MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Freezingpictures on February 18, 2009, 09:30
-
Just got an e-mail from Fotolia Germany. They announced some changes:
One was I believed mentioned here before. The option to give your images away for free which have not sold int 24 month
Others are:
- Medium size price will go up to 4 credits
- our commission goes down by 3%
- new exclusivity model (photographers exclusivity like istock)
- commission from exclusive images will in future be the same as nonexclusive images, if the whole portfolio is not exclusive.
-
- commission from exclusive images will in future be the same as nonexclusive images, if the whole portfolio is not exclusive.
Well, commisions will be the same, but you can set higher maximum prices, if you have image exclusivity.
-
One important point I have seen: You can't change the price for ELs any more until emerald status for non-exclusive files.
Hope this is just an error, I've asked on the FT forum and am waiting for a response...
-
One important point I have seen: You can't change the price for ELs any more until emerald status for non-exclusive files.
Hope this is just an error, I've asked on the FT forum and am waiting for a response...
You can bet that it is NOT an error...
-
You can bet that it is NOT an error...
Let's wait. There is no benefit for FT in doing so. Whoever buys an EL intends to make money with it. I would assume that the price is secondary, so offering ELs at low prices will not lead to a significant increase in volume.
On the other hand higher prices - obviously - means more money for FT too, so why change that?
For the "regular" licences it makes some sense, as the commission here might be a way to push people to exclusivity...
-
Wow I did not noticed that with the EL. I will opted out my images from the Extended License if that really is the case.
-
For the "regular" licences it makes some sense, as the commission here might be a way to push people to exclusivity...
Who in their right mind would even consider going exclusive on Fotolia?
-
For the "regular" licences it makes some sense, as the commission here might be a way to push people to exclusivity...
Who in their right mind would even consider going exclusive on Fotolia?
Not me. But in the German FT forum you can read the first posts where people have deleted their non-exclusive files from FT...
-
For the "regular" licences it makes some sense, as the commission here might be a way to push people to exclusivity...
Who in their right mind would even consider going exclusive on Fotolia?
I would think that Fotolia does not talk about real artist exclusivitiy here. Instead, they say 'no non-exclusive pictures on Fotolia'. Strange...
-
For the "regular" licences it makes some sense, as the commission here might be a way to push people to exclusivity...
Who in their right mind would even consider going exclusive on Fotolia?
I would think that Fotolia does not talk about real artist exclusivitiy here. Instead, they say 'no non-exclusive pictures on Fotolia'. Strange...
That's what the Newsletter said, but that was obviously just bad communication. On the German FT forum it was just stated (from a FT employee) that they mean photographer exclusivity just like at istock.
-
Can anyone explain what "our commissions go down 3% means"? We all get 3% less than we are getting now? So if you are at 34% it will now be 31% , etc.?
-
Yes Lisa, thats what I meant and how I understood the e-mail.
-
Just received the email __ here it is in English;
# FEB 2009
UNSOLD FILES AND EXCLUSIVITY: WHAT WILL CHANGE?
Dear members,
Fotolia has recently reached the amazing number of 5 million images online, and soon, there will be more than 1 million members using the Fotolia website worldwide. This success is due to the wonderful talent of our contributors, who have placed their trust in us for over 4 years now.
In order for us to prepare for the future and continue offering our contributors more revenue, we plan to make two major changes, first plans to help monetize unsold files and second changes in exclusivity conditions.
The following information will outline all of these changes.
UNSOLD FILES MANAGEMENT
Many of you have within your portfolio files that have not sold in the last 24 months. Fotolia now offers you the ability to generate revenue with those unsold files, by adding them to the Free Images API.
If you have files that have not sold during the last 24 months, you can decide to offer them to the Free Images API and receive 0.5 credits for each file submitted. Of course, your files will remain on the Fotolia website and may be sold at any time, but they will also be offered for free via the Free Images API.
Offer Conditions
For each unsold file added to the Free Images API, the contributor receives 0.5 credits to their Fotolia account.
A file added to this Free Images API will still remain on the Fotolia website and may be sold at any time.
When an unsold file is added to this Free Images API, the contributor can not remove the file from this section for at least 18 months.
Files from the Fotolia Free files API will be distributed through partners sites using the Fotolia free site API as well as the Fotolia free files section
After 18 months, the contributor will have the ability to remove this file from the Free Images API if they so choose.
Procedure
Files which may be added to this Free Images API will be displayed in the Member home > My files > Unsold files section.
You just have to decide which files you wish to add to the Free Images API. Upon submission to the Free Images API your credits will be immediately added to your Fotolia account.
PRICES, EXCLUSIVITY AND COMMISSIONS
In March, we plan to increase the prices for the M license to 4 credits. According to our estimations, this price increase should allow our contributors to generate 20% more revenue.
However, in order to grow in terms of marketing, human resources and technology, Fotolia is reducing commissions by 3%.
Nevertheless, Fotolia will remain the best paying microstock site with commissions between 30% and 61% depending on the level of exclusivity. (see charts below).
It is also planned to modify the exclusivity and commission conditions for photos and illustrations. This modification is necessary to allow Fotolia to remain competitive and equitable towards our most faithful members.
Thus there are now three types of exclusivity within Fotolia, Non exclusive, Partially exclusive, and Totally exclusive.
Type of exclusivity Contributor's files Exclusive files benefits
Non exclusivity Only non exclusive files in portfolio -
Partial exclusivity Partly Exclusive and Partly non exclusive files in portfolio Ability to raise prices for exclusive files
Non exclusive commissions
Total exclusivity Photographer is 100% exclusive with Fotolia Ability to raise prices
Exclusive commissions
Maximum Price for files with total exclusivity
Commission (%)
White 47 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Bronze 49 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 50
Silver 51 3 6 12 15 18 21 24 100
Gold 53 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 150
Emerald 55 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 200
Sapphire 57 6 12 24 30 36 42 48 200
Rubis 59 7 14 28 35 42 49 56 200
Diamond 61 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 200
Maximum Price for exclusive files with partial exclusivity
Commission (%)
White 30 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Bronze 32 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 50
Silver 34 3 6 12 15 18 21 24 100
Gold 36 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 150
Emerald 38 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 200
Sapphire 40 6 12 24 30 36 42 48 200
Rubis 42 7 14 28 35 42 49 56 200
Diamond 44 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 200
Maximum Price for non exclusive files
Commission (%)
White 30 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Bronze 32 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Silver 34 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Gold 36 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Emerald 38 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 200
Sapphire 40 3 6 12 15 18 21 24 200
Rubis 42 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 200
Diamond 44 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 200
-
Increasing prices then decreases percentages is another Fotolia kick in the ass. They are schmucks. I can find other words to describe this move but am not allowed to print them here. I guess there is no stop to this.
-
Can anyone explain what "our commissions go down 3% means"?
Along with the rest of the crap that was written in the email it means that Fotolia have screwed us again.
-
OMG. This means that we will be forced to give away EL for 20$ with no ability to change it ever.... unless some unachievable level (saphire or so...)
-
3% does not sound much, but consider that 3% down from 33% commission is actually 10% less money, that means you monthly payout will be 10% lower.
-
This is going to far.
The 3% decrease is actually close to 10% !!. 3% of 37% in my case ...
Along with the non-communication about this £ - € - $ thing, I've had it. We should really do something about these ... well ... 'guys'. But what ?
-
This is one more push towards me focusing more on macro agencies and less on micro.. We seem to just keep getting shafted more and more.. It's unfortunate..
-
I just got the e-mail too. It does lay things out pretty clearly.
Thanks for posting the explanation about the % changes.
I am really sorry to see a push for artist exclusivity on another site. Conditions on istock for independents have gotten increasingly worse over the past couple of years and it would be sad to see Fotolia going the same direction.
-
I noticed that the images they want us to DONATE unsold images for the amount of 0.5 cent per image to the free section. This allows them to distribute the images via thair partneres s as well... Not "just" offer them for free on fotolia....
Just what is the point in doing that?
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
-
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
Flemming,
so true, so true. Images that don't sell are only marginally different from the ones that do.
Peter
-
Well I was just starting to see an increase in sales from FT - I think this is due to finally making it to Silver.
So if they estimate that increasing their prices will increase our revenue by 20%, surely they themselves will also have more $$ to spend on marketing?
With a track record like this of moving the goalposts, whats to stop the incremental erosion of our commission to something like what IS is paying now?
-
EL = 20 credits
payout = 30%
earned credits = 6
1 credit = £0.60
earned £ = 3.6
converted to $ = $5.2 !!!
are they NUTS ??? If they get away with this, they can do everything ! Sorry, this is way over the limit for me.
-
3% pay cut, just what we need during a recession. Thanks, Fotolia >:(
-
Its too bad when a sites solution to promoting exclusivity is by screwing everyone who is not exclusive, all we need is another iStock.
As far as the free photos... I have pretty mixed feelings about giving my photos away for free. Fotolia was the second site is signed up with a couple years ago when I know nothing about photography and they used to accepted just about anything.
I have quite a few images that would qualify for the free section that I would never submit with my new photos now that I am more experienced. Most of these images were all rejected by other sites and are only on FT.
I dont really look at it as giving my images away if FT is willing to give me 50 cents for them. Im not going to offer all my unsolds in the free section, but looking back at some of those pretty bad photos I think 50 cents sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
-
I can scarcely believe what they're doing here. I'm gutted.
Last November I was extremely disappointed to have Emerald status snatched from my grasp for at least another couple of years __ and now this.
There's no way I'm selling EL's for 36% of 20 credits and it looks like all my exclusive images will be going back up to the other sites too. It was only the significant increase in commission that made it economically practical.
-
Its too bad when a sites solution to promoting exclusivity is by screwing everyone who is not exclusive, all we need is another iStock.
As far as the free photos... I have pretty mixed feelings about giving my photos away for free. Fotolia was the second site is signed up with a couple years ago when I know nothing about photography and they used to accepted just about anything.
I have quite a few images that would qualify for the free section that I would never submit with my new photos now that I am more experienced. Most of these images were all rejected by other sites and are only on FT.
I dont really look at it as giving my images away if FT is willing to give me 50 cents for them. Im not going to offer all my unsolds in the free section, but looking back at some of those pretty bad photos I think 50 cents sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
I contributed a handful of free images right at the start - over 3 years ago, and disabled those about a year after - looking at the stats, the number of sales from 1500 images for sale only exceeded the number of "sales" from free images about 2 weeks ago. In my view, the free images sections of MS sites only benefit the agencies, not contributors.
It seems to me that lots of people are unhappy about the changes - the question is anyone prepared to take any action to protect our interests?
-
Really don't understand the EL thing. How can they expect to sell EL's for 1/5 the price of everywhere else and not have contributors freak out. :-\
my head hurts.
-
Not much of a positive side, but at least they told us about it before implementing it. I guess that's a step in the right direction.
-
In my view, the free images sections of MS sites only benefit the agencies, not contributors.
Correct. I heard from a few people that freebees don't affect sales on your paying port at all. They just get downloaded by freebee hunters and bloggers that would never buy an image. It's a different audience. Buyers can't afford to chase for freebees since their hourly wage doesn't allow it. I'm one of those freebee hunters too sometimes, and I don't even bother to look at the photographers name. It only benefits the site by boosting their SEO. If I want to give away freebees, I want to do it myself.
-
I just sent Fotolia an email asking them if it is true that they are going to put all my photos with an EL price of $20 ??? If this was true I asked them to remove the EL option all ALL my photos as I am not willing to sell my photos at an EL price of $20...(currently I have them at $150).....and get a whole 38% of it.........opps make that 35%. If we all start sending them this message .....maybe they might think twice about it.
-
"Not much of a positive side, but at least they told us about it before implementing it. I guess that's a step in the right direction."
I agree. That was mighty considerate of them ;)
-
With this kind of great news.....why in the HeL# would I even consider giving them any FREE PHOTOS ????
-
I remember very well what happened to my sales when 123 started with their free section.
My sales dropped like hell....
My prediction, same will happen on fotolia. If a buyer finds what they need in the free section, why bother looking any further.
My guess is a lot of photogs will start donating their unsold content just for the 0.5 credit.
Patrick H.
-
Is there a way to disable all EL sales in a click or by e-mail , or they just give me a free day for softly clicking with some nice music in the background ?
-
I remember very well what happened to my sales when 123 started with their free section.
My sales dropped like hell....
My prediction, same will happen on fotolia. If a buyer finds what they need in the free section, why bother looking any further.
My guess is a lot of photogs will start donating their unsold content just for the 0.5 credit.
Patrick H.
This sounds like a prediction that definitely WILL come true....
IMHO, the microstock business is far too cheap as it is..
If only the contributors would and could join up together and deny any participation in all the low priced subscriptions and this FREE image garbage! :-\
-
Disappointed!
I finally make silver and sell my first EL at the 100 credit rate of $37 only to find out today that my new EL price will be $6.80!!! This can't be right can it?
EL's have been consistent for me at FT, I am gutted to learn about this.
-
just found this on fotolia forum from Chad
Hi Fotolians,
I just spoke with the CEO and there was a mistake in the newsletter. The X license will remain the same price. We are even thinking to raise the range a bit for the X license.
One other thing when the M becomes 4, the L will be 5, the XL will be 6, the XXL will be 7, and the XXL will be 8. we thought this was obvious to everyone but I am happy to make this more clear.
Chad Bridwell
Director of US Operations
Fotolia.com
-
3% pay cut, just what we need during a recession. Thanks, Fotolia >:(
It hardly is 3% pay cut. The commission percentage is lowered by 3, so your actual comission will go down a lot more.
For example I'm bronze, my commission now is 35% and is going to be 32% - that is 8.57% lower. :(
-
I would say, just post at least one message on their forums. They already thinking reversing the price change for the EL. We all need them to feel the pressure of the group.
http://en.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=17498&p=2
-
Really don't understand the EL thing. How can they expect to sell EL's for 1/5 the price of everywhere else and not have contributors freak out. :-\
my head hurts.
maybe they expect us to freak out for that and miss some other part.... ;)
-
Total disdain for contributors, imagining that they would unable to work out that the stated 3% reduction is, in fact, much, much more.
Shooting themselves in the foot, I reckon. :(
-
Really don't understand the EL thing. How can they expect to sell EL's for 1/5 the price of everywhere else and not have contributors freak out. :-\
my head hurts.
maybe they expect us to freak out for that and miss some other part.... ;)
Was thinking the same thing.
-
Facebook sure changed their tune this morning after all the press they received the past 48 hours. I wonder if we should sent a well worded press release to a few trade publications and some of the newspapers about a content provider is abusing their absolute power. The NY Times has run quite a few get-rich stories on micro haven't they? Maybe their editors would like to hear about the dirty side of crowdsourcing.
-
Glad to hear the $20 EL was a typo
Regarding the price and percentage change
For newbies (top current price bottom new price)
XS 1 x 0.33 = 0.33
1 x 0.30 = 0.30 3 cents less
S 2 x 0.33 = 0.66
2 x 0.30 = 0.60 6 cents less
M 3 x 0.33 = 0.99
4 x 0.30 = 1.20 21 cents more
L 4 x 0.33 = 1.32
5 x 0.30 = 1.50 18 cents more
XL 5 x 0.33 = 1.65
6 x 0.30 = 1.80 15 cents more
XXL 6 x 0.33 = 1.98
7 x 0.30 = 2.10 12 cents more
I actually checked the last 100 DLs at FT to see what the proportion of XS, S, M, L etc was. I was pleasantly surprised ;D for that sample. I had almost as many M as XS so calculating for a newbie I would have earnt more with the new price structure than the current. Obviously if you have a very high proportion of XS and S sales then your earnings will go down :'(
Just checked the next 100 and I would have earnt more with the new structure.
Hopefully in March I will see the same trend
-
It will be interesting to see how many contributors become exclusive. As someone else wrote, I think you'd have to be crazy to become exclusive at Fotolia. I'd sooner quite microstock than do that. ::)
Too bad about the almost 10% drop in commissions. But I guess they just weren't making enough with the current rates. After all, they know it's a gamble to lower our rates. Some will leave, most will not. Hopefully they can use the money wisely to bring new buyers (not buyers from other sites) into microstock, & Fotolia.
-
I'm about to contribute only to 2 or 3 places LOL. I think we can all agree that IS and DT are the best places to be. Why not leaving if they don't change their minds. In hope that the buyers follow where the offer is
-
Do you read the form at FT?
The moderator MAT, just wrote this...:
QUOTE!
Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys,
Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day?
As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right.
Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic....
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
current commissions:
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
It is more money for the photographers.
As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so.
END QUOTE
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
;D
-
Glad to hear the $20 EL was a typo
Was it ?
I mean , even if it wont take effect ?
Was it ?
You know I have a neighbor who wanted a hat.
She asked her husband to buy her a nice little sport car ?
Poor guy was so happy when he was paying for that hat.
And If you ask me she wasn't into sports cars anyway.
-
my reply at the FT forums :
About the increase in total commissions. I took my last 100 sales which were distributed as followed :
sub : 42
XS : 13
S : 6
M : 16
L : 13
XL : 10
Those generated me 78.19 credits at current prices and commissions rate.
With the new prices AND the old commissions rate of 37% they would earned me 92.62 credits which is a 14% increase (not the 20% you said in the newsletter, but close)
With the new prices AND new commission rate of 34% they would earned me 86.2 credits. Still a 8% increase in total earnings.
I don't know if the X license was a typo or that they felt the heat. Doesn't matter imho. X license stays the same, that's the most important.
-
2.10 12 cents more
I actually checked the last 100 DLs at FT to see what the proportion of XS, S, M, L etc was. I was pleasantly surprised ;D for that sample. I had almost as many M as XS so calculating for a newbie I would have earnt more with the new price structure than the current. Obviously if you have a very high proportion of XS and S sales then your earnings will go down :'(
Just checked the next 100 and I would have earnt more with the new structure.
Hopefully in March I will see the same trend
The thing is you would have earned more under the old percentage structure and the new increase; as you would have earned more under the old ranking scheme.
It's very easy for FT to later roll back the increase without changing the percentage rate.
-
Do you read the form at FT?
The moderator MAT, just wrote this...:
QUOTE!
Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys,
Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day?
As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right.
Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic....
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
current commissions:
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
It is more money for the photographers.
As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so.
END QUOTE
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
;D
funny he says about being exclusive yet he was on here a few weeks back asking about agencies and what to do with his rejections and from memory saying he may have made a mistake by not submitting the rejected images at least to other agencies.
-
I noticed that the images they want us to DONATE unsold images for the amount of 0.5 cent per image to the free section. This allows them to distribute the images via thair partneres s as well... Not "just" offer them for free on fotolia....
Just what is the point in doing that?
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
this is my concern, too many images being given away, I would be interested to see how many images this would be 10% of 5 million is 500k free images, why buy it if there is a similar image for free?
Phil
-
Not much of a positive side, but at least they told us about it before implementing it. I guess that's a step in the right direction.
that was one of my first thoughts too
-
Do you read the form at FT?
The moderator MAT, just wrote this...:
QUOTE!
Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys,
Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day?
As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right.
Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic....
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
current commissions:
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
It is more money for the photographers.
As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so.
END QUOTE
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
;D
wooyay wooyay, sadly if this happened at IS there would be dozens of people making these sorts of comments.
-
deleted
-
I noticed that the images they want us to DONATE unsold images for the amount of 0.5 cent per image to the free section. This allows them to distribute the images via thair partneres s as well... Not "just" offer them for free on fotolia....
Just what is the point in doing that?
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
this is my concern, too many images being given away, I would be interested to see how many images this would be 10% of 5 million is 500k free images, why buy it if there is a similar image for free?
Phil
There's currently a very active dialogue about this on FT... http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=17498&p=3 (http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=17498&p=3)
I'm currently trying to get any one of two moderators to explain the overall UPSIDE here... They seems to think that it's a golden offer - these 0.50 credits... They seems to avoid ansvwering the questions about the effect on normal sales and stuff like that ....
Please do join in ;D
-
Nevertheless, Fotolia will remain the best paying microstock site with commissions between 30% and 61% depending on the level of exclusivity. (see charts below).
seems a funny thing to say, when the 61% is diamond full exclusive, a level that is essentially unattainable (Yuri is newly rewarded rubis - 250000k so a quarter of the way to diamond) (and of course fp offers 70%)
-
Can anyone explain what "our commissions go down 3% means"? We all get 3% less than we are getting now? So if you are at 34% it will now be 31% , etc.?
That's absolutely the case. And they will also let you give away files which aren't selling well. Isn't Fotolia the best?
First Guarantee - Fotolia will continue to screw over its contributors
Second Guarantee - Contributors will scream about it, and threaten to do this or that
Third Guarantee - Contributors will end up accepting whatever Fotolia wants, because everyone wants every last dollar
Leave them. Send a real message.
-
Do you read the form at FT?
The moderator MAT, just wrote this...:
QUOTE!
Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys,
Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day?
As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right.
Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic....
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
current commissions:
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
It is more money for the photographers.
As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so.
END QUOTE
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
;D
funny he says about being exclusive yet he was on here a few weeks back asking about agencies and what to do with his rejections and from memory saying he may have made a mistake by not submitting the rejected images at least to other agencies.
It has always been a question for me. I have a few images at other sites...Snapvillage and Media Magnet that had very limited success. Shutterstock closed my account without warning because I moderate the Fotolia forum so that was out. I've always made a decent chunk of change at Fotolia. At least 4 figures per month for the past couple of years so I have chosen not to fix something not broken. Now, there is more incentive for me to submit only to Fotolia. I've already got the bulk of my time invested there so why not. The commission % is very high and now the $ amount will be higher with the increased price. I have always believed, and believe now more than ever with the popularity of micro increasing that photographers are shooting themselves in the foot in the big picture here but uploading all their images everywhere they can. That drives prices down. If you were to submit exclusively anywhere, that would increase the competition amongst sites to create better incentive for you to go there which would include higher prices and commissions. I stand by everything I have said. I've sent my letters to Snapvillage and Mediamagnet asking them to close my accounts and I look forward to an increase in pay.
I realize this isn't the popular approach. Call me what you want, but loyalty is not something I will apologize to anyone for.
All the best,
Mat Hayward
-
funny he says about being exclusive yet he was on here a few weeks back asking about agencies and what to do with his rejections and from memory saying he may have made a mistake by not submitting the rejected images at least to other agencies.
I wonder if he gets paid by Fotolia for * up so much.
-
I have just been warned to stop persuing the issue about the free image garbage... So if any of you would like to take over, please do so ;D
It's right here...: http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271 (http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271)
-
I have just been warned to stop persuing the issue about the free image garbage... So if any of you would like to take over, please do so ;D
It's right here...: [url]http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271[/url] ([url]http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271[/url])
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. While I appreciate the vested interest you have in the site with a grand total of 42 images uploaded, I do think you had gone a bit overboard with your posts and simply asked you to move on. You had received answers several times and felt compelled to continue with the rants. Not the most productive approach.
Have a spectacular day!
Mat
-
I have just been warned to stop persuing the issue about the free image garbage... So if any of you would like to take over, please do so ;D
It's right here...: [url]http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271[/url] ([url]http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271[/url])
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. While I appreciate the vested interest you have in the site with a grand total of 42 images uploaded, I do think you had gone a bit overboard with your posts and simply asked you to move on. You had received answers several times and felt compelled to continue with the rants. Not the most productive approach.
Have a spectacular day!
Mat
Hi Mat,
I strongly protest on this!
The number of imagages has nothing to do with the question's about WHY giving away images.
And no. You have not answered my most improtant question's..
The 0.50 credit part is answered yes... We don't agree, and that's very fine by me... You're still neglecting to tell us all what's the gain for fotola? - And what's the downside for the overall number of payed downloads?
If you can't - or if you're not allowed to answer this, it's fine... Just say so...
I have nothing against you, and I really feel that yoy're reacting far too strongly here... I think that we decerve some ansvers and if you have misunderstod some underlying tone or mood, I deeply apologize... Please understand that I'm not a native english speeker and this might be refelcted in the way you "read between the lines" ?
So if you feel that I have offended you, I deeply apologize
........
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. Please explain this sentence... And please read the posts again... I have not threttened you, nor have I sad anything bad about you, only questioned the concept of giving away images for free....
My very best regards
Flemming
-
- our commission goes down by 3%
Wow. How exciting. Should we thank them? :-\
-
I have nothing against you, and I really feel that yoy're reacting far too strongly here... I think that we decerve some ansvers and if you have misunderstod some underlying tone or mood, I deeply apologize... Please understand that I'm not a native english speeker and this might be refelcted in the way you "read between the lines" ?
So if you feel that I have offended you, I deeply apologize
........
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. Please explain this sentence... And please read the posts again... I have not threttened you, nor have I sad anything bad about you, only questioned the concept of giving away images for free....
My very best regards
Flemming
"Ugh __ Hayward is such a disgusting little corporate creep."
I accept your apology Flemming. I have been down this road many times in the past. I also understand English is not your first language though I can't help but think calling someone a "disgusting little corporate creep" in any language is not considered a compliment. That being said, I've certainly been called worse and do appreciate your passion for the topic.
I don't think free photo's are going to have much of an impact one way or another. While there are undoubtedly some gems hidden in the unsold category, as I mentioned in the FT forum, looking through my files that haven't sold in two years I found quite a few stinkers. The acceptance criteria two years ago was greatly different than it is today. I don't see it as a threat.
Mat
-
- our commission goes down by 3%
Wow. How exciting. Should we thank them? :-\
Yes, the commission is lower, but the cash in pocket is higher because they have raised the prices. Here is my math again. Someone else posted in the FT forum they did the math on their past 100 sales and found with the new rates they would come out on top. Can you dispute this math for a silver photographer?...
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
-
I noticed that the images they want us to DONATE unsold images for the amount of 0.5 cent per image to the free section. This allows them to distribute the images via thair partneres s as well... Not "just" offer them for free on fotolia....
Just what is the point in doing that?
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
this is my concern, too many images being given away, I would be interested to see how many images this would be 10% of 5 million is 500k free images, why buy it if there is a similar image for free?
Phil
Free Images are very popular i have only a dozen at sxc.hu and after about two years i'm pretty close to my 200.000 Download :-)
-
I have nothing against you, and I really feel that yoy're reacting far too strongly here... I think that we decerve some ansvers and if you have misunderstod some underlying tone or mood, I deeply apologize... Please understand that I'm not a native english speeker and this might be refelcted in the way you "read between the lines" ?
So if you feel that I have offended you, I deeply apologize
........
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. Please explain this sentence... And please read the posts again... I have not threttened you, nor have I sad anything bad about you, only questioned the concept of giving away images for free....
My very best regards
Flemming
"Ugh __ Hayward is such a disgusting little corporate creep."
I accept your apology Flemming. I have been down this road many times in the past. I also understand English is not your first language though I can't help but think calling someone a "disgusting little corporate creep" in any language is not considered a compliment. That being said, I've certainly been called worse and do appreciate your passion for the topic.
I don't think free photo's are going to have much of an impact one way or another. While there are undoubtedly some gems hidden in the unsold category, as I mentioned in the FT forum, looking through my files that haven't sold in two years I found quite a few stinkers. The acceptance criteria two years ago was greatly different than it is today. I don't see it as a threat.
Mat
Hi Mat,
So this is the mistake...
The sentence in question is NOT posted by me... I'm not even able to use such "refined" language... Sorry...
If you go to the previous page and look for #55 you'll find that this particular sentence was posted by gostwych or what ever his or her name is...?
Thanks
Flemming
-
I now know who you are.
That sounds like a threat
I didn't put two and two together.
Clearly not because if you had you could have just clicked on his portfolio link which is under his comments here.
I never visit the Fotolia forum because of the way you moderate, you are a moderator and you are there to make sure people behave in a proper and respectful way, that does not mean you should lock threads because you don't like peoples opinions.
I also feel that as you've taken the role of being a moderator on Fotolia albeit for little or no pay that you should not take part in any topics there concerning contributor relations, your view of the matter is clearly biased.
There's a huge difference between being a moderator and acting like a corporate whipping boy, and no you don't know who I am but rest assured I'm no newbie.
-
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts?
To me, that screams cowardice. I doubt very much that when most people write angry, aggressive posts in forums that they have the courage or lack of character to do the same thing when talking to a person face to face. It's always been that way, always will. It does bug me though. I can guarantee you one thing. You might think I am a corporate kiss-ass, a yes man, or you may think I am a prick. One thing is for sure, anything I write in here, on the FT forum, my blog or any other form of communication from me you can expect me to have the balls to say it to your face, good or bad.
I am not an employee of Fotolia. I am a contributor with as much a vested interest in the success of that site as anyone else in this forum. I was reluctant for a long time to contribute to this forum. It is filled with some of the most talented, intelligent and articulate people in our industry and has a great deal to offer. I feel at times I can contribute to some of the posts as well. I don't want to pee in anyones fruitloops by any means but if you feel compelled to attack me personally, do not expect me to cower in a corner and shut up about it. Do not expect me to take you seriously either if you don't have the courage to even sign your name.
Mat Hayward
I now know who you are.
That sounds like a threat
I didn't put two and two together.
Clearly not because if you had you could have just clicked on his portfolio link which is under his comments here.
I never visit the Fotolia forum because of the way you moderate, you are a moderator and you are there to make sure people behave in a proper and respectful way, that does not mean you should lock threads because you don't like peoples opinions.
I also feel that as you've taken the role of being a moderator on Fotolia albeit for little or no pay that you should not take part in any topics there concerning contributor relations, your view of the matter is clearly biased.
There's a huge difference between being a moderator and acting like a corporate whipping boy, and no you don't know who I am but rest assured I'm no newbie.
-
So this is the mistake...
The sentence in question is NOT posted by me... I'm not even able to use such "refined" language... Sorry...
If you go to the previous page and look for #55 you'll find that this particular sentence was posted by gostwych or what ever his or her name is...?
Thanks
Flemming
That was a mistake and I am very sorry Flemming! All those posts were coming at the same time I and I misread. Sorry.
Mat
-
So this is the mistake...
The sentence in question is NOT posted by me... I'm not even able to use such "refined" language... Sorry...
If you go to the previous page and look for #55 you'll find that this particular sentence was posted by gostwych or what ever his or her name is...?
Thanks
Flemming
That was a mistake and I am very sorry Flemming! All those posts were coming at the same time I and I misread. Sorry.
Mat
And to make matters worse (in regards to a crazy conversation), I have deleted the original post by Gostwych’s since it was nothing other than insult slinging.
-
Can you dispute this math for a silver photographer?...
I think I can, given that most of my sales are either subs, XS or S. I will do my own real-world math for the past months sales and post it here.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Hi Mat,
That's OK, These things do happen...
I just don't feel the need to take responsibility or bame for other contributors posts..
With this I'll humbly leave the topic and wait for the time to come, when we see the predicted result of the free images... Let history repeat it self, as they say :D
have a nice evening
best regards
Flemming
-
That's absolutely the case. And they will also let you give away files which aren't selling well. Isn't Fotolia the best?
First Guarantee - Fotolia will continue to screw over its contributors
Second Guarantee - Contributors will scream about it, and threaten to do this or that
Third Guarantee - Contributors will end up accepting whatever Fotolia wants, because everyone wants every last dollar
Leave them. Send a real message.
I like that
-
- our commission goes down by 3%
Wow. How exciting. Should we thank them? :-\
Yes, the commission is lower, but the cash in pocket is higher because they have raised the prices. Here is my math again. Someone else posted in the FT forum they did the math on their past 100 sales and found with the new rates they would come out on top. Can you dispute this math for a silver photographer?...
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
This math only works if consumer behavior remains the same. I am afraid it will increase subscriptions - at which we will earn 0.32 credits for a download in size L. (plus: 34% of 5,00 is 1,70 not 1,85...).
-
Do you read the form at FT?
The moderator MAT, just wrote this...:
QUOTE!
Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys,
Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day?
As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right.
Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic....
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
current commissions:
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
It is more money for the photographers.
As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so.
END QUOTE
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
;D
funny he says about being exclusive yet he was on here a few weeks back asking about agencies and what to do with his rejections and from memory saying he may have made a mistake by not submitting the rejected images at least to other agencies.
It has always been a question for me. I have a few images at other sites...Snapvillage and Media Magnet that had very limited success. Shutterstock closed my account without warning because I moderate the Fotolia forum so that was out. I've always made a decent chunk of change at Fotolia. At least 4 figures per month for the past couple of years so I have chosen not to fix something not broken. Now, there is more incentive for me to submit only to Fotolia. I've already got the bulk of my time invested there so why not. The commission % is very high and now the $ amount will be higher with the increased price. I have always believed, and believe now more than ever with the popularity of micro increasing that photographers are shooting themselves in the foot in the big picture here but uploading all their images everywhere they can. That drives prices down. If you were to submit exclusively anywhere, that would increase the competition amongst sites to create better incentive for you to go there which would include higher prices and commissions. I stand by everything I have said. I've sent my letters to Snapvillage and Mediamagnet asking them to close my accounts and I look forward to an increase in pay.
I realize this isn't the popular approach. Call me what you want, but loyalty is not something I will apologize to anyone for.
All the best,
Mat Hayward
Hi, I certainly did not mean it in any way to be degoratory and if it was taken this way then I apologise. I was just amused at the irony of the fact that a few weeks ago you were looking at what to do with the rejections (and now due to a change of circumstances another option has become available to you, which obvisously in your position would be beneficial to you).
-
This math only works if consumer behavior remains the same. I am afraid it will increase subscriptions - at which we will earn 0.32 credits for a download in size L. (plus: 34% of 5,00 is 1,70 not 1,85...).
[/quote]
Two solid points for sure. There is definitely the X-factor of whether or not a price increase will either push buyers elsewhere or drive them towards subscriptions. I think the latter isn't too big a concern. For buyers of multiple images that subscriptions make sense for I think they are already there. With so many really good options for them at pretty much all of the major sites I think that is what it is and this increase isn't going to be much a straw breaking the camels back. I do think it's a risk to push buyers to cheaper sites which goes back to my original post that as long as the bulk of photographers continue to upload all the exact same photo's to all the agencies it will drive prices down. I think I-stock was gutsy in making such a bold move to aggressively move photographers towards exclusivity and this move by Fotolia has an element of risk requiring courage as well. Ultimately, I really believe that no matter what site you upload to, if you do so exclusively and the majority of others do the same, we would all benefit greatly in the long run. I don't necessarily believe it's realistic but with I-stocks move and now Fotolia's it seems to be getting easier to make that decision.
As for the other point...ugh, how embarrassing. You are right that 34% of $5 is $1.70. Thank you for the clarification. Would you believe me if I told you I did the math in my head? ::)
Mat
-
this is my concern, too many images being given away, I would be interested to see how many images this would be 10% of 5 million is 500k free images, why buy it if there is a similar image for free?
Phil[/quote]
You can be sure it will be a choice of them. Giving away a volume of images for free is a mistake, because that only attracts free-image chasers. It has happened before and it should happen again. Judgig by StockXpert ranking, it doesn't seem the legion of downloaders at sxh.hu pay much attention to the row of StockXpert paying images that appears when they do a search for free images.
-
Can you dispute this math for a silver photographer?...
I think I can, given that most of my sales are either subs, XS or S. I will do my own real-world math for the past months sales and post it here.
Regards,
Adelaide
I must say I bit my tongue and in the final math for the past months the new plan would result in an increase of 5-10% in my earnings.
On the other hand, as Mellimage said, price increases in the credit side will move some buyers to the subs side. Also some buyers may decide to save a bit buying a smaller size. My calculations might then give a different result.
Nevetheless, it is disappointing to see FT cutting our already meager commissions and still force us to sell subs, FT being already one of the cheapest in the market in both cases. I keep my position of not uploading to FT.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts?
I'd imagine it is because most of them are all to aware that places like Fotolia don't support freedom of speech, and many folks that read these forums are either management, reviewers or hold other non-paid posistions on sites which gives them the power to be vindictive to those that criticise their beloved agency. By posting as anonymous it gives people the ability to say how they feel without any recourse.
I am not an employee of Fotolia.
I must be honest I always thought you were by the way you reply to policy questions on the forum and lock threads that reflect badly on Fotolias reputation, but that's mainly due to Chad also being tagged as a moderator, maybe they could change his tag to 'management' so everyone would know that when he replies it means something more than just a personal opinion.
-
This math only works if consumer behavior remains the same. I am afraid it will increase subscriptions - at which we will earn 0.32 credits for a download in size L. (plus: 34% of 5,00 is 1,70 not 1,85...).
Exactly what StockXpert just became. They did the exact same by higher the credit prices and now... Subs are all over the place. Fotolia follow the same track because the thruth is mostly they want buyers to brought only subs.
This way the agency earn around the same with subs package than with credit, get regular customers (1 month each or more) and the best part, give nothing to the photographers
That's why they put the prices like that. Tell me more about credit sales in 3 months LOL
-
ironically I think I just had my best day for sales at FT, about 17 assorted credit and sub sales :)
-
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts?
I'd imagine it is because most of them are all to aware that places like Fotolia don't support freedom of speech, and many folks that read these forums are either management, reviewers or hold other non-paid posistions on sites which gives them the power to be vindictive to those that criticise their beloved agency. By posting as anonymous it gives people the ability to say how they feel without any recourse.
It didn't do Bobby Deal much good did it Mat? Surprising that you couldn't work that one out all by yourself.
-
Somehow I'm not surprised ::) What's next? Image placement fees? >:(
-
Well I'm glad the Extended license issue seems to have resolved itself. Still...
It still doesn't really make up for
- changing the goalposts for rankings - eg. you loose 2% commission (or 5.8% of revenue) for each file sold between 5000 and 10000
- the decrease in percentage for commissions
- substantially delayed ability to increase file prices
Overall its a triple whammy.
The combined effect of all this is that contributors share of revenue has dropped substantially. Whether we will actually see an increase in total revenue is a big unknown. My personal view is that we won't.
-
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts?
I'd imagine it is because most of them are all to aware that places like Fotolia don't support freedom of speech, and many folks that read these forums are either management, reviewers or hold other non-paid posistions on sites which gives them the power to be vindictive to those that criticise their beloved agency. By posting as anonymous it gives people the ability to say how they feel without any recourse.
I am not an employee of Fotolia.
I must be honest I always thought you were by the way you reply to policy questions on the forum and lock threads that reflect badly on Fotolias reputation, but that's mainly due to Chad also being tagged as a moderator, maybe they could change his tag to 'management' so everyone would know that when he replies it means something more than just a personal opinion.
You make a fair point. I disagree, but also realize that perception is reality and if people have that fear or concern it makes sense. My point isn't really limited to this discussion or even photography for that matter. Since the internet has been in our lives, people feel a certain sense of bravado they don't normally have in the "real world." They feel safe and protected to let their dark side lash out. Kind of like the little old lady flipping someone the bird while driving a car. Hard to imagine her dropping an F-bomb to someone's face if walking down the sidewalk instead of driving. It's just human nature and I've always been bothered by it.
As for the title in the forum...that is actually a great idea and I'm going to write to Chad right now to see if he can make that change. It would save a lot of confusion and misconceptions I'll bet. Believe it or not, I have moderated the forum all these years because I simply love the power and control of it all! Ha Ha, that's not even close but I'll bet some of you read that and gasped :) I do it because I enjoy the forum, I care about the people that contribute to it and I care about Fotolia as a company. I believe that it is run by good people and I have always believed it has the greatest potential of all the sites for long term success. That is something I am proud to be a small part of.
Even the people that are the most skeptical can't argue with the success of the company. Believe me, I know there have been communication Snafu's in the past. I was thrilled to read this announcement prior to the changes being made. I know for a fact that the upper management listens to and cares about the contributor's of Fotolia. I've now seen two posts by people skeptical at first that did the math and learned that if the changes would have been made before their recent sales were made they would have made more money. This is an increase in revenue!
Mat
-
Okay, I'm a very minor player but this does it for me. I was going to hold on until I could make payout but with the decrease in commission, that would probably keep me there another 2 years. I'm done. They are the worst seller for me (and that's saying something!), the lack of ability to adjust keywords (after approval) or use phrases means it takes me 3x as long to upload images there as even iStock.
Is anyone else thinking of leaving, but pretty close to payout? I'd prefer to spend my credits with those who are not going to support Fotolia's continued screwing of it's contributors.
-
what is partialy exclusive? I can have 3000 images non exclusive, and 1 exclusive, am I partial exclusive? LOL!
-
I can't say I am thrilled with this latest announcement from Fotolia and it's fair to assume they won't be getting any free images from me, even if they are files that have not sold there in the past. Fact is, they could be on other sites selling quite nicely and the last thing you would want to do is throw them into the freebie pool.
I would prefer a price increase and no decrease in commissions but I don't think I can start jumping up and down in a violent rage when I still accept iStock's 20% commission for non-exclusives, as well as their obvious disdain for non-exclusive photographers.
I've always felt welcomed by Fotolia, have found Chad quick to respond to my personal queries. Some of the things they have done have been handled the wrong way but I can understand the need to cut costs in these difficult times. I guess we have to expect it too.
-
I would prefer a price increase and no decrease in commissions but I don't think I can start jumping up and down in a violent rage when I still accept iStock's 20% commission for non-exclusives, as well as their obvious disdain for non-exclusive photographers.
The difference is the traffic at iStock. I've made more at iStock in 2 months than I have in several years at Fotolia. More at DT too. Fotolia's system is totally broken. If I miss a keyword on iStock I can fix it. On Fotolia, I'm stuck with those keywords unless support intervenes. I have dozens of files with phrases that can't be found because Fotolia did not inform contributors that it was an issue (maybe in the forums, but I don't read theirs) and refuse to allow those files to be corrected. I'd have to email every file # and changes to support to get it corrected.
All I want is the money they owe me. I quit uploading there after the last change. They're looking for more ways to screw contributors and they've found it.
-
Okay, so I have been thinking about this new fibtolia slap in the face all day. I realize that it does mean an increased income (much more so now for Fibtolia than for the contributors) assuming buyers get the M and above. I could sit here and b*tch and moan all day...and all night, but then I would have to ask myself, who screws me more???? Oh yeah, IStock.
I've sold files on IStock for $0.19 USD - never had a sale that low on Fibtolia.
I get 20% commission on IStock - never had that low of commission on Fibtolia.
I can only upload 15 images a WEEK at IStock...don't have that problem at Fibtolia (not to mention the no FTP rule for non-exclusives on IStock)
I personally find IStocks forum and moderators to be much more controlling and full of negative, rude comments than Fibtolia (although, I don't spend much time on the Fibtolia forum - so my view could be skewed - but then I think of what happened to Bobby Deal and I wonder - Fibtolia could be worse in this category).
For me personally, I have got more photo's through the Fibtolia reviews than I do IStock. (IStock even tells me how they want me to redo my animations to how they want them - start here ... end there... blah blah blah - spend all night rerendering...um.... no!)
So, when I think about it, it's really IStock who's sticking it to me, but I do make a lot more $$$ on IStock than I do on Fibtolia - in fact I could take or leave Fibtolia and it would have no real financial effect.
I'm not trying in any way to justify what Fibtolia has done, and trust me - I don't like them, stopped liking them a while ago, but as far as who's screwing who??? I personally think its IStock screwing me.
Oh yeah, and some one might want to remind Fibtolia that they are not the highest paying commission in the industry even if your an exclusive.
-
I personally find IStocks forum and moderators to be much more controlling and full of negative, rude comments than Fibtolia (although, I don't spend much time on the Fibtolia forum - so my view could be skewed - but then I think of what happened to Bobby Deal and I wonder - Fibtolia could be worse in this category).
For me personally, I have got more photo's through the Fibtolia reviews than I do IStock. (IStock even tells me how they want me to redo my animations to how they want them - start here ... end there... blah blah blah - spend all night rerendering...um.... no!)
So, when I think about it, it's really IStock who's sticking it to me, but I do make a lot more $$$ on IStock than I do on Fibtolia - in fact I could take or leave Fibtolia and it would have no real financial effect.
I'm not trying in any way to justify what Fibtolia has done, and trust me - I don't like them, stopped liking them a while ago, but as far as who's screwing who??? I personally think its IStock screwing me.
Oh yeah, and some one might want to remind Fibtolia that they are not the highest paying commission in the industry even if your an exclusive.
For moderaters, I know only one banned person from IS forum. There's almost monthly on Fotolia who come here to say how they have been banned because of...
For the reviews I like more a strict and precise agency than a chaotic one like Fotolia. I almost always understand why I got rejected at Istock but it hardly make sense at Fotolia. That's the contributor problem also, you know that.
The 20% doesn't matter to me when the total sale is like 20$ and more. I still get 2$ to 5$ for one sale what I can't get on Fotolia. Also Istock doesn't have subscription, what make me have L, XL and XXL. I don't get that anymore on Fotolia
Don't get me wrong, I get your point of view and know you don't necessary like Fotolia. But there's another way to see things here, that I know you catch anyway.
LOL and yes someone please remind Fotolia peoples that their claims to be the highest commission is wrong. That prove they didn't go see elsewhere often LOL
-
Man, is this getting to be one of the longest-running threads on MSG or what??
Contributors....just say "NO" to free images.....please!!!!
-
Can you dispute this math for a silver photographer?...
I think I can, given that most of my sales are either subs, XS or S. I will do my own real-world math for the past months sales and post it here.
Regards,
Adelaide
I must say I bit my tongue and in the final math for the past months the new plan would result in an increase of 5-10% in my earnings.
On the other hand, as Mellimage said, price increases in the credit side will move some buyers to the subs side. Also some buyers may decide to save a bit buying a smaller size. My calculations might then give a different result.
Nevetheless, it is disappointing to see FT cutting our already meager commissions and still force us to sell subs, FT being already one of the cheapest in the market in both cases. I keep my position of not uploading to FT.
Regards,
Adelaide
Frankly I don't have much of a problem with the changes. However, I don't see anyone doing the math right on the price and commissions changes.
The law of supply and demand is pretty iron clad in competitive markets and Microstock is a near perfect competitive market (i.e. easy entry, many sellers, many buyers, etc.) That being the case the 20% rise in the price of images will result in a 20% decline in demand for images and total revenue from the sale of images will remain the same. The important change for contributors is that the lowered commission means that a smaller proportion of the total revenue will be going to the contributors.
Total demand - the number of images needed in the market - will continue to increase and revenues will increase with that demand but the price increase will mean that Fotolia sales will not increase as fast as the demand for images increases. Increases in the supply of images constrains the ability of MS sites to increase prices without losing market share.
FT can make up for some of this with marketing but in the end I think contributors will be lucky to break even with the changes.
fred
-
The law of supply and demand is pretty iron clad in competitive markets and Microstock is a near perfect competitive market (i.e. easy entry, many sellers, many buyers, etc.) That being the case the 20% rise in the price of images will result in a 20% decline in demand for images and total revenue from the sale of images will remain the same. The important change for contributors is that the lowered commission means that a smaller proportion of the total revenue will be going to the contributors.
Total demand - the number of images needed in the market - will continue to increase and revenues will increase with that demand but the price increase will mean that Fotolia sales will not increase as fast as the demand for images increases. Increases in the supply of images constrains the ability of MS sites to increase prices without losing market share.
FT can make up for some of this with marketing but in the end I think contributors will be lucky to break even with the changes.
fred
I don't think that the market is anything like as predictable as you suggest. If it were then IS should have lost much more market-share than it has because it is so much more expensive than the competition. The market is clearly segmented with buyers having different preferences and priorities.
From a contributor's point of view the details such as the % commission, etc are largely irrelevant. I have a portfolio of about 3000 images and all that really matters to me is how much it makes each month with each agency. I like agencies that make me a lot of money.
IS is the obvious example. They have always paid the lowest commission to independent contributors and yet they have always made me the most money. It does suggest that all this marketing malarkey does make a huge difference and that paying higher royalties at the cost of effective marketing/admin may indeed be false economy.
If FT believe they need to invest further in marketing and admin then I for one have considerable faith in their judgement based on their record of success to date. I've been extremely disappointed initially at what seems to be continual eroding of contributors' payouts but the overall effect, at least for me, has invariably been consistent growth in earnings. I'm looking forward to the future at FT.
-
I'm a bronze there, no exclusive images.
Based on last 100 sales excel tells me that with new lower commissions and higher pricing I'd increase my earnings by 6%.
I guess their share has grown much more than that, I hope they'll use it wisely.
And in NO WAY I'll give them free images.
-
IS commissions are indeed lower, but they have been the same since I signed up with them, so I was aware of this. All IS changes in pricing were positive, they never paid us less. They let us opt out any subs in any image, and subs packages are not absurdly low cost as in FT (which is, if I am not wrong, the cheapest).
FT however is constantly making changes that are negative to us - subscriptions, no opt-out option, new rank limits, and now lower commissions. They abuse of the right of changing the contract with us, IMHO.
Indeed, XS in IS may pay us only 19c vs at least 30c in FT, but I don't get in FT the higher commissions I get in IS (US$2.76 in one this month, and even in the new price plan FT won't pay us that for a XL image).
I used to like FT a lot, but their latest moves were very disappointing. It is still an excellent earner for me (and it's ahead of IS so far this month), still I don't like the way it is managed.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Frankly I don't have much of a problem with the changes. However, I don't see anyone doing the math right on the price and commissions changes.
As I have stated, my calculations presumed the same sales and I questioned if it would be real.
However, it is possible that it will give us a better result. At least this is what seems to have happened in price changes in other sites such as IS and DT. Are buyers really so tight in their budges that they can't pay US$6 instead of US$5 for an L image? Or even US$60 instead of US$50 for 10 L images?
Regards,
Adelaide
-
IS commissions are indeed lower, but they have been the same since I signed up with them, so I was aware of this. All IS changes in pricing were positive, they never paid us less. They let us opt out any subs in any image, and subs packages are not absurdly low cost as in FT (which is, if I am not wrong, the cheapest).
FT however is constantly making changes that are negative to us - subscriptions, no opt-out option, new rank limits, and now lower commissions. They abuse of the right of changing the contract with us, IMHO.
Indeed, XS in IS may pay us only 19c vs at least 30c in FT, but I don't get in FT the higher commissions I get in IS (US$2.76 in one this month, and even in the new price plan FT won't pay us that for a XL image).
I used to like FT a lot, but their latest moves were very disappointing. It is still an excellent earner for me (and it's ahead of IS so far this month), still I don't like the way it is managed.
Regards,
Adelaide
Good points but of course IS's greatest strength are their exclusive contributors. They more or less have to treat them with kid-gloves in case they induce a mass exodus and a gift to the competition.
As long as FT continues to grow my portfolio's income by 90%+ per year, as they have done for the last couple of years, then they have my confidence.
I think it's fairly obvious that up to now FT have run a pretty lean and mean ship. For instance there's not much evidence of income being wasted wholesale on millions of trivial 'innovations' that add nothing of value to the site __ like some places I could think of.
-
I think it's fairly obvious that up to now FT have run a pretty lean and mean ship. For instance there's not much evidence of income being wasted wholesale on millions of trivial 'innovations' that add nothing of value to the site __ like some places I could think of.
This is an excellent point. The growth in Fotolia over the past couple of years has been exponential, at least from what I can see. And the site has run smoothly with no noteable issues since V2, which was quite awhile ago.
The past year or so there have been a number of changes at FOT and many of them appear to negatively impact the contributors. That is cause for concern.
But like Gostwyck, I have seen my income from them rise. If they can offset the lower % with better marketing then there should be a net gain.
At least there was ample communication on this one. Guess I will be in wait-and-see mode....
-
Good points but of course IS's greatest strength are their exclusive contributors. They more or less have to treat them with kid-gloves in case they induce a mass exodus and a gift to the competition.
IS's greatest strength is their marketing, they could treat their exclusives how they want and the majority would still woohoo their little hearts out in the forums.
-
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
-
Yes Fotolia had an amazing growth rate and this month for the first time there is a race between iStockphoto and Fotolia for the 1st place. If they continue to grow at that speed and put the extra money into marketing I am ok with that.
-
I didn’t want to comment until I checked my numbers and math.
Under the current prices my income based on the latest 100 downloads is as follow :
- 15 xl = 29.25
- 15 l = 24.40
- 21 m = 24.57
- 6 s = 4.68
- 19 xs = 7.92
- 24 subs = 7.82
Giving a total of 98.23 dollar.
Under the newly announced prices it would be as follow :
- 15 xl = 32.40
- 15 l = 27
- 21 m = 30.24
- 6 s = 4.32
- 19 xs = 6.84
- 24 subs = 7.92
Giving a total of 108.92 dollar. Increase 11 %.
But here comes the big but… let’s take into consideration that the free section will have a negative impact on regular sales, I know for a fact the huge free section on 123 did and still does.
Let’s take into consideration that there will be buyers switching to sub sales knowing that the L size is sufficient for their needs.
Let’s take into consideration that there will be buyers that instead of a xl size will go for the l size , buyers from L size will go for M size, buyers from M size will go for S size, buyers from S size go for XS size………….. to break even with their budget and the amount of pictures they need on a monthly basis.
Going exclusive with Fotolia is not an option for me, that would result in a decrease of income by almost 60 % (higher commissions are included in this math) due to the lost income from other stock sites.
Conclusion… I might consider myself lucky if my Fotolia income remains the same, however, I fear it will drop.
Just my two cents.
Patrick H.
-
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
Your ranking is Ruby not Saphire surely?
I understand your concern but, even at 40%, FT are still paying double the % you receive from IS. Is it still the case that FT are your highest earning site?
-
I understand your concern but, even at 40%, FT are still paying double the % you receive from IS. Is it still the case that FT are your highest earning site?
gostwyck,
it doesn't matter if they make us more money or not. It's the way they treat us.
Have you heard anything about the $£€-issue ? Are you aware that many of us are being paid 40% !! less than those in Europe ?
Do you really believe the EL license change was a mistake ? Or did they suddenly feel the heat of everyone who said they would opt out? (thank God there is an opt out button) We'll never know.
why must they lover our commissions ? Why not just increase the credits (maybe a bit less) and leave the commission.
Why do sub sales don't count for your ranking ? I had 40% subs last month !!
Why did they changed contributor levels so much ?
why ...
it's endless. And all these changes are for the worse for use or does benefit FT much more. why don't we see this at Dreamstime ?
-
why don't we see this at Dreamstime ?
Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that sales at DT are actually increasing __ but at a snail's pace compared to FT?
I'm not doing microstock to be fawned over, 'valued' and 'appreciated'. I'm doing it for the money. Forget all the niceties __ just stick it in my hand guv'nor.
-
Cheers to that.
I'm not doing microstock to be fawned over, 'valued' and 'appreciated'. I'm doing it for the money. Forget all the niceties __ just stick it in my hand guv'nor.
-
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
Yuri, did they take away your Rubis status? I noticed they made changes to ranking almost immediately after you reached Rubis.
-
He's still down as rubis on the fotolia ranking list and as far as I know we were all able to keep our current ranks.
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
Yuri, did they take away your Rubis status? I noticed they made changes to ranking almost immediately after you reached Rubis.
-
Yuri must have become rubis in September, the changes to the ranking were made in the middle of december.
And yes, we did all keep our ranks.
In the German Fotolia-forum it was announced by a moderator today that a new, corrected version of the newsletter will go out "soon". It was admitted that the original newsletter had "mistakes" in it, i. e. the price for ELs.
Is it too naive to assume that the price for ELs can't have been a mistake because the newsletter went out in many different translations, each containing the same mistake?
I've been with Fotolia for only 9 months now, and this is the third time I've been surprised by an out-of-the-blue change for the worse. Both times before they have changed their mind (correcting the ranking change and the commision for subs) about it without informing me.
Everything happening there has not encouraged me to go exclusive with them (although they are by far my best earner), but to put more emphasis on building a reasonable port on istock, so that I can afford to delete my port on fotolia in the end.
In being innovative, which they are so proud of, they are always one step behind istock. And because of that, they keep copying istock's moves. But if competition got really tight, and only one single site of the big 6 survived, I am very sure that it wouldn't be fotolia!
-
This is really wonderful :-( All I have been selling recently are either XSs or SUBs (which are laughing matter anyway). So it means I will probably sell more images but I will certainly earn less. Yeah, great. The better DT becomes, the worse FT...
-
The past year or so there have been a number of changes at FOT and many of them appear to negatively impact the contributors. That is cause for concern.
But like Gostwyck, I have seen my income from them rise. If they can offset the lower % with better marketing then there should be a net gain.
It depends. For example if they manage to steal all the customers from Dreamstime and Stockxpert our RPI will drop due to worst commission at FT.
-
Anyone who has followed my posts about Fotolia for the past two years knows I have serious issues with the company and how it's run.
That said, I think this is the first time in two years I'm not freaking out or threatening to bailout. The decrease in commissions doesn't make me happy, especially since they just raised them not long ago, but my numbers show a would-be 9% increase in earnings on my last 100 sales. I can live with that.
-
"
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
"
Looks like I missed the beginning of this thread.
I'd just like to say
No, no, no, no
This analysis is simplistic and false.
It ignores a basic economic principle called price elasticity of demand and ignores potential drops in sales due to reduced demand from increased prices.
Taking an extreme example:
If we are selling photos at $1 each, for 50 percent commission, that's 50 cents per sale.
If the agency increasing sales prices to $5, and reduces commision to 25 percent, then we're making $1.25 per sale.
By halving commissions, they are more than than doubling our earnings. Woo yay! Thank you!
Of course, it doesn't work that way, because any price increase will cause customers to buy less or buy from alternative sources.
Basically what Fotolia has done is
- increase prices
- to offset anticipated drops in sales from this price increase, they
- decrease costs (what they pay us)
- to shift the burden to the suppliers (us)
Basically they are maximizing profits at the expense of contributors.
It's their right to do so, but please don't insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise.
-
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
and? Do you have any comment now?
-
So far I am making 10% more, so FT is making 15% more (10% for the new prices and 5% for eating my already small share).
Of course, it is impossible to say if images would have been purchased at larger sizes in the old prices, what would have changed the figures above.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
So far I am making 10% more, so FT is making 15% more (10% for the new prices and 5% for eating my already small share).
Of course, it is impossible to say if images would have been purchased at larger sizes in the old prices, what would have changed the figures above.
Regards,
Adelaide
What you can depend on is that in this economy most design shops will not increase their budgets for images to allow for FT's price increase. That means they must purchase fewer or cheaper images. The % decline will equal the % increase so if you want to figure out how you might do under the new prices don't look at your last 100 sales at the new rate, look at your last 100 - % price increase. (e.g. 100 - 10 for a 10% price increase). This will not be exact - too many other factors in play - but should give you a better idea of what to expect. fred
-
What you can depend on is that in this economy most design shops will not increase their budgets for images to allow for FT's price increase. That means they must purchase fewer or cheaper images.
I don't know how much sales are actually affected, as we are still talking about very low prices. An image that costed US$4 now costs US$5. Is that a big deal, big enough to influence a designer's bid for a client? His man-hour is probably much more impacting. I believe he may on occasions be more selective, but I don't think this could be a major change.
It seems more reasonable that buyers look for cheaper sites, trading IS for FT, for instance.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Good points but of course IS's greatest strength are their exclusive contributors. They more or less have to treat them with kid-gloves in case they induce a mass exodus and a gift to the competition.
IS's greatest strength is their marketing, they could treat their exclusives how they want and the majority would still woohoo their little hearts out in the forums.
Of course, that's just your uninformed opinion.
-
IS's greatest strength is their marketing, they could treat their exclusives how they want and the majority would still woohoo their little hearts out in the forums.
Of course, that's just your uninformed opinion.
No it's not, mr. Anonymous. It's a fact. Stay happy and avoid the IS forums. Just log in to ask payment now and then.
-
Its a fact in your mind and in your wishes and fantasies, I concede that.
-
Its a fact in your mind and in your wishes and fantasies, I concede that.
Sure honey, whatever. Byeye and PLONK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(usenet)). ;D
-
Sorry, FD, but it is most definitely not a fact. Facts are verifiable; what you have here is a speculation based on a premise. That premise may indeed be based on experience, which is based on facts. But claiming that a future action will have a particular outcome, unless based on something immutable like the laws of physics, is not and never will be a fact. No matter how good your reasoning ability, no matter how likely your claim is to be true, it's not a fact. It's your belief, and it may be mine as well, but that's all it is.
-
Sorry, FD, but it is most definitely not a fact. Facts are verifiable; what you have here is a speculation based on a premise. That premise may indeed be based on experience, which is based on facts. But claiming that a future action will have a particular outcome, unless based on something immutable like the laws of physics, is not and never will be a fact. No matter how good your reasoning ability, no matter how likely your claim is to be true, it's not a fact. It's your belief, and it may be mine as well, but that's all it is.
Exactly. To illustrate with an example easy to understand:
FACT: Although FT has lowered one or two times (ranks changes, commissions change... even, in some way subs introduction) the royalties for contributors, many of them, no matter if grumbling a bit, are staying an go on uploading there. Including, as it seems, Flemish Dreams who is doing a FT what he says with some contempt exclusives would do at IS. For me it's ok, I'm not on Fotolia and it's not my worry. But it is a Fact.
FICTION, FANTASIE, NONSENSE SPECULATION: What exclusives at IS would do in a similar situation. Istock raised commissions for exclusives about four years ago, but never has lowered them. Even the IS peculiar subs program guarantees these commissions --in my experience, a lot of subs sales have given higher royalties. So, anyone -- no matter if with auto-induced prophetic fantasies-- can't know what would happen in that case. Even less, someone who is not exclusive and probably doesn't know/talk often with other exclusives.
-
Istock raised commissions for exclusives about four years ago, but never has lowered them.
I suppose it isn't safe for me to ask this question without being jumped on but I am genuinely curious. I don't contribute to I-Stock and I don't know the answer...What did they raise the commissions % to?
Thanks,
Mat
-
I suppose it isn't safe for me to ask this question without being jumped on but I am genuinely curious. I don't contribute to I-Stock and I don't know the answer...What did they raise the commissions % to?
Thanks,
Mat
Around 4 years ago was when they introduced the exclusivity program. That was when they started offering the exclusivity bonus. It goes from 25% to 40% according to canister level. Their non-exclusives make the base payout of 20%.
-
Thanks Lisa!
Mat
I suppose it isn't safe for me to ask this question without being jumped on but I am genuinely curious. I don't contribute to I-Stock and I don't know the answer...What did they raise the commissions % to?
Thanks,
Mat
Around 4 years ago was when they introduced the exclusivity program. That was when they started offering the exclusivity bonus. It goes from 25% to 40% according to canister level. Their non-exclusives make the base payout of 20%.
-
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
Yuri, almost one month later and still no feedback. I know that the Fotolia team don't respect contributors like me but I hoped that they treat better VIPs ;)
-
Sorry, FD, but it is most definitely not a fact. Facts are verifiable; what you have here is a speculation based on a premise. That premise may indeed be based on experience, which is based on facts. But claiming that a future action will have a particular outcome, unless based on something immutable like the laws of physics, is not and never will be a fact. No matter how good your reasoning ability, no matter how likely your claim is to be true, it's not a fact. It's your belief, and it may be mine as well, but that's all it is.
Exactly. To illustrate with an example easy to understand:
FACT: Although FT has lowered one or two times (ranks changes, commissions change... even, in some way subs introduction) the royalties for contributors, many of them, no matter if grumbling a bit, are staying an go on uploading there. Including, as it seems, Flemish Dreams who is doing a FT what he says with some contempt exclusives would do at IS. For me it's ok, I'm not on Fotolia and it's not my worry. But it is a Fact.
Not me. I stopped uploading, I probably will delete my portfolio there.