MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia subs...  (Read 34397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 30, 2008, 02:11 »
0
Just got email from fotolia:

--cut---
Everyday we are asked if Fotolia offers a subscription service, when we say no we often lose potential clients. However we are now excited to announce that we will soon have our own subscription service. The Fotolia Subscription is a true revolution for all of us. Together we'll be able to, find new customers and increase our sales volumes.

The remuneration conditions for sales from subscriptions will be different from the traditional system. Each download will generate an income from 0.23 to 0.30 credits according to your rank. Once again, the increased sales volume will increase your income.

By default, all images will be available as part of the Subscription service but it will be possible to switch off this option for exclusive images in the "My Profile" section of your account. According to our analysis, contributors who participate in the Subscription service will see an increase in only a few months so don?t hesitate to try selling images via Subscriptions.
--cut--

Very low royalty for photographers...

br, MjP


DanP68

« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2008, 02:13 »
0
23 cents????  Is this 2005 all over again?   >:(

« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2008, 02:14 »
0
nooooooooooooooooo!


p.s.
why there is not any official news about it on FT site?

jsnover

« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2008, 02:17 »
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 FT's  (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.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 10:36 by jsnover »

« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2008, 02:22 »
0
That's bad news... I am relying on Istock and Fotolia to sell my "complicated" vectors since I don't want to give them away for a few cents... and now... Istock may be the only one left.. however, istock keeps on rejecting these complicated vectors... ugh!

Once the subscription start, I am only going to upload simple vectors and see if the sales would at least be half of SS, if it is, then maybe it would be ok.. but still.. $0.23?? That's bad!

« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2008, 02:40 »
0
It is little bit weird that there is no news on fotolia web site (no news, no forum posts). I just got that email. There is that subcsription opt-out for exclusive images on the profile page at fotolia web page.

Fotolia sales have been increased quite nicely in this year and now its even with the SS on my monthly income on place 3-4. I think the fotolia have to follow other companies and offer the subs to compete with Istock and SS.

br, MjP

« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 02:47 by mjp »

DanP68

« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2008, 02:45 »
0
Fotolia will have to really impress me with the increased sales volume, or I will drop them in a heartbeat.  They only make up 6-10% of my income.  I can live without them if it comes to it.

23 cents?  No wonder FT admins rarely visit the indie boards.

DanP68

« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2008, 02:50 »
0
Seriously, if this is true, we need to gather up as many of us as possible and simply attack their forum with a fury.  This is an insult.

« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2008, 03:03 »
0
And I just noticed they increased their max file size to 30 MB. When did this happen? Of course, I usually use the flash uploader but only had a single file to upload this morning so went through the http upload and noticed the different size.

« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2008, 03:29 »
0
Seriously, if this is true, we need to gather up as many of us as possible and simply attack their forum with a fury.  This is an insult.

C'mon, now. It isn't like this is coming out of nowhere, is it? With the exception of FT, every major agency now offers subscriptions. This is the way the market is going. You're not going to get anywhere by refusing to particpate in it or by complaining/ranting/attacking/throwing a tantrum.

I've said it before, and I'll say it one last time: Wouldn't you be further ahead by adopting strategies to take advantage of subscription models instead of ignoring them in the hope that they're a temporary trend that will soon go away? The correct choice, to me, is pretty obvious.

DanP68

« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2008, 03:46 »
0
23 cents Sharply?  Are you seriously ok with this?  Suppose they come out and say the lower end will be 18 cents instead.  You still ok with it?  Where do you draw the line?  10 cents?  1 cent?

I'm all for subscription sites.  Shutterstock is by far and away my best earner, and I look forward to seeing how the iStock plan works.  But Shutterstock gives me 33 cents per sale, not 23 cents per sale.  Why should I accept a 1/3 pay decrease for the Fotolia sub plan?  I guarantee they won't have 1/2 the volume of Shutterstock.

People make fun of Canstock and Crestock for only giving 25c per sub sale.  Now we have Fotolia willing to lower the bar.  This is very bad.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 03:48 by DanP68 »

« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2008, 04:01 »
0
23 cents Sharply?  Are you seriously ok with this?  Suppose they come out and say the lower end will be 18 cents instead.  You still ok with it?  Where do you draw the line?  10 cents?  1 cent?
I don't draw a line at all. 1c per DL is infinitely better than not getting the DL by opting out. Sure, I want to get as much as I can, but I'm not going to refuse to sell just because they aren't paying me as much as I'd like. If I had that attitude, I'd have abandoned microstock and returned to the more traditional client-driven photography biz or joined a more traditional agency if I wanted to do speculation-based shooting.

On the downside, and now that everyone's offering subscriptions, it's only going to be a matter of time before the market readjusts so that the agency offering the best deal gets the biggest share of the pie. Looking at things this way, IS has an ace in the hole in the form of their large exclusive library.

DanP68

« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2008, 04:11 »
0
Sure, I want to get as much as I can, but I'm not going to refuse to sell just because they aren't paying me as much as I'd like.

Maybe if people refused to sell, they would indeed have to pay you as much as you like?

I don't get the direction at all.  Prices are rising everywhere, Shutterstock is now giving 33c per sub sale to anyone who has passed a pretty low hurdle, and Fotolia comes out and decides to completely turn back the clock.  This is bound to p*ss off a lot of contributors.  Especially when it comes from a company that cannot keep their search running properly for more than a month at a time.

Actually now that I think of it, they pretty much killed their website when they upgraded to 2.0.  I assume the software changes to allow sub sales will probably take them down for another 2 months.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 04:13 by DanP68 »

« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2008, 04:31 »
0
The announcement says 0.23 CREDITS, not 23 cents.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2008, 04:32 »
0
It was inevitable. With Fotolia what concerns me is they don't have the sales volume that SS does and are now offering about the same pricing scheme. That means they'll get some new subscription clients, some existing ones will convert to subscriptions, and I'm thinking my earnings will stay the same of drop. I don't see a mad rush new subscription clients suddenly driving up SS-level volume for them. We'll see.


DanP68

« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2008, 04:36 »
0
The announcement says 0.23 CREDITS, not 23 cents.

Well, 1 credit is worth 35 cents at Fotolia if you are Level 2.  So that implies a subscription sale will yield 0.23 x 35 cents = 8 cents per sale.

No way.  That cannot be right.  Either that email is not legitimate, or they messed up the text and meant cents.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2008, 04:44 »
0
Sure, I want to get as much as I can, but I'm not going to refuse to sell just because they aren't paying me as much as I'd like.

Maybe if people refused to sell, they would indeed have to pay you as much as you like?


Maybe true, but it would require to be a huge amount of committed people to make a shift like that. Don't see that happening.

What happened to the angry torch and pitchfork mob for StockXpert subscriptions? They got StockXpert's attention but it fizzled because human nature took over (perception of loss of money from opting out) and people started opting back in (lack of committment).

You sound frustrated, not committed.


« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2008, 04:55 »
0
No Dan, still not right.  Before anyone panics, read the actual words of the announcement....

"will generate an INCOME of 0.23 credits......"

DanP68

« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2008, 05:02 »
0
I don't have a problem with a 30c commission for subs, which tend to offer high volume.  In my experience StockXpert hasn't delivered the high volume, but I still look at them as reasonable commissions considering the cost of a subscription package.

The Fotolia commission, if this is true, is brazenly low balling contributors.  I see this as a pretty big difference.  I will need 143 sales from FT from every 100 sales at SS to keep a similar earnings pace.  It sounds to me like Fotolia is saying, "Hey we'll just keep 75-85% of the profit and you will all accept it, because you always do."

The way I look at it, the best Fotolia has ever done in my portfolio is 10% of total earnings.  Right now they are about 6%.  I could live without them.  It would not hurt much at all to give them up.

Consider this -

I submit to 7 sites.  Each site requires 14% of my time, all things being equal.  But Fotolia only returns 6% of my earnings.  That's not much of a deal from where I stand.  True StockXpert only returns about 4% of my earnings, but they seem to be sharing profits with contributors a lot more fairly.  I could drop Fotolia today and still keep 94% of my earnings every month. With a little growth from the other 6 next month, I wouldn't even remember who they were.

Trust me, I can be as committed as I need to be.  I want to see the true offer first, and try to ascertain if the offer is fair.  If I don't feel it is, I'll pull out the minute I see subs replacing the majority of credit sales.  You can hold me to that.


No Dan, still not right.  Before anyone panics, read the actual words of the announcement....

"will generate an INCOME of 0.23 credits......"


I don't see what I am missing.  An income of 1 credit is 35 cents.  So 0.23 credits is 8 cents.  Help me out here.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 05:04 by DanP68 »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2008, 05:02 »
0
So without me needing to go breakout my spreadsheet and start calculating stuff, what impact does credits have versus cents?

« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2008, 05:12 »
0
No Dan, still not right.  Before anyone panics, read the actual words of the announcement....

"will generate an INCOME of 0.23 credits......"
With 0.23$ per download we can panic or opt-out. All these subscriptions programs make me sick. Soon, I will spend more money for my psychoanalyst than I earn in microstock. Istock exclusivity for RF and RM sites could be good couple.

« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2008, 05:16 »
0
now  the market going  subs!
That's what I have been afraid of.first DT then StockXpert then IS and now FT who is next  getty?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2008, 05:21 »
0
I think IS has the advantage with subscriptions because they're the only one with an entirely different model. The rest of the sites just copied SS's model.

« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2008, 05:51 »
0
I dunno about you guys, but on my Fotolia page, it shows me how many credits I've earned, and it ALSO says underneath that 1 Credit = $1.00.

So, we're talking .23 of one credit is... /drumroll...

Twenty-three cents.

Hope that clears it up for you guys :D

« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2008, 06:27 »
0
depends if u get 35 % of the 0.23 or 100 % ....

« 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

DanP68

« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2008, 19:42 »
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.



Sorry to say this, but you are wrong this time Mr Hat. 

Chad Bidwell already stopped by the Yahoo Micropayment boards to confirm that the offer indeed is for 23 cents to 30 cents per download.  He doesn't understand why contributors are concerned. 

He also claimed our earnings will be 2 to 3 times higher next year because of subscriptions.  Well, that never happened with StockXpert.  Why should anyone believe this?

« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2008, 21:17 »
0
Well as far as I'm concerned, this is an insult to contributors.  I'm not sure when this will actually be implemented, thanks to Fotolia's piss-poor communication, but I will be removing my portfolio when it does go into effect, if not before.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #52 on: May 30, 2008, 21:39 »
0
On top of the subscription issue, May was really slow at FT for me. Although it's not a huge earner (8% average) it's the lowest earnings I've had since November. Seems like every time they change something (V2, search engine, etc) contributors suffer.

They were showing promise but this is just another push for me toward IS exclusivity.

jsnover

« Reply #53 on: May 30, 2008, 21:54 »
0
Chad's claim that their payout is fair and in line with other sites is just rubbish. The only good thing he noted - which should have been in the newsletter - was that they're limiting subs to size L and lower.

For the agencies, it's a win if they steal business from SS and bring it to FT, but that doesn't help us as contributors at all. DT and StockXpert peddled this myth about all these extra buyers and AFAIK this just hasn't happened. If it did, I don't think contributors would be so miffed.

Chad also claimed to be surprised that everyone was unhappy. I'm gobsmacked! How could FT not have known this was going to go down like a lead balloon?

« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2008, 21:57 »
0
On top of the subscription issue, May was really slow at FT for me. Although it's not a huge earner (8% average) it's the lowest earnings I've had since November. Seems like every time they change something (V2, search engine, etc) contributors suffer.

They were showing promise but this is just another push for me toward IS exclusivity.

Agreed.  Quite frankly, even if I don't choose to go exclusive at IS, I feel my work is simply worth more than .23.  Even if I reduce my overall earnings slightly by removing my Fotolia portfolio, I will be able to sleep better at night knowing I'm not giving my work away for such a paltry amount.  I posted a message on Chad's thread but suspect it will get removed.  Hopefully he will still see it regardless.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2008, 22:10 »
0
Chad also claimed to be surprised that everyone was unhappy. I'm gobsmacked! How could FT not have known this was going to go down like a lead balloon?

Spare me. That indicates he thinks we're dumb which discredits them even more. He's known for a long time what the reaction would be and is trying to spin a positive look at it.

Maybe he's right and the contributor sales earnings will double or triple. But my question is, what's different about FT then all the other sites where magical sales mutiples didn't happen (and even declined). If sales don't rocket up, that statement will come back to bite him hard.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 22:57 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2008, 22:20 »
0
Very bad news. I have a BME at FT this month, and it's way ahead of DT, which is sinking, partly because of the low subs earnings. Now, they will go down together.

Time to think RM.

cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2008, 22:54 »
0
It's getting pretty heated on the french Fotolia forum...  Everybody is complaining, including myself  >:(

0.23 would be the lowest price in the industry ever, an insult to us.
Everybody is raising price, but they are doing the opposite.  The price are are already so low...

I hope my sales will continue to grow with the macros so I can dump all these crappy sites -- got 6 sales with Alamy this month, 60% of my total stock income.

« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2008, 01:18 »
0
My sentiments exactly, in fact, I have decided to pull an allnighter and prepare a bunch of images for Alamy that I have been procrastinating doing. This is just the motivation I need. So you had 6 sales on 173 images? impressive. Most people there, including myself so far, do not have sales like that with from so few images, not on photos anyway.

cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2008, 01:32 »
0
My sentiments exactly, in fact, I have decided to pull an allnighter and prepare a bunch of images for Alamy that I have been procrastinating doing. This is just the motivation I need. So you had 6 sales on 173 images? impressive. Most people there, including myself so far, do not have sales like that with from so few images, not on photos anyway.

I now have 285 images with Alamy.  It took some time to get the first sale, but after that my ranking started to get better and better.  So my pictures started to appear in the first search pages and suddenly more sales came.

Alamy is definitely worth it, especially with their easy upload process and super fast review times.

« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2008, 03:43 »
0
Let's put a little scenario to the test.

Let's assume that most buyers of XS standard switch to subsciption, kind of logical assumption.
Take the % of XS sales and calculate these sales at 0,23 cent compared to 0,37 cents.
This should give already a rough estimate how much income will decrease (again).

In my case, with the huge drop of income because of their  messing around with the search engine of already 43 % this month, bringing in the assumption would lead to a total decrease of about 55 %.

When DT introduced the subscription plan my sales there dropped considerably, it took me months of hard work and uploading to climb back to the state i was before their subs plan.

Why does FT think they can do a better job.?.. i'm puzzled.

Not happy at all.

Patrick H.

« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2008, 04:07 »
0
On top of the subscription issue, May was really slow at FT for me. Although it's not a huge earner (8% average) it's the lowest earnings I've had since November. Seems like every time they change something (V2, search engine, etc) contributors suffer.

They were showing promise but this is just another push for me toward IS exclusivity.

Agreed.  Quite frankly, even if I don't choose to go exclusive at IS, I feel my work is simply worth more than .23.  Even if I reduce my overall earnings slightly by removing my Fotolia portfolio, I will be able to sleep better at night knowing I'm not giving my work away for such a paltry amount. 
Yes. It's time to show that we are ready to work for nothing. I'll remove my portfolio as well. Solidarity is the keyword. If important group of contributors do that Fotolia will be in trouble - it can be interesting. Maybe more fun than selling images for 0.23$. If the best images go elsewhere, buyers will follow. The communicating vessels system,  our income can only be better in short terme. Not accept Fotolia condition is the best for  our microstock future. Other sites will think twice before make this kind of "improvement".

« Reply #62 on: May 31, 2008, 04:27 »
0
There is no way that I will pull my portfolio until I see what affect it has on sales here and elsewhere.  I have made over 700$ this month with FT so I would have to lose a lot of money elsewhere before I considered this action. I think that a lot of the really big players that make a lot more than I do won't pull their portfolios whatever they are threatening as the only ones to lose would be themselves. I can't imagine a scenario where my overall earnings would go down by over     700$ because of the FT subs and that is even more true for the big players.
Saying that I think that they should reconsider the 23c and have something more inline with SS as 23c is a step back for microstock.

[Yes. It's time to show that we are ready to work for nothing. I'll remove my portfolio as well. Solidarity is the keyword. If important group of contributors do that Fotolia will be in trouble
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 04:52 by fotografer »

« Reply #63 on: May 31, 2008, 04:43 »
0
It is good that subscriptions will be limited to the L size.  Will have to wait and see how much I make per download and if subscriptions are a significant part of my sales.  My earnings have gone up with StockXpert and DT since they introduced subscriptions and it doesn't seem to make much difference if I am opted in or out with StockXpert.

cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #64 on: May 31, 2008, 10:40 »
0
Let's put a little scenario to the test.

Let's assume that most buyers of XS standard switch to subsciption, kind of logical assumption...

Well at least on StockXpert 99% of my sub sales are for XL files and vector, that's why I'm so pissed!
And my regular sales are now mostly for XS.

So not only I'm loosing a lot of $5 sales to a $.30 sales, but my pay per picture sale is now lower than it used to be because I mostly get $.50 for XS instead of the $2.5 or $5 I was getting before for L or XL.

To me that the proof that LOT of regular buyers are switching to sub, and that's bad.

Subscriptions suck.  SS should be the only one selling subs.

« Reply #65 on: May 31, 2008, 10:45 »
0
Well at least on StockXpert 99% of my sub sales are for XL files and vector ...

Of course they are - one must be stupid to not buy the biggest possible size with a size-independent subscription plan ...


« Reply #66 on: May 31, 2008, 12:44 »
0
a slight raise:

Quote
Hi Fotolians,

I am happy to report that Fotolia has listened to our members and as a result we are raising the commission structure for subscriptions.

The new commission structure will be as follows.

Ranking     Payment / Download

White            0.25 Credit

Bronze          0.26 Credit

Silver             0.27 Credit

Gold              0.28 Credit

Emerald         0.29 Credit

Ruby              0.30 Credit

Sapphire        0.31 Credit

Diamond        0.32 Credit

This is an effort to appeal to the concerns of the majority of contributors. Subscriptions will be released soon with the new commission structure. We hope to raise the commission even higher after we receive more data after the release.  We would appreciate your support as we make public this new service.

but still low.

(there are only 2 sapphire members, and 0 diamond members).
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 12:46 by Chode »

« Reply #67 on: May 31, 2008, 12:57 »
0
Time to think RM.

I was thinking of something like that earlier today.  Not now, but it subs become the gross part of microstock sales, I will be definitely out of it and concentrate on RM and some RF.  Gladly I don't live on this, so I can make a choice. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #68 on: May 31, 2008, 13:01 »
0
a slight raise:

Quote
Hi Fotolians,

I am happy to report that Fotolia has listened to our members and as a result we are raising the commission structure for subscriptions.

The new commission structure will be as follows.

Ranking     Payment / Download

White            0.25 Credit

Bronze          0.26 Credit

Silver             0.27 Credit

Gold              0.28 Credit

Emerald         0.29 Credit

Ruby              0.30 Credit

Sapphire        0.31 Credit

Diamond        0.32 Credit

This is an effort to appeal to the concerns of the majority of contributors. Subscriptions will be released soon with the new commission structure. We hope to raise the commission even higher after we receive more data after the release.  We would appreciate your support as we make public this new service.


but still low.

(there are only 2 sapphire members, and 0 diamond members).


Isn't Rubis more than Sapphire???
http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Ranking

« Reply #69 on: May 31, 2008, 13:06 »
0
a slight raise:

Quote
Hi Fotolians,

I am happy to report that Fotolia has listened to our members and as a result we are raising the commission structure for subscriptions.

The new commission structure will be as follows.

Ranking     Payment / Download

White            0.25 Credit

Bronze          0.26 Credit

Silver             0.27 Credit

Gold              0.28 Credit

Emerald         0.29 Credit

Ruby              0.30 Credit

Sapphire        0.31 Credit

Diamond        0.32 Credit

This is an effort to appeal to the concerns of the majority of contributors. Subscriptions will be released soon with the new commission structure. We hope to raise the commission even higher after we receive more data after the release.  We would appreciate your support as we make public this new service.

but still low.

(there are only 2 sapphire members, and 0 diamond members).

Stil a joke compared to other sites.

Patrick H.

« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2008, 13:14 »
0
Simply hilarious. :)

jsnover

« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2008, 13:20 »
0
So after "listening" they up the ante 2 cents a level. However that still means that the top earners at SS (who get 38 cents) will only get 29 cents for a download at FT (assuming they're emerald; FT has only two Sapphire's, Andres and Yuri, and they get a whopping 30 cents).

This still looks like a better deal for Fotolia than for contributors unless FT can bring in a new pool of buyers vs. just swiping from SS. They did open up the non-English speaking market and have done a tremendous amount in nearly 3 years. I just don't see where these new buyers will be coming from.

lisafx

« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2008, 14:11 »
0
Oh, this is BS.  I was upset when I thought I was getting .30 at emerald level.  .29????!!!  Nice that they bumped the bottom end, but they are leaving the top end - IE their main producers - feeling hosed. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #73 on: May 31, 2008, 14:26 »
0
So if they bumped it up and it still is not enough, what would everyone be satisfied with? Or doesn't it matter and you hate the subs no matter what?

« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2008, 14:29 »
0
I'm not particularly happy about this either - I certainly don't want Fotolia taking any market share from SS if I am to be paid 10c less per download. I have always been very positive towards FT and have had a lot of success with them. This is the first thing they've done that disappoints me (other sites have done many things!) and I hope Chad will listen to the larger contributors like Lisa, myself and Andres. They need to be matching SS at least.

« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2008, 14:52 »
0
lathspell Since you already deleted your account

So therefore your comments are officially "discounted" in my book.
Be careful! If you keep deleting accounts whenever you get pissed,
you will soon find yourself looking for a new hobby.

This is sorta like the golfers I hear of breaking their clubs when they miss that "Important shot".
Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Cranky MIZ

« Reply #76 on: May 31, 2008, 15:00 »
0
Oh, this is BS.  I was upset when I thought I was getting .30 at emerald level.  .29????!!!  Nice that they bumped the bottom end, but they are leaving the top end - IE their main producers - feeling hosed. 

As Ross Perot once said "I hear that giant * sound...". My port on FT is only 150, but I feel your pain and have much empathy. A giant hose job for sure.

jsnover

« Reply #77 on: May 31, 2008, 15:32 »
0
So if they bumped it up and it still is not enough, what would everyone be satisfied with? Or doesn't it matter and you hate the subs no matter what?

What I'd be happy with is a credit based subscription along the lines of what iStock introduced, assuming reasonable per-credit commissions.

If the flat payout, limited to L sizes and below has to stay, I'd be happy with commissions that were at the very least equal to SS's so that there's no loss if someone switches which site they subscribe to.

However, I think FT is just flexing its muscle to see what they can get away with. As Lisa pointed out in another thread, they're just making it easier and easier to consider exclusivity elsewhere. I was not moved by Chad's "give it a chance" plea - after we put up with the total fiasco that was the introduction of V2, which trashed sales for months, they decide to introduce subscriptions and low ball the commissions. The extra 2 cents is in no way helpful in addressing the issues their rotten commissions raise.

« Reply #78 on: May 31, 2008, 15:57 »
0
Be careful! If you keep deleting accounts whenever you get pissed,
you will soon find yourself looking for a new hobby.

Yep, and I can tell you which: finding stock agencies where you can earn more in shorter time with less work and a better communication! :)

Believe it or not: during the last 5 months I've applied to 2 local agencies which actually earn me twice the monthly Fotolia amount each out of portfolios half the size of my Fotolia collection (until yesterday of course :)) and *tataaa!* one of them even doing the keywording by themselves.

I will not drop istockphoto and Dreamstime in the closer future (istockphoto because of being there from almost the beginning, Dreamstime because they have a nice tendency upwards), but i.e. I already feel very uncomfortable with Shutterstock which is probably the next in my "Goodbye!" list.

Fotolia was just ripe. Too much effort for too little revenue, and the subscriptions finally triggered the bottom.

This is sorta like the golfers I hear of breaking their clubs when they miss that "Important shot".

Nope, it's more like finding a better golf course when the current one is raising the costs while lowering the service and surrounding the holes with concrete walls.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 16:17 by lathspell »

« Reply #79 on: May 31, 2008, 16:52 »
0
I've just submitted new photos to Big 6. For the first time Fotolia was excluded.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 16:54 by rene »

« Reply #80 on: May 31, 2008, 17:35 »
0
I never liked subs  but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much we can do  about it. I don't think it would help if we just left the sites that are offering it  especially considering  all the big  players have it now.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 18:27 by stokfoto »

lisafx

« Reply #81 on: May 31, 2008, 18:23 »
0
So if they bumped it up and it still is not enough, what would everyone be satisfied with? Or doesn't it matter and you hate the subs no matter what?

What I'd be happy with is a credit based subscription along the lines of what iStock introduced, assuming reasonable per-credit commissions.

If the flat payout, limited to L sizes and below has to stay, I'd be happy with commissions that were at the very least equal to SS's so that there's no loss if someone switches which site they subscribe to.


This pretty much sums up my feelings too. 

I realize that Fotolia had to introduce subscriptions to stay competitive and I sympathize.  But it would cushion the blow considerably if they had come up with a fairer commission structure, along the lines with Shutterstock's. 

Or at a minimum paid .30 on the high end which would have at least been competitive with Dreamstime.  And by high end I mean a realistic sampling - maybe gold and above?  I just checked the rankings and there are only TWO contributors above emerald!  And they are both saphire, so the ruby and diamond numbers quoted are complete fantasy.  Nobody is getting that.   

To say the range is .25 - .32 is not true since nobody qualifies for anything above .30 and only two guys are even getting that.  And if Fotolia thinks those two guys - the top sellers in the microstock world - are gonna be happy with .30 I think they are kidding themselves.

« Reply #82 on: June 01, 2008, 00:31 »
0
Yeah, that's about true. They should be trying to equal what SS is paying. Give it time: subscriptions are a new and unknown market to them - by the end of the year they'll be confident enough in their position to give us more. Or not, who knows?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 00:34 by sharply_done »

abimages

« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2008, 03:55 »
0
Not much love for the subs offer then? I agree it's too low. But I'm also seeing >.25 XS sales at iS on a much too regular basis too!

« Reply #84 on: June 02, 2008, 04:56 »
0
Wow! They announce it over the weekend and have it running on Monday. Looks like their pricing plan is similar to DT's 25 per day plan.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 05:04 by Pywrit »

« Reply #85 on: June 02, 2008, 06:47 »
0
Did you not notice that the commission on subs is below the .33 commission you get for an xs download....They need to offer an opt out of all as stockxpert does or they will lose their contributors.

jsnover

« Reply #86 on: June 02, 2008, 09:36 »
0
 Or below the 37 cents I get for an XS (and I'm only silver - imagine how the emeralds feel who sell for 2 credits for an XS at whatever their percentage is and get 29 cents instead).

So far today my 9 sales are all regular (non-subscription) credits though

« Reply #87 on: June 02, 2008, 18:40 »
0
I think y'all misread the wow. It was not the kind of wow that one give when one is watching a fireworks display. It is more the wow that one gives when one sees a lightning bolt hit a tree 30 feet away.

CofkoCof

« Reply #88 on: June 03, 2008, 18:02 »
0
Some "confidential info", which can be found at fotolia forums:
Quote

Oleg has asked me to share some  confidential information with the community about subscriptions.

First the average individual buyer at Fotolia downloads less than 3 images per day and less than 6 images per month. We dont have high volume buyers.

If you take in account only images of non-exclusive members L size or smaller (what is offered by subscription),the average price paid for these images is 2.2 credits. The average commission paid out is 40% or .88 credits.

So the pay per download system pays out to the photographer community an average 2.64 credits per day and 5.28 credits per month per buyer.

The subscription service will collect higher volume customers. They will pay a min of $249 a month to download a lot of images. People who pay this much money will download a lot of images.

So lets assume the subscription member uses 50% of their images allotted that is 375 images downloaded. The average payment to photographers for these downloads will be around .28 credits. Netting the contributors 105 credits per month.

So what is better for the community 5.28 credits per month or 105 credits per month per buyer?

If all fotolia buyers now would be subscribers, the community -globally -would share over 20 times more pay outs.

I think the math speaks for itself .

I'm just wondering: if an averege buyer buys less tha 6 images per month, why does he state that he buys less than 3 images per day (which is obvious since it should be 6/30, which is 1/5 of an image per day).  Also I think these stats are presented in a way to calm the contributors. They probably counted all the buyers that ever bought an image (what else could explain 1/5 image per day).
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 18:04 by CofkoCof »

« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2008, 18:40 »
0
there are no sups i think my earnings today where nomal

grp_photo

« Reply #90 on: June 03, 2008, 18:43 »
0
there are no sups i think my earnings today where nomal
that is a little bit naive you won't see any changes on the very first day!

« Reply #91 on: June 03, 2008, 18:54 »
0
Funny , he says average commission for L size or smaller. Why would you do math with average commission numbers , lets use only L size cause thats whats the buyer gonna take , inst he?   And that changing the results for quite a bit , me thinks


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
13297 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 01:41
by lagereek
3 Replies
2643 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
10712 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 18:23
by madelaide
9 Replies
3461 Views
Last post May 23, 2012, 06:26
by HerMajesty
12 Replies
4576 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