt to add your name to the total count on the petition? If you are pulling your files anyway ... it won't hurt to get Fired. ;D
I hope all who agree that contributors have been wronged will sign the petition. You owe it to yourselves to take action ... any action, but do SOMETHING.
WarrenPrice
PS: Thanks, Bobby. I hope having guts has not cost you too dearly.
It has cost me a few hundred a month but it is not money I can not live with out. Experiance shows me that at least a portion of the business I would do at FT will simply follow me to a different agency. I will survive, the finacial loss is minimal in the long run. Given the track record of FT making changes that were unfavorable to us over the past year it would not have been long before I shut down with them on my own anywise. At least this way it gives a bit of voice to the reality of doing business with Fotolia
I was just reading the messages over at micropayment · Microstock Stock Photography Group.
Besides the claims of the employees of Fotolia, I see zero evidence that Bobby spoke in such an insulting and vulgar manner....
I was just reading the messages over at micropayment · Microstock Stock Photography Group.
Besides the claims of the employees of Fotolia, I see zero evidence that Bobby spoke in such an insulting and vulgar manner....
I think you need to re-read the first reply to Chad in the Micropayment MS group thread. Perhaps calling someone a *insult removed* and rapist is not vulgar to you but I think most would agree that it is not appropriate language for a serious discussion of issues.
fred
Iriz, you are no more here then an anonymous shill. Why not come out from behind your cloak and show us you are who and what you claim to be?
There was no compulison in my response to Fotolia. My response to Fotolia was measured against direct experiance and history with Oleg and Chad but I suspect strongly that you know this already.
...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...
Iriz, you are no more here then an anonymous shill. Why not come out from behind your cloak and show us you are who and what you claim to be?
There was no compulison in my response to Fotolia. My response to Fotolia was measured against direct experiance and history with Oleg and Chad but I suspect strongly that you know this already.
I am not an FT employee and I do not know Oleg or Chad personally if that's what you are implying.
Regardless, you knew full well the consequences of speaking out against FT in the way you did and now having looked at your latest commentary above it only adds weight to the decision that was made.
FT was perfectly within their rights to ban you. And by virtue of the fact that you've garnered a certain amount of respect on various forums one would have thought you'd be a lot more temperate in your language and try and set an example.
The reality is, younger photographers will tend to look up to the best sellers but if you start behaving like a bar room drunk just because you've got a point of view you can expect some serious consequences if you go about things the way you have.
It's an unfortunate truth that contributors do listen to people like yourself, Yuri, Andrez and many others at the top of their game but that doesn't necessarily make you or them right. Unfortunately however, some star struck contributors have a difficulty making that distinction and when you start rallying the troops, the "sheep syndrome" can kick-in and that's when your self-righteousness becomes dangerous.
Now I suggest you have a good long think about that last paragraph before you start playing the victim here. It'll take a lot of guts on your part to stand down here but it would be even worse if you were to start taking others with you out of some misplaced sense of loyalty.
So far neither Chad nor Mat have been able to produce a single post which shows such vulgarity being used by Bobby toward them and Fotolia. Perhaps you can produce the evidence Fred? Just give us a link.
Quote from: kgtoh...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...
I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken. The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.
He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence. - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.
The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.
And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.) You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.
This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him. How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.
fred
Quote from: kgtoh...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...
I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken. The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.
He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence. - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.
The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.
And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.) You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.
This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him. How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.
fred
Regarding "Rapists":
Let me break down my argument into bite-sized numbered chunks:
in chronological order:
1. Chad / Fotolia claims Bobby called him/Fotolia a) F*kers b) *insult removed* c) Rapists publicly
2. This is an accusation of Libel
3. Based on this alleged Libel, Fotolia terminates its relationship with Bobby
4. Therefore, in my mind, as the termination is based on an alleged act of libel, Fotolia should satisfactorily prove this act of Libel before the action they took
5. As a reaction to Fotolia's accusation, and under provocation, Bobby then called them rapists. This was not a smart thing to do (please refer to my previous post re: children's tactics)
6. This does not, in my mind, remove the need to see evidence of Bobby calling them F*kers and Rapists before the accusation was made (you cannot make an accusation of misdeed, then provoke said misdeed)
All I am asking is for you to show evidence of Bobby's statements from before the accusation.
You say I am taking what Bobby says as gospel. I could accuse you of the same. What I'm looking for is logical evidence, based on what is publicly available.
You could say that this is unnecessary, but I like to think "Innocent until proven guilty".
Regarding offensiveness of "Greedy *insult removed*"
Yes, Fotolia took offense to Bobby, and they reacted in a certain manner. Does this reaction improve their standing in my eyes, or does it reinforce any negative perceptions that I had?
I could, as a terrorist, blow up a car bomb and kill people because a particular author spoke badly about my religion.
I am severely offended. Nobody can argue against that ("no, you are not offended"). It's perfectly in my right to be offended, and many like-minded people will feel similarly offended and that I am fully justified in any actions I do. There will be others who feel my actions were not fully justified.
Also, extending your boss - employee anology. If an employee mouthed off about me, and I fired him, it's within my rights. (let's just ignore any existing discrimination / employee rights issues for the moment). The issue here is how do the other employees feel. In this situation, some of the "employees" side with the guy who got fired. Some of the employees are siding with the employer, quite vocally so.
By the way, No, English is not my native language.. so you are correct on that point.
"It also seem perverse that the lower rankings are being riled up against a policy that mostly effects the upper rankings that can't be bothered to do it for themselves."
I am in complete agreement with you on this one. As I mentioned before, I think fulltimers who are in the upper rankings actually have the most to lose in the longterm by not acting.
Signing that petition could be your last squeak but if you don't squeak now ... and as a group, what next?
No nothing like that. I sent an email last night directly to Oleg telling him that even though I had recently resumed uploading there after evaluating the effect their sub sales where having on my bottom line that I was going to once again cease adding new content because of the current bait and switch tacttics they were subjecting us to. I like a great many other contributors who have been there a long time was on the threshold of evelvatring to Emerald and based on current sales level the new allocation needed to reach that level would push that goal 3 years down the road for me. I told Oleg that I felt this move on their part was purly motivated by greed.
Chad called me this morning and with no discussion informed me that Fotolia had choosen to cease doing business with me as it was obvious that they did not operate their business in a way that I could favorably agree too.
BTW even after all the brewhaha's I have had with Oleg, Chad and Matt I was Never banned from their forums.
I should be obvious that anytime you do or say anything anywhere that might negatively impact the bottom liine of your employer (agent, whatever) you are risking the continuation of your relationship with them.
fred
No nothing like that. I sent an email last night directly to Oleg telling him that even though I had recently resumed uploading there after evaluating the effect their sub sales where having on my bottom line that I was going to once again cease adding new content because of the current bait and switch tacttics they were subjecting us to. I like a great many other contributors who have been there a long time was on the threshold of evelvatring to Emerald and based on current sales level the new allocation needed to reach that level would push that goal 3 years down the road for me. I told Oleg that I felt this move on their part was purly motivated by greed.
Chad called me this morning and with no discussion informed me that Fotolia had choosen to cease doing business with me as it was obvious that they did not operate their business in a way that I could favorably agree too.
BTW even after all the brewhaha's I have had with Oleg, Chad and Matt I was Never banned from their forums.
well i would have to say i agree with azurelaroux and say that fotolia banning photoshow was hardly on a single post, but rather on a long standing attitude and after direct emails.
It seems as though you are merely trying to stir up trouble hilary, everything in your last post is untrue, it seems you are twist the facts and create a culture of fear. Seeing how you seem to be quite active in the yahoo group discussion in direct conversation with matt and chad, I would expect you to have more of the facts straight. Photoshow was never banned from the fotolia forum (he said so himself in the quoted thread) additionally, it appears that Photoshow said he was removed from fotolia after his DIRECT email to fotolia, not forum posts.
And yes, I agree Photoshow is not the subject of this thread..., it is the change in ranks at fotolia and our thoughts about it, i am not sure how much longer this thread should be let to run wildly... It seems we are just going in circles, people are claiming untrue statments and we are getting no where in any sort of discussion.
Hi
I found this part of movie "Any given sunday" connected with all things around FT (and all microstock agencies)
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk[/url])
How many of your friends know that you sell pictures for thirty cents? It certainly doesn't make one proud to be a "professional," does it?
well i would have to say i agree with azurelaroux and say that fotolia banning photoshow was hardly on a single post, but rather on a long standing attitude and after direct emails.
It seems as though you are merely trying to stir up trouble hilary, everything in your last post is untrue, it seems you are twist the facts and create a culture of fear. Seeing how you seem to be quite active in the yahoo group discussion in direct conversation with matt and chad, I would expect you to have more of the facts straight. Photoshow was never banned from the fotolia forum (he said so himself in the quoted thread) additionally, it appears that Photoshow said he was removed from fotolia after his DIRECT email to fotolia, not forum posts.
And yes, I agree Photoshow is not the subject of this thread..., it is the change in ranks at fotolia and our thoughts about it, i am not sure how much longer this thread should be let to run wildly... It seems we are just going in circles, people are claiming untrue statments and we are getting no where in any sort of discussion.
Quote from: kgtoh...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...
I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken. The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.
He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence. - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.
The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.
And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.) You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.
This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him. How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.
fred
Regarding "Rapists":
Let me break down my argument into bite-sized numbered chunks:
in chronological order:
1. Chad / Fotolia claims Bobby called him/Fotolia a) F*kers b) *insult removed* c) Rapists publicly
2. This is an accusation of Libel
3. Based on this alleged Libel, Fotolia terminates its relationship with Bobby
4. Therefore, in my mind, as the termination is based on an alleged act of libel, Fotolia should satisfactorily prove this act of Libel before the action they took
5. As a reaction to Fotolia's accusation, and under provocation, Bobby then called them rapists. This was not a smart thing to do (please refer to my previous post re: children's tactics)
6. This does not, in my mind, remove the need to see evidence of Bobby calling them F*kers and Rapists before the accusation was made (you cannot make an accusation of misdeed, then provoke said misdeed)
All I am asking is for you to show evidence of Bobby's statements from before the accusation.
You say I am taking what Bobby says as gospel. I could accuse you of the same. What I'm looking for is logical evidence, based on what is publicly available.
You could say that this is unnecessary, but I like to think "Innocent until proven guilty".
Regarding offensiveness of "Greedy *insult removed*"
Yes, Fotolia took offense to Bobby, and they reacted in a certain manner. Does this reaction improve their standing in my eyes, or does it reinforce any negative perceptions that I had?
I could, as a terrorist, blow up a car bomb and kill people because a particular author spoke badly about my religion.
I am severely offended. Nobody can argue against that ("no, you are not offended"). It's perfectly in my right to be offended, and many like-minded people will feel similarly offended and that I am fully justified in any actions I do. There will be others who feel my actions were not fully justified.
Also, extending your boss - employee anology. If an employee mouthed off about me, and I fired him, it's within my rights. (let's just ignore any existing discrimination / employee rights issues for the moment). The issue here is how do the other employees feel. In this situation, some of the "employees" side with the guy who got fired. Some of the employees are siding with the employer, quite vocally so.
By the way, No, English is not my native language.. so you are correct on that point.
"It also seem perverse that the lower rankings are being riled up against a policy that mostly effects the upper rankings that can't be bothered to do it for themselves."
I am in complete agreement with you on this one. As I mentioned before, I think fulltimers who are in the upper rankings actually have the most to lose in the longterm by not acting.
Oh, I agree the quote does not provide any direct evidence of bobby having called FT management rapists before they removed his account. The whole thing is just a matter of his word against theirs - I know of no other direct evidence. However, the careless (devious?) way in which bobby used the language in his reply to call them rapists, indirectly indicates to me that he may have done so in the past.
The matter of Libel is clearly up to some court somewhere to decide - do not think it would work in the U.S. - not really my concern.
FT certainly needs to be concerned about how this affects their relationship with contributors but I really think that only a small percentage of their contributors are even aware of this case. My understanding is - I am possibly mistaken - that a very small percentage participate in this or any other forum. So I would hope they would concentrate their energies on improving the business, especially given current world economic conditions.
FT's reaction to the offense was up to FT and I don't think any of us really know the nature or frequency of the offense or if a warning was given - just their word vice bobby's word. It would have been much better if this were all in writing that FT could produce - and should have been ( a big strike against FT management if there is no written record.) But telephone conversations can get heated and perhaps this is the reason for their action.
I don't think FT is too worried about the reaction of the contributors to bobby's removal - most won't even be aware as I stated above - but they probably do have legal concerns and probably have everything documented. However, they are unlikely to publish it unless it is beneficial to any legal action that may result.
I must say your english seems as good as mine (not necessarily a compliment I guess) and certainly much better than I would do in any other language.
fred