yeah I remember that, DP was the main agency, oh another lovely place...

I kind of hate to admit it but I think this strategy would actually be pretty useful given the current state of things. DPC threatens not just contributors but also agencies as well. Imagine if a few big agencies said that because of Fotolia's highly destructive DollarPhotoClub, they can no longer work with any artist who also works with Fotolia.

As unpleasant as it might seem, if a few big agencies put up policies like this, DPC would be dead in the water. In fact it might be the only way to stop DPC.

Well, only Shutterstock is big enough to do that. (for me all over the years Fotolia was clearly the second largest agency in earnings..)
It would be nice to stop DPC that way but it would be also a frightening display of how much power a single agency (in this case Shutterstock) has.

Could they for example just mass e-mail all their contributors about the dangers of DPC? Would there be legal issues about it?

Nice thought, but other agencies won't go there.  They would likely fall foul of all sorts of anti-competition laws in the EU and elsewhere if they tried that.

I'm not actually advocating that any company really do this, but if someone did, would it really be any more illegal than any exclusive deal or other clause that prohibits relationships with other companies already in use in this business? Companies can already legally tell contributors not to work with other agencies. Photographers Direct prohibits that any of their contributors work with microstock companies.

Maybe ethically a company that says they won't work with anyone who works with Fotolia is no better than Fotolia when they did the same thing years ago. But legally? I'm not so sure...

SS is a US based company. Would it be illegal for them to say we dont accept images that are for sale on DPC? Anyway, The risk with that is, contributors might choose to go with FT and SS would have no images

Quote from: Ron on May 06, 2014, 02:06

SS is a US based company. Would it be illegal for them to say we dont accept images that are for sale on DPC? Anyway, The risk with that is, contributors might choose to go with FT and SS would have no images

Really? You'd think they choose FT (DPC) over SS?

I dont think so, but the risk is there. And if you follow the forum on SS, there are reports of several people that FT is outperforming SS for them. There are loads of complaints from contributors that SS has killed their sales, and the proof is there, those people will probably jump ship.

In light of the launch of DollarPhotoClub, I thought it was appropriate to bring up something from a few years ago. In 2011 Fotolia sent out an announcement in which they threatened to drop your rank back to white if you sold images at any sites that undercut them. The announcement read as follows:

Quote

Over the last few months, we've seen new competitors offering pricing and commission rates that are lower than our white ranking levels. This is a threat to our business, for the market as whole, and for you, our contributors. This is an issue that must be addressed for us to remain competitive.

We have been obliged to modify our pricing and payment policies to allow Fotolia to adjust prices/commissions on a case by case basis. When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for competition.

Together, we'll work towards building a stronger stock photography market, and continue to enhance Fotolia's reputation and competitiveness as a leading microstock agency.

This reminds me of the old adage, "if you can't beat em, join em".  I mean this is an actual threat to their own contributors....that should tell you ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW about FT. In theory since they further cheapened the market with DPC and brought their pricing in line with other gutter agencies, none of their contributors are "violating" the "don't upload to cheaper sites" threat and their canister levels should be set back to where they were prior to this threat and many contributors should see a big fat increase in revenue.  But, unfortunately, FT's threat is just like that of a "temporary tax", which is just a marketing spin for permanent. Do you really think that they would roll anyone back to a higher canister level? FK NO!

Just noticed that this rank reset and price change policy is still very much in effect at Fotolia: http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/GeneralInformation

Emerald and above ranking contributors must consent to Fotolia being allowed to ask them where else they do business and adjust prices accordingly if anyone sells images cheaper elsewhere.

Thinking about vector pricing, Fotolia is about as cheap as they come. It's kind of strange, DPC was designed to undercut everyone, but for a lot of people the lowest limb on the tree is Fotolia. I guess it wasn't enough to already be cheap and they wanted to be the first to cut the deepest.

They just keep stacking up reasons to leave them don't they 

Just noticed that this rank reset and price change policy is still very much in effect at Fotolia: http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/GeneralInformation

Emerald and above ranking contributors must consent to Fotolia being allowed to ask them where else they do business and adjust prices accordingly if anyone sells images cheaper elsewhere.

Thinking about vector pricing, Fotolia is about as cheap as they come. It's kind of strange, DPC was designed to undercut everyone, but for a lot of people the lowest limb on the tree is Fotolia. I guess it wasn't enough to already be cheap and they wanted to be the first to cut the deepest.

one word for Fotolia- "Hypocrite"

NO. In bold was "An Option" not everyone.Just dreamin out loud. time is My enemy, Uploading hoping some of these sites come back to year ago sales.

Even better if we could opt-in individual images as exclusive. Like DT does. I don't want to have all my images exclusive, but a couple for sure..

I think an Exclusive Image option combined with being able to opt it into the SOD/sensitive use category would be a winner, especially for those that don't want to put their entire portfolio into the sensitive use category.

I wonder if SS would let us add "Shutterstock Exclusive Photo" to our descriptions of files we are willing to do this with.  I'm sure they'll never give us a bigger piece of the pie for it, but it might help buyers make a more "informed" choice when they want a photo that's not in every dollar bin on the net.  I have gotten so disgusted with IS, FT, DT etc. that I've practically stopped uploading to them anyway.