pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May,1  (Read 174397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #750 on: May 06, 2014, 13:59 »
+18
Thats shocking if true.

I have reason to believe it's true - and it's in line with what they've done in the past. A combination of threats and carrots.

It's hard to say when you've hit rock bottom with unethical behavior by agencies, but Fotolia keeps trying to set the low water mark :)


« Reply #751 on: May 06, 2014, 14:08 »
+3
deactivated now all 4500 images on DPC

you have worked hard on the last 4 weeks ;D

guess you were exclusive at iStock!

EmberMike

« Reply #752 on: May 06, 2014, 14:18 »
+8
I have it on very good authority that Fotolia are contacting key contributors in an attempt to persuade them to remain opted-in to DPC. I don't know the content of those conversations but I wouldn't be surprised if inducements are being offered.

No reason we can't do the same. I just fired off an email to someone I know was still opted in. He has 10k images on FT, hope he'll opt-out.

If anyone can directly contact any folks that are still on DPC, why not do it? It's painstaking to do this one email at a time, but it's better than not doing anything.

lisafx

« Reply #753 on: May 06, 2014, 14:23 »
+2
Well, since there's so much speculation about what I intend to do, I will chime in. 

First, I have not received ANY special inducement to stay opted in to DPC. 

Second, I understand that there are improvements to the program that are imminent and should alleviate a lot of the concern about cannibalization of credit sales. 

And Third, I am struggling to understand why .37 per download for an emerald on DPC is so much worse than .28 per download for every single non-exclusive on Istock subs and PP.  Not to mention most of my credit sales on FT are small and yield the same price as a sub.

I am not saying that I like the way things are going in stock.  It is obviously a race to the bottom at this point, however I struggle to understand why this one initiative is so much worse than everything else that's happened in the past couple of years. 

I reserve the right to opt out if there are not improvements or the improvements are not sufficient, but I don't plan to be goaded into it.  This is an individual business decision and I plan to make it myself based on the best information available and not based on a feeding frenzy in a forum. 

« Reply #754 on: May 06, 2014, 14:27 »
+5
deactivated now all 4500 images on DPC

you have worked hard on the last 4 weeks ;D

guess you were exclusive at iStock!
3 years fotolia exclusive

« Reply #755 on: May 06, 2014, 14:38 »
+4
I have a lot of good credit sales on ft - even one ex last month - so I don t want to transform them in to sub sales   

« Reply #756 on: May 06, 2014, 14:41 »
+6
I have it on very good authority that Fotolia are contacting key contributors in an attempt to persuade them to remain opted-in to DPC. I don't know the content of those conversations but I wouldn't be surprised if inducements are being offered.

No reason we can't do the same. I just fired off an email to someone I know was still opted in. He has 10k images on FT, hope he'll opt-out.

If anyone can directly contact any folks that are still on DPC, why not do it? It's painstaking to do this one email at a time, but it's better than not doing anything.

I've been doing that. Sometimes it's hard to find current contact information. But I have outstanding e-mail requests that I still hope to hear back from - you never know when people are traveling or ...

A couple of earlier contacts have resulted in opt outs so asking nicely can't hurt.

H2O

« Reply #757 on: May 06, 2014, 14:42 »
+1
Tscheltzoff  would have been planning this for quite a while, where all way behind the curve on what's happening.

Once they have transposed all there customers to DPC there properly shut Fotolia down, why keep it open.

Its a war between Fotolia and the other stock sites, his weapon of choice is DPC.

I'm petty sure he wont win, but its a lot of trouble for a couple of years.

EmberMike

« Reply #758 on: May 06, 2014, 14:47 »
+26
...I am struggling to understand why .37 per download for an emerald on DPC is so much worse than .28 per download for every single non-exclusive on Istock subs and PP...

A buyer can't go in for just $10 with those other options. That's the big difference. Subscriptions work for us because it forces the buyer to buy in bulk. Keeping a subscription royalty payment system and stripping out the bulk part of it means that the sales volume we need to earn decently plummets.

The royalty itself isn't the issue. It's that a buyer only has to commit to as few as 10 images while we still get subscription royalties.

I think most folks around here who have seen my posts over the years know I'm not much of a doom-and-gloomer. i don't buy into conspiracy theories, and generally I'm pretty easy-going with the day-to-day shenanigans of microstock. But DPC is vastly different from anything I've seen before. It is designed to disrupt the business, and from what I've seen so far, I think it will succeed in that goal.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 14:49 by EmberMike »

« Reply #759 on: May 06, 2014, 14:49 »
+18
I think this was the first time when contributors were shown the power of co-operation. And it's worked! Of course everyone make own business, but we have a common interest to be driven.

I have sent emails or fb messages for five contributor. I have searched images, little google (google image search) and part of sherlock holmes attitude to find contact information. Everyone can do it once in a while.

I hope you understand my, not so good english :)

« Reply #760 on: May 06, 2014, 14:50 »
+33
And Third, I am struggling to understand why .37 per download for an emerald on DPC is so much worse than .28 per download for every single non-exclusive on Istock subs and PP.  Not to mention most of my credit sales on FT are small and yield the same price as a sub.
It isn't about the prizing for a sub dl, but the fact that this isn't a real subscription model, but doesn't differenciate between both at all. They're clearly targeting the on demand-buyers at SS and iS and *those* are the dls we're going to lose in a long run. (Plus, all credit sales on FT, of course.)
I'm not with iS anymore because of the first wave back in 2010 and deleted my last few illustrations because of the Google deal, but if FT now tries to get their hands on my income from SS and the smaller agencies, I'm *definitely* not willing to support them.

EmberMike

« Reply #761 on: May 06, 2014, 14:53 »
+13
...They're clearly targeting the on demand-buyers at SS and iS and *those* are the dls we're going to lose in a long run. (Plus, all credit sales on FT, of course.)...

Bingo. The $10 buy-in isn't coincidental. $10 is around what someone expects to spend on a single image elsewhere. DPC is giving people an option to spend that $10 on 10 images instead, and we get subscription royalties for the sales.

lisafx

« Reply #762 on: May 06, 2014, 15:01 »
-5
...They're clearly targeting the on demand-buyers at SS and iS and *those* are the dls we're going to lose in a long run. (Plus, all credit sales on FT, of course.)...

Bingo. The $10 buy-in isn't coincidental. $10 is around what someone expects to spend on a single image elsewhere. DPC is giving people an option to spend that $10 on 10 images instead, and we get subscription royalties for the sales.

Right.  Agreed.  If the buy in was raised to a more industry standard level, would that change your mind?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 15:09 by lisafx »

EmberMike

« Reply #763 on: May 06, 2014, 15:06 »
+9
If the buy in was raised to a more industry standard level, would that change your mind?

Sure, if they can run a regular subscription program, then by all means have at it.

It would be great to hear about any planned changes, though. I'm going on what information I have in front of me, which is just what DPC is as of right now, 10 images for $10. If they plan on changing that, it would be smart to let us know and put a stop to the opt-outs and image deletions.


« Reply #764 on: May 06, 2014, 15:11 »
+4
Second, I understand that there are improvements to the program that are imminent and should alleviate a lot of the concern about cannibalization of credit sales.  [/

Do you care to elaborate?
I haven't seen or heard anything yet to point to something better from FT.

« Reply #765 on: May 06, 2014, 15:13 »
+9
A 25 cent payout is definitely in the same ballpark as a 38 cent payout.  (Yes, poor - how did we get here???)  But, it is not the payout that concerns me the most - it is the cost to the end user.  Perceived value.  A photo is only worth a buck - I buy photos for a buck therefore no photos are ever worth more than a buck again.  Okay, sure - some are not even worth than a buck - but most of the portfolios that I have had the privileged to view are very professional - and no, my 12 year old cannot make a rival portfolio on his iphone.

At SS, the customer is paying much much more.... he sees photos costing $249 for a quality subscription pack and most likely thinks about the $249 not the price of the individual photos.

Then there's this.  http://blog.melchersystem.com/2014/05/05/stock-photo-blindness/

« Reply #766 on: May 06, 2014, 15:18 »
+5
Thats shocking if true.

Really?  From the agency that pays suppliers in Euros at a different rate than those of us who signed up with Dollar accounts?  I'd be more shocked if they weren't trying some sort of Divide & Conquer tactics.

« Reply #767 on: May 06, 2014, 15:23 »
+16
Oh, my small pack of 260 images deactivated. What a shame.

H2O

« Reply #768 on: May 06, 2014, 15:28 »
+5
I have watched quite a few video interviews of Tscheltzoff and he actually uses the wording at War with the other agencies.

This is part of Tscheltzoff mind set, while your all looking at $10 here and improvements there for... etc.. Fotolia have already worked out exactly what they are going to do ages ago when DPC was in development, they will have a critical path/strategy on how to proceed.

DPC has millions of images, break the competition and you dominate the market, I think this is how he sees it.

A quick and large return to the shareholders in the short term, using the stock they have at the moment.


Ron

« Reply #769 on: May 06, 2014, 15:31 »
+2
A 25 cent payout is definitely in the same ballpark as a 38 cent payout.  (Yes, poor - how did we get here???)  But, it is not the payout that concerns me the most - it is the cost to the end user.  Perceived value.  A photo is only worth a buck - I buy photos for a buck therefore no photos are ever worth more than a buck again.  Okay, sure - some are not even worth than a buck - but most of the portfolios that I have had the privileged to view are very professional - and no, my 12 year old cannot make a rival portfolio on his iphone.

At SS, the customer is paying much much more.... he sees photos costing $249 for a quality subscription pack and most likely thinks about the $249 not the price of the individual photos.

Then there's this.  http://blog.melchersystem.com/2014/05/05/stock-photo-blindness/


Wow, thats interesting, thanks for posting. I guess thats why Stocksy does well. Hmmmm, time to do some thinking.

« Reply #770 on: May 06, 2014, 15:36 »
+2
Thats shocking if true.

Not really. They have behaved this way for some time and Istock/Getty cut special deals too.

« Reply #771 on: May 06, 2014, 15:37 »
+5
What's next $5 or $3 "sub-pack"?

« Reply #772 on: May 06, 2014, 15:37 »
+19
I have watched quite a few video interviews of Tscheltzoff and he actually uses the wording at War with the other agencies.

A war where his weapons are our images.
It is clear that no contributor should support it. Basicly our images fighting a war against their own value so some company owner can have some hope to end up with bigger market share.
We don't want Fotolia to fight against other agencies, they are only expected to find buyers for our photos. 
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 15:42 by Desintegrator »

H2O

« Reply #773 on: May 06, 2014, 15:43 »
+2
I have watched quite a few video interviews of Tscheltzoff and he actually uses the wording at War with the other agencies.

A war where his weapons are our images.
It is clear that no contributor should support it. Basicly our images fighting a war against their own value so some company owner can have some hope to end up with bigger market share.
We don't want Fotolia to fight against other agencies, they are only expected to find buyers for our photos.


I agree entirely there supposed to be Agents for our hard work, the images we produce

Dook

« Reply #774 on: May 06, 2014, 16:11 »
+2
Microstock agencies are doing what they've been doing from their beginning  (this time it's Fotolia) - lowering prices and devaluing our work. Aren't the agencies that we all work for the ones who cut the traditional stock prices and almost completely changed the stock photography market? Aren't we, microstock contributors, the ones how made profit out of this, since we were the ones who never made it into traditional stock, or weren't even aware of its existence?
Therefore, we could all see this coming. Even more, we all participated in this, nobody is innocent. We all agreed to work for 0.25$ ten years ago.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
938 Replies
129371 Views
Last post April 30, 2014, 18:36
by deryl1975
64 Replies
12807 Views
Last post July 30, 2013, 12:08
by Noedelhap
4 Replies
1862 Views
Last post November 18, 2013, 08:36
by Mantis
11 Replies
3428 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
8 Replies
2442 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 09:34
by WorriedIstocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results