Author Topic: Fotolia subs... (Read 40552 times)

DanP68 · « **Reply #50 on:** May 30, 2008, 19:42 »

Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 17:21

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?

pixelbrat · « **Reply #51 on:** May 30, 2008, 21:17 »

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 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 30, 2008, 21:39 »

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 »

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?

pixelbrat · « **Reply #54 on:** May 30, 2008, 21:57 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 30, 2008, 21:39

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 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 30, 2008, 22:10 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 30, 2008, 21:54

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.

epixx · « **Reply #56 on:** May 30, 2008, 22:20 »

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 · « **Reply #57 on:** May 30, 2008, 22:54 »

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.

marcopolo · « **Reply #58 on:** May 31, 2008, 01:18 »

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 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 31, 2008, 01:32 »

Quote from: marcopolo on May 31, 2008, 01:18

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.

sam100 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 31, 2008, 03:43 »

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.

rene · « **Reply #61 on:** May 31, 2008, 04:07 »

Quote from: pixelbrat on May 30, 2008, 21:57

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 30, 2008, 21:39
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".

fotografer · « **Reply #62 on:** May 31, 2008, 04:27 »

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.

Quote from: rene on May 31, 2008, 04:07

[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

sharpshot · « **Reply #63 on:** May 31, 2008, 04:43 »

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 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 31, 2008, 10:40 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on May 31, 2008, 03:43

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.

lathspell · « **Reply #65 on:** May 31, 2008, 10:45 »

Quote from: cphoto on May 31, 2008, 10:40

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 ...

Peter · « **Reply #66 on:** May 31, 2008, 12:44 »

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).

madelaide · « **Reply #67 on:** May 31, 2008, 12:57 »

Quote from: epixx on May 30, 2008, 22:20

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

maco0708 · « **Reply #68 on:** May 31, 2008, 13:01 »

Quote from: Chode on May 31, 2008, 12:44

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

sam100 · « **Reply #69 on:** May 31, 2008, 13:06 »

Quote from: Chode on May 31, 2008, 12:44

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.

lathspell · « **Reply #70 on:** May 31, 2008, 13:14 »

Simply hilarious.

jsnover · « **Reply #71 on:** May 31, 2008, 13:20 »

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 »

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 · « **Reply #73 on:** May 31, 2008, 14:26 »

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?

phildate · « **Reply #74 on:** May 31, 2008, 14:29 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia subs... (Read 40552 times)

DanP68

pixelbrat

PaulieWalnuts

jsnover

pixelbrat

PaulieWalnuts

epixx

cphoto

marcopolo

cphoto

sam100

rene

fotografer

sharpshot

cphoto

lathspell

Peter

madelaide

maco0708

sam100

lathspell

jsnover

lisafx

PaulieWalnuts

phildate

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors