Author Topic: Fotolia - Unsold contents (ANNOUNCEMENT) (Read 49791 times)

ferdinand · « **Reply #100 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:20 »

Quote from: jsnover on July 24, 2013, 13:10

Quote from: ferdinand on July 24, 2013, 11:51
maybe SS should start strictly exclusive - to stop all this crap

SS has said repeatedly that they have no interest in exclusive contributors or content in their primary collection. No idea how Offset is doing or what the rules there are, but they could only do exclusive images at higher prices - to afford to pay the extra they'd have to to obtain images exclusively.

In this moment I can not go through all implications if SS go with strict exclusivity -

tickstock · « **Reply #101 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:21 »

lisafx · « **Reply #102 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:22 »

Quote from: fotografer on July 24, 2013, 11:30

Quote from: lisafx on July 24, 2013, 10:58
For emeralds and above a similar policy has been in place for years (reducing our base price to 1 instead of 2), only it took 5 sales at the reduced price to be able to reset.

Have you ever reset any of yours Lisa? I'm guessing that the only way to find out which images can be reset would be to click on every file and check and nobody has time for that.

I just check the ones that sold that day. I would never bother to go over the whole back catalogue. It is a PITA, but I don't know of a better solution.

Ron · « **Reply #103 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:32 »

Quote from: ferdinand on July 24, 2013, 13:20

Quote from: jsnover on July 24, 2013, 13:10
Quote from: ferdinand on July 24, 2013, 11:51
maybe SS should start strictly exclusive - to stop all this crap

SS has said repeatedly that they have no interest in exclusive contributors or content in their primary collection. No idea how Offset is doing or what the rules there are, but they could only do exclusive images at higher prices - to afford to pay the extra they'd have to to obtain images exclusively.

In this moment I can not go through all implications if SS go with strict exclusivity - but two things are for sure - agencies like FT and 123 RF will not exist any more - and that is something ...

If Shutterstock would offer exclusivity they would wipe out a lot of agencies indeed. Jon has the power to do that. If he wanted to.

7Horses · « **Reply #104 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:38 »

I really can't believe how you "pro" people can take this for granted. Me as amateur frankly I don't care. I don't have to pay rent from my photography. On the other hand if I have a agreement with someone (e.g. a plumber) and we negotiate a price I will make a lot of fuss when he doesn't stick to it. And for one thing I'm sure all these sites with their tick boxes "yes I agree" where you have to click it or you even can not read the next page their "agreements" will not stick up in any European court.

Mellimage · « **Reply #105 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:45 »

IMPORTANT

Folks, check your sold files. I had images reduced in priced based on the today announced system that I have sold back in June. Sure enough some of them aren't high sellers, but they have been sold at least once before this change was implemented.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #106 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:46 »

Quote from: 7Horses on July 24, 2013, 13:38

I really can't believe how you "pro" people can take this for granted. Me as amateur frankly I don't care. I don't have to pay rent from my photography. On the other hand if I have a agreement with someone (e.g. a plumber) and we negotiate a price I will make a lot of fuss when he doesn't stick to it. And for one thing I'm sure all these sites with their tick boxes "yes I agree" where you have to click it or you even can not read the next page their "agreements" will not stick up in any European court.

if you believe that would be so easy why haven't we seen at least 1 top contributor doing so?

Mellimage · « **Reply #107 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:47 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 13:45

IMPORTANT

Folks, check your sold files. I had images reduced in priced based on the today announced system that I have sold back in June. Sure enough some of them aren't high sellers, but they have been sold at least once before this change was implemented.

They even reduced my bestseller in price (it has over 300 sales) even though it sold in June!

tickstock · « **Reply #108 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:48 »

luissantos84 · « **Reply #109 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:48 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 13:45

IMPORTANT

Folks, check your sold files. I had images reduced in priced based on the today announced system that I have sold back in June. Sure enough some of them aren't high sellers, but they have been sold at least once before this change was implemented.

yes but in fact you need to have 3 downloads if they were older than 6 months, were they submitted before that period?

cthoman · « **Reply #110 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:51 »

Quote from: Ron on July 24, 2013, 13:32

If Shutterstock would offer exclusivity they would wipe out a lot of agencies indeed. Jon has the power to do that. If he wanted to.

It might be nice for the rest of us because we'd probably be able to negotiate better rates with the other agencies. I might send out letters the day of the announcement to the other agencies asking if they want to negotiate.

SS doesn't seem to have any interest in it though.

lisafx · « **Reply #111 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:55 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 13:46

Quote from: 7Horses on July 24, 2013, 13:38
I really can't believe how you "pro" people can take this for granted. Me as amateur frankly I don't care. I don't have to pay rent from my photography. On the other hand if I have a agreement with someone (e.g. a plumber) and we negotiate a price I will make a lot of fuss when he doesn't stick to it. And for one thing I'm sure all these sites with their tick boxes "yes I agree" where you have to click it or you even can not read the next page their "agreements" will not stick up in any European court.

if you believe that would be so easy why haven't we seen at least 1 top contributor doing so?

^^Yeah, exactly.

I have to admit, I find it confusing that someone would slam the "pros" for putting up with these changes, but then make the point that they themselves neither need, nor rely on the income, and so are totally fine with being screwed over.

Seems like it would be a lot EASIER to stand on principle if you didn't need the money. What does that make you if you accept a raw deal without even needing to?

Mellimage · « **Reply #112 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:57 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 13:48

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 13:45
IMPORTANT

Folks, check your sold files. I had images reduced in priced based on the today announced system that I have sold back in June. Sure enough some of them aren't high sellers, but they have been sold at least once before this change was implemented.

yes but in fact you need to have 3 downloads if they were older than 6 months, were they submitted before that period?

Luis, the anouncement says:
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.

Well the images that I talk about have sold at least once in the past 6 months and were reduced still. I understand that FROM TODAY ON (as the announcement was made today) the conditions are new: if images do not sell for 6 months from now on, they will be reduced in price and then need 3 downloads to go back to normal pricing (if I set it back to that). But this rule was NOT in place until the announcement that was made today, so all images that sold within the past 6 months at least once SHOULD not be reduced in price. I find it mindboggling that images that have over 300 sales to them and sold at least once within the past 6 months are reduced in price!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #113 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:59 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 13:57

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 13:48
Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 13:45
IMPORTANT

Folks, check your sold files. I had images reduced in priced based on the today announced system that I have sold back in June. Sure enough some of them aren't high sellers, but they have been sold at least once before this change was implemented.

yes but in fact you need to have 3 downloads if they were older than 6 months, were they submitted before that period?

Luis, the anouncement says:
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.

Well the images that I talk about have sold at least once in the past 6 months and were reduced still. I understand that FROM TODAY ON (as the announcement was made today) the conditions are new: if images do not sell for 3 months from now on, they will be reduced in price and then need 3 downloads to go back to normal pricing (if I set it back to that). But this rule was NOT in place until the announcement that was made today, so all images that sold within the past 6 months at least once SHOULD not be reduced in price. I find it mindboggling that images that have over 300 sales to them and sold at least once within the past 6 months are reduced in price!

yep must be a bug, checking mine also

cobalt · « **Reply #114 on:** July 24, 2013, 13:59 »

If Fotolia keeps this new system in place, in many ways they have given up the midstock section for more interesting, more high end content. There are many files that will only sell a few times a year, but can get a higher price. But if they stick to this system, contributors will be forced to produce ultrageneric content.

It wouldn´t make much sense to shoot localized, for instance.

You also have to be ultraselective when uploading a series, otherwise your bestsellers will be cannibalized by the lower selling files after 6 months. Or you deactivate the rest of the series that hasn´t sold in six months, if you feel the files deserve different returns.

Certainly makes it more complicated to decide what to send to fotolia.

Mellimage · « **Reply #115 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:07 »

*facepalm*

There are even images affected that sold more than once in the past 6 months!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #116 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:07 »

same here Mellimage

have a file that sold for the first time on 06-21-2013 01:00:52 pm (over 2 years old)

which makes me thing that we need 3 downloads on files older than 6 months or there is a bug

its not one but many...

ferdinand · « **Reply #117 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:09 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 24, 2013, 13:51

Quote from: Ron on July 24, 2013, 13:32
If Shutterstock would offer exclusivity they would wipe out a lot of agencies indeed. Jon has the power to do that. If he wanted to.

It might be nice for the rest of us because we'd probably be able to negotiate better rates with the other agencies. I might send out letters the day of the announcement to the other agencies asking if they want to negotiate.

SS doesn't seem to have any interest in it though.

And WHY?!!! SS doesn't have any interest in that - I don t understand - can you give some explanation - it is in their interest - and probably in our interest too...

Mellimage · « **Reply #118 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:14 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 14:07

same here Mellimage

have a file that sold for the first time on 06-21-2013 01:00:52 pm (over 2 years old)

which makes me thing that we need 3 downloads on files older than 6 months or there is a bug

To work this in retro-actively would be a breach of contract (and a misleading announcement, because then they should say, if an image has not sold within the past six months at least three times...) - or an image needs from now on to sell at least 3 times to stay at the price level it is introduced at... so it probably is bug - and i will report it to FT

luissantos84 · « **Reply #119 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:15 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 14:14

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 14:07
same here Mellimage

have a file that sold for the first time on 06-21-2013 01:00:52 pm (over 2 years old)

which makes me thing that we need 3 downloads on files older than 6 months or there is a bug

To work this in retro-actively would be a breach of contract (and a misleading announcement, because then they should say, if an image has not sold within the past six months at least three times...) - or an image needs from now on to sell at least 3 times to stay at the price level it is introduced at... so it probably is bug - and i will report it to FT

I have more than 10 so far, guess there must be over 100, this is just ridiculous!

Mellimage · « **Reply #120 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:21 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 24, 2013, 13:59

Certainly makes it more complicated to decide what to send to fotolia.

Or incredibly easy... nothing. Because the file needs to earn its cost back within the first 6 months or it is unlikely it ever will.

Mellimage · « **Reply #121 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:24 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 14:15

I have more than 10 so far, guess there must be over 100, this is just ridiculous!

Same here... . I have very few sales generally and a small port, which means I am through checking till March, but there are files in there that have more than 3 downloads totally, and sold at least once in the past 6 months that are reduced in price. On the other hand, I have seen files that have one single download to their name in the past six months, are older files too - and still keep their price level for now.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #122 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:26 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 14:24

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 24, 2013, 14:15

I have more than 10 so far, guess there must be over 100, this is just ridiculous!

Same here... . I have very few sales generally and a small port, which means I am through checking till March, but there are files in there that have more than 3 downloads totally, and sold at least once in the past 6 months that are reduced in price. On the other hand, I have seen files that have one single download to their name in the past six months, are older files too - and still keep their price level for now.

did the same, I am with over 20 so far, believe I am done looking for more

luissantos84 · « **Reply #123 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:29 »

what a joke!

I have one file sold for the first time today 4 hours (over 6 months old) before their announcement with the new pricing

cobalt · « **Reply #124 on:** July 24, 2013, 14:33 »

Quote from: Mellimage on July 24, 2013, 14:21

Quote from: cobalt on July 24, 2013, 13:59

Certainly makes it more complicated to decide what to send to fotolia.

Or incredibly easy... nothing. Because the file needs to earn its cost back within the first 6 months or it is unlikely it ever will.

No, there are files for every price point. But I thought the system with a mix of indie and partly exclusive content was a brilliant move to attract localized content and more high end stuff.

Let´s see if they rework this system. Otherwise, they will really only attract all the things that can sell in superhuge quantities.

And since Fotolia shows visible downloads for each file - this will lead to even more copying because as soon as a file has sales, it will be copied by someone else who hopes to get the same success.

At least they should remove visible downloads to avoid endless duplications between contributors if they want everyone to shoot ultrafast selling generic content.

I mean, now all you have to do is look at what sold in the last 6 months from the new uploads...and copy...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia - Unsold contents (ANNOUNCEMENT) (Read 49791 times)

ferdinand

tickstock

lisafx

Ron

7Horses

Mellimage

luissantos84

Mellimage

tickstock

luissantos84

cthoman

lisafx

Mellimage

luissantos84

cobalt

Mellimage

luissantos84

ferdinand

Mellimage

luissantos84

Mellimage

Mellimage

luissantos84

luissantos84

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors