MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia - Unsold contents (ANNOUNCEMENT)  (Read 29436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 24, 2013, 08:04 »
0
Dear contributor,

In order to give a second chance to images that have not sold for over 6 months, we have decided to update our sales conditions slightly.

After 6 months without sales, the content price will now be set according to this new pricing chart:
- XS & S = 1 Credit
- M & L = 2 Credits
- XL, XXL & V = 3 Credits

We hope that this new pricing for unsold images will help increase sales for these images. Once the image has sold 3 times, the contributor will have the ability to reset his image price once again.

We are sure these new conditions will give new life to unsold content and will help you to generate even more revenue by increasing the visibility to your unsold content.

Kind regards.


« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2013, 08:13 »
0
I think this is brilliant. I hope they call it the BetterValueThaniSTock Collection. Hopefully fotolia will market this similarly to iStock: Over half our library available for 3 credits or less, something like that..

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2013, 08:17 »
+2
Like at iS, it'll just stop people from uploading less in-demand images, which have a higher chance of going for giveaway prices, yet lowering the prices won't lead to more sales. So buyers might have to go to other sites to get the less usual images, which is always risky.

« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2013, 08:18 »
+1
before even discussing this announcement it isn't working properly, I have files with 1 download with this new pricing which makes them SOLD files, not UNSOLD

or does this mean really 6 months without a sale and need to have another 3 so we can get back to the regular price?

« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2013, 08:19 »
+2
Why not move rates back up if it sells one time? Because they know most unsold content in that time period will likely not reach 3 downloads. Why don't they fix the search? Does a tad cheaper make images more marketable? No.  Keep all images the same price and give them all a fair chance in the search.  We know FT has their thumb on search results as it is so to me this is just another way to cut commissions. A lot of images don't sell because FT makes it so by the placement they force on the images.

« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2013, 08:19 »
+7
Hm, I was preparing to upload quite a few files exclusively to fotolia. But a lot of those are seasonal images and they would obviously keep going up and down in price over the year.

I guess I will send those now to Alamy or maybe exclusive to Dreamstime, we will see. Or maybe I just keep them on my own website for the time being.

I have content that does not sell in high volume but wanted to leave exclusively with them for the higher price points.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 08:26 by cobalt »

« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2013, 08:20 »
+6
...Once the image has sold 3 times, the contributor will have the ability to reset his image price once again.

We are sure these new conditions will give new life to unsold content and will help you to generate even more revenue by increasing the visibility to your unsold content.

Just gotta love this part, even if the photo sells at the lower price you have to reset it manually  :P

« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2013, 08:26 »
0
...Once the image has sold 3 times, the contributor will have the ability to reset his image price once again.

We are sure these new conditions will give new life to unsold content and will help you to generate even more revenue by increasing the visibility to your unsold content.

Just gotta love this part, even if the photo sells at the lower price you have to reset it manually  :P

like it is a bad thing for them selling files for higher prices, what a joke!

« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2013, 08:27 »
0
I think this kind of price decreases should be optional.

It seems wrong. I mean. I upload a batch of 10 pictures. All are good, but we know how microstock. One or two are sold far, three or four pictures a bit, and and other pictures, nothing.
Within six months they will begin to sell not previously sold. And that used to be sold much, now sold less. The result? In a long run, I win less.

« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2013, 08:28 »
0
i just imagine what happens when they are changing their search engine (best match again) and suddenly bestsellers stop selling - it's a way to reduce large parts of the collection to prices between 1 and 3 credits.

*DISLIKE*

« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2013, 08:30 »
+3
It has been proven that the customers are not price sensitive at all at these prices, so that 'visibility thing is fotolia managent -a bunch of crooks who belong is prison for fraud- lying thru their teeth again, and again.

« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2013, 08:32 »
+1
i just imagine what happens when they are changing their search engine (best match again) and suddenly bestsellers stop selling - it's a way to reduce large parts of the collection to prices between 1 and 3 credits.

*DISLIKE*

Right.  They have simply spun this into "we will generate more sales for you by doing this, honest, that's why we are doing it."  Like I said above they have their thumb on the search so they will simply manipulate, and effectively cut our commissions.

« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2013, 08:32 »
+1
i just imagine what happens when they are changing their search engine (best match again) and suddenly bestsellers stop selling - it's a way to reduce large parts of the collection to prices between 1 and 3 credits.

*DISLIKE*

They can reduce the whole collection with a bit of search rotation.

wds

« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2013, 08:33 »
0
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2013, 08:38 »
0
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

Well, if an image sells well the contributor can only raise the price to how far his contributor level allows - with higher ranked contributors to raise images to higher prices than lower ranked ones.

« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2013, 08:38 »
+14
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

Are you kidding me? Control? Do you think that we have time to go mine our images, search for those that have 3 new DL's, isolated them and manually change the pricing back to where we have already took the time to set the price? And then if they don't sell again for 6 months they are automatically reset to cheapskate pricing.  Then we keep doing this "control" on a perpetual basis?

« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2013, 08:40 »
0
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

unless they change searches and you end up having 3 XXL sales for 75 cents each (25% my case) and then manually higher their pricing

wds

« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2013, 08:43 »
+1
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

Are you kidding me? Control? Do you think that we have time to go mine our images, search for those that have 3 new DL's, isolated them and manually change the pricing back to where we have already took the time to set the price? And then if they don't sell again for 6 months they are automatically reset to cheapskate pricing.  Then we keep doing this "control" on a perpetual basis?

I was thinking in contrast to what iS has done where prices were lowered with no clear mechanism or timeframe for raising the prices if an image showed some success at the lower pricepoint.

« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2013, 08:45 »
+2
I have files with 7 downloads with this new pricing, oh man :o

every single upload we do it has to have at least a sale every 6 months, shall we download them ourselves? ;D

« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2013, 08:49 »
+9
I understand the problem with istock lowering prices so drastically, that this forces other agencies to look at their options. And of course unsold files are the first ones that will be looked at. I just think that 6 months is much too short a time frame.

It would be better if there was an automatic procedure to move files back up in price once they sell, or to give contributors better tools to identify them.


« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2013, 08:50 »
+3
I think this is brilliant. I hope they call it the BetterValueThaniSTock Collection. Hopefully fotolia will market this similarly to iStock: Over half our library available for 3 credits or less, something like that..


do you know what is brilliant in FT? perhaps selling your files as EL for less than XXL? ;D

http://www.fotolia.com/id/29994284

« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2013, 08:51 »
0
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

It does matter mr. genius, because if you have thousands of files you can a have a reasonable amount of daily downloads, while each individual file is getting a download seldomly, and this will severely cut the whole income on those. (I bet you can't follow the logic here : )

« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2013, 08:55 »
+1
adding to this sweet announcement we have no clue of what we haven't sold in the last 6 months

« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2013, 08:58 »
+9
I think it is time that contributors stand up and remind agencies what their function is - they are agents to US contributors.
They get a huge share of our commissions but they do not tell us what they do with that. I want them to be accountable to me!

Agent - what have you done to promote my imagery on the market. Don't lower the prices on my assets just because you have failed to do your work.
Also give me tools to decide whether or not I let YOU (the failing?) agent reduce my image prices -or remove these images from your collection.

And I agree with cobalt - the timeframe 6 months is way too short. 18 or 24 months seem more appropriate. In that regard I like DT's system of notifying me of unsold content - where I can decide whether i offer them for free, have them rekeyword, or remove them from the collection.

wds

« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2013, 08:59 »
0
Well at least it is well defined and give some control to the contributor. If an image has a few sales, the contributor has the power to raise the price. If it doesn't sell at all, well then it doesn't really matter anyway.

It does matter mr. genius, because if you have thousands of files you can a have a reasonable amount of daily downloads, while each individual file is getting a download seldomly, and this will severely cut the whole income on those. (I bet you can't follow the logic here : )

Fair point. Perhaps it should be longer than 6 months.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
5824 Views
Last post February 21, 2009, 07:43
by cluckcluck
6 Replies
2140 Views
Last post October 07, 2010, 00:57
by mtkang
27 Replies
7923 Views
Last post May 01, 2013, 08:00
by Poncke v2
10 Replies
4178 Views
Last post December 13, 2014, 00:07
by Uncle Pete
204 Replies
26745 Views
Last post January 23, 2019, 18:56
by KuriousKat

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results