MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Contributor ranking changing  (Read 46160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2008, 16:57 »
0
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! ;)

I hope you are right about the grandfathering.  I just checked and I am still emerald, although I fall short of the new 25,000 requirement. 

Because of doubling my prices Fotolia is on track to overtake istock as my top earning agency.  It would be a huge hit to see that progress lost. 

ETA:  Just checked their forums.  Yes, we are all grandfathered in at our current level.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 17:08 by lisafx »


AVAVA

« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2008, 17:19 »
0
Hi Lisa and everyone,

 This is very unexpected and as we all know it is going to hurt some people bad. I don't know what to say but I have an e-mail into them and I will report back what I hear. This can happen at any site at any time this is why you must diversify.

Best,
AVAVA

AVAVA

« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2008, 18:57 »
0
Hi All,

 Well I have received a reply and this is defiantly their new direction. I myself am very disappointed by their choice. I approach these things from the basic stand point if something doesn't make sense " follow the Money " if you want to try to figure out someones motives for something that doesn't seem clear you just need to follow the money. So why would this be a financially rewarding choice by a company that has been moving up the ladder of Micro.

 One thought that came to me is maybe they are setting up to find a buyer. The higher their returns the better the company looks to a buyer on paper.(  This is purely speculation on my part and has in no way been substantiated by anyone affiliated with Fotolia ) There is always a reason why companies make big shifts like this. I always say, " If it doesn't make sense then you probably don't know the entire story ".

 Could it be that if you are exclusive at Fotolia you can set your own price point so even though they say this applies to both exclusives and non-exclusives the results are completely different. If Fotolia is making twice as much money by raising their rates to their buyers then why would they remove this opportunity. They and others have said when they hit Emerald they made almost twice as much money. The cost was passed on to the customer so not only was the photographer making more money so was Fotolia.

 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

« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2008, 20:24 »
0
Wow this is disappointing. I was hoping to reach gold in six months, but I guess not now.

« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2008, 20:28 »
0
Well , before making any new calculations , you may want to consider that this can happen again in the future.

I guess they build their pyramid structure , and they want to keep it  the same it looks at this stage.

AVAVA

« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2008, 20:47 »
0
 Hi All,

 It's sometimes called " Chasing the Dragon "... As soon as you get close to a boost what is there to stop them from upping the number again next year. The integrity part of the choice is the part I am most disappointed with. If you want to make a change this big you should at least discuss the choice and try to explain the change to your contributor base before they find out backdoor through some blog.
 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. Unless there is a plan for 2.5x growth in sales at Fotolia over the next few months.

AVAVA

« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2008, 23:37 »
0
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?

AVAVA

« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2008, 00:24 »
0
It was rocking for me but this is another big set back in the never ending battle how to make a buck.

AVAVA

« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2008, 01:14 »
0
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?

I can recall a time about 2 years ago where it was pretty decent - that was prior to the V2 debacle. Now that they are rejecting photos on mass, and decided to unilaterally change the terms of their website, and by implication their contract with contributors **and not communicate the change** its pretty clear that they couldn't care less about contributors. Seems to me that there are a few power plays going on in the industry - with the changes to the IS best match hurting non-exclusives, and now this. Personally I was almost at silver... now almost 1/5 of the way there. Pretty crappy change if you ask me.

« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2008, 01:56 »
0
...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?

« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2008, 02:45 »
0
This is very very disappointing for me. I just need few days to reach gold (1000 DL) , but now I need to wait few more years.

saniphoto

« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2008, 03:04 »
0
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

Hi Jonathan

I think you have hit the exact point: Exclusivity. One of the key next move for microstock is to have exclusive content (not the same images everywhere) and the problem will be addressed sooner or later by all agencies. IS already made a clear strong move in that direction. FT is probably following now. I don't see nothing bad in it per se (I was already wondering what sense make to have five-six agencies selling all the same product?), the problem is how you implement it...

If on the contrary they are trying to sell FT, as you try to guess, I doubt if the outcome will be positive for us (Getty or Corbis will be buying it, in that case - forget the 50% payout to you, then...).

Val.





saniphoto

« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2008, 04:42 »
0
Oh, I want to add another thought. Probably at Fotolia they were realizing that if too many people got to Gold and Emerald (thus increasing their prices) Fotolia would became sooner an 'expensive shop' compared to other agencies. Is that another possible explanation of the move?

regards,
Val.

« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2008, 05:17 »
0
I understand they wanted to change rankings, but they were quite radical.  If sales were not good in FT...

Regards,
Adelaide

My reply in their forum (before it gets deleted...)

Quote
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
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 05:35 by madelaide »

grp_photo

« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2008, 05:58 »
0
Well , before making any new calculations , you may want to consider that this can happen again in the future.

I guess they build their pyramid structure , and they want to keep it  the same it looks at this stage.
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 ::)

grp_photo

« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2008, 06:08 »
0
I could have understand (though not agreed) if they set the ability for double the prices for non-exclusive material to the next level but they did carry all away higher percentage, higher prices for exclusive material and the ability to at least apply for the infinite collection.

« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2008, 08:56 »
0
New changing after talking... but after silver, it's always hard...


« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2008, 09:27 »
0
Has anyone heard how Yuri Arcurs or Andres Rodriguez are reacting to this?

« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2008, 09:49 »
0
I always loved ther way of communication - it's simply non-existing. Safes time for both parties ...

CofkoCof

« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2008, 10:10 »
0
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

abimages

« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2008, 11:25 »
0
Not been a good year for me at FT....Subs,odd rejections,below par sales, and now this!

Bad of them to let this out without any announcement too. I'm way off moving up anyway so I wont be affected, but I feel sorry for those about to jump up a level. :'(

All in all unfair treatment yet again from them!

« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2008, 12:00 »
0
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.

grp_photo

« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2008, 12:25 »
0
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

AVAVA

« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2008, 13:06 »
0
Happy thanksgiving everyone,

 I will address this in more detail on a business day. Today is food and football.

 Best to you all,
 AVAVA

« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2008, 13:57 »
0
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.

Could you please show us the link to this statement.

Thanks.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
12464 Views
Last post February 05, 2009, 11:37
by null
3 Replies
2815 Views
Last post June 21, 2010, 16:05
by luissantos84
3 Replies
3701 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
5 Replies
3620 Views
Last post November 26, 2011, 01:36
by FD
0 Replies
1593 Views
Last post October 13, 2017, 18:43
by StockStudio

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results