pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia subs...  (Read 34404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2008, 07:42 »
0
you get 0.23 per sale. (that is what you get, dont make up some weird mathematics like you never saw subsription site, and talking about some 8 cents, dont be ridiculous).

.23 credits is 0.23 dollars. however it is still too much low. 0.5 would be fair. (for every site).

prices of oil increeases, every product, food etc... prices increases, only our work prices are lower and lower.... come on.... if this continues they will be spiting in our faces, and we will be still smiling.

I think that main problem here is too many photographers. If you dont want to participate, thats ok, there will be somebody else to replace you. Photographers are not important any more. Even Yuri. There a ton of photographers who copy his work, some are doing very well. If Yuri is replaceable, then we all are.... they dont give a rats ass about us.


« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2008, 08:22 »
0
depends if u get 35 % of the 0.23 or 100 % ....

Please read the first posting:

Quote from: fotolias newsletter
Each download will generate an income from 0.23 to 0.30 credits according to your rank.

« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2008, 08:28 »
0
I think that main problem here is too many photographers. If you dont want to participate, thats ok, there will be somebody else to replace you. Photographers are not important any more. Even Yuri. There a ton of photographers who copy his work, some are doing very well. If Yuri is replaceable, then we all are.... they dont give a rats ass about us.
I'm not so sure. One person is replaceble but not 1000. I'm a very small player in microstock business but I'm still in top 500  ;D. It means that only very small numbers of contributors is "foundation". Imagine this: if these 1000 opt-out "Shutterstock" during one month. Almost 2000000 will desapear from library with one click.
Without deleting our images we can make pressure - just stop uploads. A lot of us can live without microstock.
New photoghapher will come, sure, but not any more with cheap P&S camera. Let's say you need for 5000$ equipement to start this game (DSLR, lenses, compuret, strobes, internet...) . For artist from poor countries it's a big deal.

« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2008, 08:35 »
0
Oh, btw I just opted out - out of fotolia totally. Deleted my portfolio there. Making subs-opt-out available for exklusive pics only  is ridiculous, 0.23 credits are too. Bye fotolidiots!

« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2008, 08:42 »
0
I think the worst side of this scenario is that everyone is trying to get more peace of sub market in other words  they are all trying to get SS's customers but every move they make (except for IS) just lowers the prices and reduces contributers  cut.they clearly indicate they aren't bringing new buyers in and what is worse (imo)sooner or later  they will also convert existing buyers into sub buyers.(what would stop them?)
for  those expecting higher earning due to volume in sales this    will also mean loosing that volume elsewhere since they are just competing  between each other.


« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2008, 08:58 »
0
you get 0.23 per sale. (that is what you get, dont make up some weird mathematics like you never saw subsription site, and talking about some 8 cents, dont be ridiculous).


I think that main problem here is too many photographers. If you dont want to participate, thats ok, there will be somebody else to replace you. Photographers are not important any more. Even Yuri. There a ton of photographers who copy his work, some are doing very well. If Yuri is, then we all are.... they dont give a rats ass about us.

I'm more close to a thought  that a photographer is  replaceable but  a large group of photographers with decent portfolio size and quality are not.

« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2008, 10:30 »
0
I wonder how much technical tragedy the implementation will lead to.  I hope they pull this "upgrade" off better than V2.

« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2008, 10:35 »
0
No start date, but we get from 23 to 30 credits per sale depending on rank - are they kidding?

Shutterstock goes from 25 to 38 cents based on rank and they're (a) not offering different prices based on image size and (b) offering lower royalties than just about anyone else out there.

No opt out except for exclusive images (which I don't have any of).

I'm not a happy camper about this.


I agree!  You shouldn't have to be exclusive to opt out of the subscription package.  Fotolia was doing fine enough for me (2nd best earner with lots of large image sales) and it enabled me to offer my photos under a different plan.  23 cents? Come-on! :(    They have to prove they can generate a much larger buying clientle for me not to see a reduction in earnings!

« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2008, 10:55 »
0
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download  images that are priced by the size.  This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!

helix7

« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2008, 11:00 »
0
Sweet. So my meager Fotolia earnings will now become less-than-meager. What's the word for that?



« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2008, 11:26 »
0
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download  images that are priced by the size.  This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!

how do you imagine that?

600 credits for 200$ ?

than FT must pay to photographer 300$, where is the profit for them? LOL!

« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2008, 12:38 »
0
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download  images that are priced by the size.  This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!

how do you imagine that?

600 credits for 200$ ?

than FT must pay to photographer 300$, where is the profit for them? LOL!

Who said that would be the price?    The concept is not far fetched for a rate to be established! After all they aren't going broke with the pay per download model!

« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2008, 13:13 »
0
Why can't a credit based subscription be offered? A plan were you pay for so many credits to download  images that are priced by the size.  This would be fair and Fotolia would still generate alot of business!

how do you imagine that?

600 credits for 200$ ?

than FT must pay to photographer 300$, where is the profit for them? LOL!

Chode, I don't understand what is funny on what tdoes proposed???
What he is proposing is exactly what iStock has just implemented.

jsnover

« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2008, 14:08 »
0
Sweet. So my meager Fotolia earnings will now become less-than-meager. What's the word for that?

Minuscule?
Microscopic?
Pitiful?

My earnings there aren't meager - at least not yet. They're just making it easier and easier for those of us thinking of iStock exclusivity to dump them altogether.

« Reply #39 on: May 30, 2008, 15:47 »
0
I didn't get the newsletter, but from my understanding, if $.23-.30 a download is true, this is ridiculous. I submit a lot of vectors, and I especially hate to see my work sold for such low prices.  Since vector art is mostly a microstock product, these subscription plans make it no longer worth the effort to produce vectors unless the vector artist becomes exclusive to IStock. Selling vectors this low is simply an insult. If this subscription plan is how I read it, at the very least I will  reconsider submitting any new vectors there, especially if there is no opt out option. This also cements my decision to put more effort into traditional agencies and other markets.

What is especially stupid IMO is that Fotolia is trying to pull this off at the same time IStock is apparently planning on making it a better deal to go exclusive there. With the drop in revenue at other sites due to subscriptions, coupled with this announcement, and IStocks latest announcement that they plan offering more incentives to people to go exclusive, I would bet that the majority of vector artists will either go exclusive with IStock now or quit contributing to the micros altogether if they cannot get more for their work. I cannot go exclusive there for at least six months even if I wanted to due to commitments elsewhere, but I am sure many will. I am sure many other vector artists feel the same way as I do.

I don't really see it as a good thing one agency dominating the microstock market, but that is the way it looks things are going, I think in the long run the agencies are  shooting themselves in the foot.  Remember when many of the traditional submitters were saying that this is a race to the bottom? Perhaps they are right after all. I have also been working with some  more traditional agencies, ones where you know the owner on a first name basis and they work with you individually. The difference in mutual respect and how they treat contributors compared to the micros is like night and day.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 16:16 by marcopolo »

DanP68

« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2008, 16:20 »
0
I wonder how much technical tragedy the implementation will lead to.  I hope they pull this "upgrade" off better than V2.



I don't.  If they really offer a pricing structure this insulting, I hope they go down just like they did with V2.  They lost a lot of contributors during that down time...

« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2008, 16:52 »
0
I would strongly consider going exclusive at IS if the sales were there.  Right now IS is way down my list and Fotolia is number 2 just behind SS.  Based on things now it would be a year or so before I could go exclusive at IS.  So far I have liked Fotolia but I'm not so sure about the subs program.  We'll see I guess. 

P.S. The IS subs program has done nothing for me so far.  So I'm not worried about Foltlia's doing much either. 

lisafx

« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2008, 17:12 »
0
Something that bothers me is that just last week I had several images selected by Microsoft for inclusion in their next version of office, through a tie-in with Fotolia.  The catch was that the images (7 or so) had to be committed to Fotolia for a year, which was the length of Microsoft's agreement with Fotolia.

If I was a suspicious person I would be tempted to conclude that the timing of tying up some of my pictures (and I assume those of many other artists) to Fotolia for a year right before this subscription deal was announced was more than just coincidental.... :(

« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2008, 17:21 »
0
I still think its too early to panic.  Fotolia's communication and customer service is the worst in the industry, and it is easily possible that (as usual) this communication is badly worded and thoughtless.

Every other subscription service is priced in currency NOT credits, apart from iStock's version which is priced in credits.

The fact that the announcement mentions credits suggests that there is the possibility that the subs will be priced by size just like at iStock.

I'll go with a 60/40 bet that it will be size related and the communication at this stage is simply poor.

The BIG problem is the risk of major disruption and loss of sales as they fail to get the technology change right (as usual).  I recall iStock saying they had spent a year planning their subscription offering; Fotolia seems to have taken a decision it wants to implement in a couple of months.  Result:  mayhem.

« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2008, 17:25 »
0
Another thought:  if it really does turn out to be 23c, that would be a major insult to all concerned, including some of the best names in the industry; if Fotolia is prepared to take and implement a decision like that it is final confirmation that they care nothing for their contributors.

Even with their thoughtless and couldn't care less attitude I think that's unlikely.

« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2008, 17:28 »
0
Fotolia seems to have taken a decision it wants to implement in a couple of months.  Result:  mayhem.
I hope you're wrong but I've already got my seatbelt on.

« Reply #46 on: May 30, 2008, 17:35 »
0
I am new so I am not getting all this FUD tactics here.  What different if you sell 1 photo for $1 or 4 photos for 25 cents? Is it because bigger competiton in sales, more people will have sales with smaller per item price?

jsnover

« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2008, 17:38 »
0
I still think its too early to panic.  Fotolia's communication and customer service is the worst in the industry, and it is easily possible that (as usual) this communication is badly worded and thoughtless

It's possible that this is just a misunderstanding, but I've been monitoring the Fotolia forums today, and there's a ton of very unhappy contributors and not a word from Chad or any other admin. You'd think, if it was a mistake, they'd have jumped in to correct it. They haven't

« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2008, 17:52 »
0
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=11821

Oh, Fotolia Subs will be limited to L size - what a "smart" move not to mention that in the newsletter. And yes: it's 0.23-0.30 per DL, not per Credit. Fotolia's communication is indeed a catastrophe (especially when you a using localized sites - there is no information at all in the German forums ...). But that's not my concern anymore.

« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2008, 18:59 »
0
Oh, no, no more subs!  :(  DT has been a disaster for me this month with over 50% sale as subs. 

As far as I understood (I haven't received an email), opting out will be allowed only for exclusive images.  I can only thank StockXpert and IS for letting us choose to take part of this or not.

Regards,
Adelaide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
13300 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 01:41
by lagereek
3 Replies
2644 Views
Last post May 12, 2010, 17:12
by lisafx
Fotolia Subs paying $2.50??

Started by lisafx « 1 2  All » Adobe Stock

26 Replies
10718 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 18:23
by madelaide
9 Replies
3462 Views
Last post May 23, 2012, 06:26
by HerMajesty
12 Replies
4578 Views
Last post December 03, 2015, 08:29
by BigBubba

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle