pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has there been a big increase in sales volumes at FT?  (Read 20588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: June 02, 2012, 14:39 »
0
I seem to be in the other boat luckily, my rank has gone from 37000 to 7000. I seem to be selling much more over the last couple of months. However, I had been uploading quite furiously.

Mark


« Reply #76 on: June 02, 2012, 15:09 »
0
I'm down from about 600 to about 1200.

Lagereek

« Reply #77 on: June 02, 2012, 15:18 »
0
This overall rank and 7 day rank, what the heck is it indicating?  I have never bothered to find out but now Im getting curious.

« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2012, 15:28 »
0
My fall in FT earnings looks quite spectacular on a chart.


« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2012, 15:47 »
0

Mine has been under 30 in the good old days but now stands at around 800 !!!!!!!!!!!

I feel your pain.  Same boat here.

Wow, now I really see none of you are exaggerating :o

Yep.  I used to have weekly rankings below 30.  Sometimes as low as 13.  When I posted here in April it had dropped to 280.  Now it's over 450.  Imagine that - overall rank of 34, and weekly rank of 450.  Something seriously wrong here. 

My FT earnings for May were literally 1/3 of what they had been a couple of years ago, and 1/2 of what they were at the beginning of the year. 

 

Sounds a lot like my story -- at one point my rank stayed steady in the 100's, now it ranges between 600 - 2000.

Lagereek

« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2012, 16:10 »
0
Well Im sure its a glitch, bug or something, I mean I just did a search on "construction engineer"  and among the first 5 pages, there are 3 pages with guys and girls in a hardhat isolated on white, ALL!  with zero dls,  yep,  zero dls.

cant be right, can it.

« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2012, 16:15 »
0
Well Im sure its a glitch, bug or something, I mean I just did a search on "construction engineer"  and among the first 5 pages, there are 3 pages with guys and girls in a hardhat isolated on white, ALL!  with zero dls,  yep,  zero dls.

cant be right, can it.
A glitch that has lasted over a year????
At the moment new images seem to be at the front of the search so I guess that is what you are seeing.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 17:10 by fotografer »

« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2012, 16:34 »
0
Falling video sales here as well.

« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2012, 21:08 »
0

My 7 day rank has declined to 64, and my overall rank to 590.  Sales in May, 2012 were down 58% on May, 2011!!  Earnings on FT now comprise only 7% of my total, down from a high of 28% two years ago.  According to FT, the decline is due to "competition within FT", and that "...it really comes down to awesome images."  That's b*&()t.  I'd say that at best it's due to a screwed up search engine, and a site that doesn't care two hoots about (previously) top-selling contributors.

« Reply #84 on: June 03, 2012, 00:25 »
0
I don't mind too much if they've switched to selling newer stuff but I uploaded a lot a few weeks back and my sales carried on their steep decline.  So who are the people doing well now?  They're still above DT in the poll results here.  I have seen lots of new contributors saying that 123RF outsells FT.

Is it the former istock exclusives that are doing well now?

traveler1116

« Reply #85 on: June 03, 2012, 00:59 »
0
I don't understand exclusivity at all on FT.  For the buyer is there any way to know that a file is exclusive?  I don't even see a place to search for exclusive files, I would think they would want to promote that.

Lagereek

« Reply #86 on: June 03, 2012, 01:42 »
0
I don't mind too much if they've switched to selling newer stuff but I uploaded a lot a few weeks back and my sales carried on their steep decline.  So who are the people doing well now?  They're still above DT in the poll results here.  I have seen lots of new contributors saying that 123RF outsells FT.

Is it the former istock exclusives that are doing well now?

Who cares really?  this seems to be yet another agency to write off,  theyre getting fewer by the month.

OM

« Reply #87 on: June 03, 2012, 05:03 »
0
I don't understand exclusivity at all on FT.  For the buyer is there any way to know that a file is exclusive?  I don't even see a place to search for exclusive files, I would think they would want to promote that.

Now that's always been the crazy thing about FT. Exclusives are revealed to no-one and because of their ability to opt out of the subs program and get a higher proportion of the download price are, in fact, less profitable for FT. As an exclusive at one time there, I upped my price on some of the better sellers and opted out of subs...........got virtually no sales for the 4 week period that I tried that. I get the impression that all FT wants is to sell subs. Easy, bulk money coming in, payout is a standard pittance and never amounts to more than 50cents ( half that for the lowest ranking). I would be surprised if many subs clients even download one tenth of the permitted 750 images/month. And, if all you are selling is subs, then it takes smaller contributors far longer to reach payout; that's money longer in their bank too. Now virtually all my sales are subs and my old moneymaker downloads seem to have just vanished from the search except when I filter for 'most downloaded' but that's not the default setting.

The problem now with most 'stock agencies' is that they don't act in any way as 'agents' for the contributors. They act as many large corporate entities operate; all that counts is the short-term bottom line as the senior management cream off the profits into their bank accounts...the bigger and the faster the better. Interests of the contributors and the corporate entity are diametrically opposed to one another. The small guy loses.

RT


« Reply #88 on: June 03, 2012, 06:24 »
0

Yep.  I used to have weekly rankings below 30.  Sometimes as low as 13.  When I posted here in April it had dropped to 280.  Now it's over 450. 
 

Just checked my rank, sorry Lisa I've taken your weekly rank of 280  :D

I don't normally take much notice of rankings as I'm more concerned with total income on a site, but like everyone else I've noticed my ranking has dropped significantly recently both weekly and overall.

« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2012, 07:50 »
0

My 7 day rank has declined to 64, and my overall rank to 590.  Sales in May, 2012 were down 58% on May, 2011!!  Earnings on FT now comprise only 7% of my total, down from a high of 28% two years ago.  According to FT, the decline is due to "competition within FT", and that "...it really comes down to awesome images."  That's b*&()t.  I'd say that at best it's due to a screwed up search engine, and a site that doesn't care two hoots about (previously) top-selling contributors.

First....you have a FABULOUS PORT!!  Secondarily, between you, Fotographer, Lisa (Mrs. FX:)) and a few other big guns stating what amounts to the same thing (going from good rank to crummy rank and therefore making less money) is pretty good anecdotal evidence that FT is indeed favoring new or non-selling images so they pay out less, keep more in their coffers.  It's a shame that potentially more appealing images are being shoved up the FT BUM where no buyers dare to go.

OM

« Reply #90 on: June 03, 2012, 08:12 »
0

My 7 day rank has declined to 64, and my overall rank to 590.  Sales in May, 2012 were down 58% on May, 2011!!  Earnings on FT now comprise only 7% of my total, down from a high of 28% two years ago.  According to FT, the decline is due to "competition within FT", and that "...it really comes down to awesome images."  That's b*&()t.  I'd say that at best it's due to a screwed up search engine, and a site that doesn't care two hoots about (previously) top-selling contributors.

First....you have a FABULOUS PORT!!  Secondarily, between you, Fotographer, Lisa (Mrs. FX:)) and a few other big guns stating what amounts to the same thing (going from good rank to crummy rank and therefore making less money) is pretty good anecdotal evidence that FT is indeed favoring new or non-selling images so they pay out less, keep more in their coffers.  It's a shame that potentially more appealing images are being shoved up the FT BUM where no buyers dare to go.

+1

It just takes effort/time on the part of the buyers to see the images most downloaded (ie the better stock images) by using the filter 'downloads'.
And the one thing that buyers usually don't have is time.

wut

« Reply #91 on: June 03, 2012, 08:18 »
0

My 7 day rank has declined to 64, and my overall rank to 590.  Sales in May, 2012 were down 58% on May, 2011!!  Earnings on FT now comprise only 7% of my total, down from a high of 28% two years ago.  According to FT, the decline is due to "competition within FT", and that "...it really comes down to awesome images."  That's b*&()t.  I'd say that at best it's due to a screwed up search engine, and a site that doesn't care two hoots about (previously) top-selling contributors.

First....you have a FABULOUS PORT!!  Secondarily, between you, Fotographer, Lisa (Mrs. FX:)) and a few other big guns stating what amounts to the same thing (going from good rank to crummy rank and therefore making less money) is pretty good anecdotal evidence that FT is indeed favoring new or non-selling images so they pay out less, keep more in their coffers.  It's a shame that potentially more appealing images are being shoved up the FT BUM where no buyers dare to go.

+1

It just takes effort/time on the part of the buyers to see the images most downloaded (ie the better stock images) by using the filter 'downloads'.
And the one thing that buyers usually don't have is time.

Well not necessarily. There's a lot of old, outdated files among them. They did sell great back in 04/05, but what can a buyer do with a business shot full of CRT monitors, old mobile phones, suits that make business ppl look like they can't afford new clothes (that doesn't make them look particularly successful) etc . Just an example, and there are tons more. No to mention the IQ, lighting etc, most of 2004 bestsellers wouldn't sell today, hell most of them would get rejected

« Reply #92 on: June 03, 2012, 08:45 »
0
Well Im sure its a glitch, bug or something, I mean I just did a search on "construction engineer"  and among the first 5 pages, there are 3 pages with guys and girls in a hardhat isolated on white, ALL!  with zero dls,  yep,  zero dls.

cant be right, can it.

The search does seem to return an odd selection.  A simple search on "milk" with the default as Relevant returned only vaguely relevant images - #1 was a couple in a field with some dairy cows in the background.  Also in the first 2 rows were a recycling tub with a milk carton, pink desserts that seemed to have milk as an ingredient and milk chocolate.  Changing to New wasn't much better - lots of bad keywording - there were blueberries without any milk in sight, an illustration of cats and a cup of black coffee taking up about a 20% of the slots.  Sorting by Downloads and Popularity returned the same odd mix of images with just a few more glasses of milk or milk splashes but still a lot of cows, generic cosmetic tubes and bottles, etc.  How is it that the second most popular download for "Milk" is an overhead close up of a box of Butter Cookies with two downloads?

Narrowing it down didn't seem to help that much either - changing it to "Milk Dairy Glass" still had the two pink desserts in the first row. There was part of a jar with pink something in it which I guess was enough to keyword it for "glass".  If I were searching as a buyer I'd be pretty frustrated with the results returned.

OM

« Reply #93 on: June 03, 2012, 08:55 »
0

My 7 day rank has declined to 64, and my overall rank to 590.  Sales in May, 2012 were down 58% on May, 2011!!  Earnings on FT now comprise only 7% of my total, down from a high of 28% two years ago.  According to FT, the decline is due to "competition within FT", and that "...it really comes down to awesome images."  That's b*&()t.  I'd say that at best it's due to a screwed up search engine, and a site that doesn't care two hoots about (previously) top-selling contributors.

First....you have a FABULOUS PORT!!  Secondarily, between you, Fotographer, Lisa (Mrs. FX:)) and a few other big guns stating what amounts to the same thing (going from good rank to crummy rank and therefore making less money) is pretty good anecdotal evidence that FT is indeed favoring new or non-selling images so they pay out less, keep more in their coffers.  It's a shame that potentially more appealing images are being shoved up the FT BUM where no buyers dare to go.

+1

It just takes effort/time on the part of the buyers to see the images most downloaded (ie the better stock images) by using the filter 'downloads'.
And the one thing that buyers usually don't have is time.

Well not necessarily. There's a lot of old, outdated files among them. They did sell great back in 04/05, but what can a buyer do with a business shot full of CRT monitors, old mobile phones, suits that make business ppl look like they can't afford new clothes (that doesn't make them look particularly successful) etc . Just an example, and there are tons more. No to mention the IQ, lighting etc, most of 2004 bestsellers wouldn't sell today, hell most of them would get rejected

Depends on the image/search category. If I take lagereek's category of 'industrial engineer', I do indeed get a load of what are obviously modelshots against white (sort of fake industrial engineer). If I then filter on 'download' I get some real (but old) images of real (or what appear to be real) engineers in industrial surroundings which I would likely be wanting to see in the first place. Filtered in default/relevance and looking as far as page 3, I didn't see the shots that I saw in download..........in fact on page 3 there's some loon dressed in an overall against white who appears to be dancing. In some sectors, the technology dates images quickly but in many other sectors it doesn't. For dated pics at FT the place to look is in the infinity sections........some of those are really ancient history with a RM pricetag to match! :)

OM

« Reply #94 on: June 03, 2012, 09:02 »
0
Well Im sure its a glitch, bug or something, I mean I just did a search on "construction engineer"  and among the first 5 pages, there are 3 pages with guys and girls in a hardhat isolated on white, ALL!  with zero dls,  yep,  zero dls.

cant be right, can it.

The search does seem to return an odd selection.  A simple search on "milk" with the default as Relevant returned only vaguely relevant images - #1 was a couple in a field with some dairy cows in the background.  Also in the first 2 rows were a recycling tub with a milk carton, pink desserts that seemed to have milk as an ingredient and milk chocolate.  Changing to New wasn't much better - lots of bad keywording - there were blueberries without any milk in sight, an illustration of cats and a cup of black coffee taking up about a 20% of the slots.  Sorting by Downloads and Popularity returned the same odd mix of images with just a few more glasses of milk or milk splashes but still a lot of cows, generic cosmetic tubes and bottles, etc.  How is it that the second most popular download for "Milk" is an overhead close up of a box of Butter Cookies with two downloads?

Narrowing it down didn't seem to help that much either - changing it to "Milk Dairy Glass" still had the two pink desserts in the first row. There was part of a jar with pink something in it which I guess was enough to keyword it for "glass".  If I were searching as a buyer I'd be pretty frustrated with the results returned.

Yep, the keyword spamming and totally innaccurate keywording has reached monstrous proportions at FT. On every page of search there are numerous examples of images that just should not be there and by the time you've waded through the unrequested infinity pics, there's not a lot of relevant images to choose from.

RT


« Reply #95 on: June 03, 2012, 11:50 »
0
 ^ One of the reasons (amongst many many others) that I gave up spending anytime other than just basic uploading to Fotolia is when about a year or so ago I discovered a large portfolio of images from a Hong Kong (if my memory is correct) based agency where each and every single image had about 150 keywords in it, and the keywords were totally irrelevant to the image in question, it appeared that the agency just took the 150 most popular keywords and added them to every image and then uploaded them - and were allowed to do so! Us mere mortals have to stick to 50.

Don't know if it was ever addressed and I really don't care enough about FT to go and check if they're still doing it - all I do now is upload and forget.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 12:13 by RT »

« Reply #96 on: June 03, 2012, 12:14 »
0
My fall in FT earnings looks quite spectacular on a chart.




Unfortunately you are not alone and it is hard to believe that the timed drop was not calculated since we now know what they have been up to.  And isn't it interesting that the top level submitters seem to have been hit the hardest.  Vulture capitalist enter and search engine programmers follow.  Why any one is entertaining the idea of going exclusive with SS is beyond me since they now have new playmates and a shiny new search engine.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/16/fotolia-grabs-150m/
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 12:16 by gbalex »

« Reply #97 on: June 03, 2012, 12:24 »
0
all I do now is upload and forget.
That's what I tend to do now.  Not worth worrying about things that are out of our control.   I'm trying to get to the stage where stock income is just a bonus rather than a necessity.

RT


« Reply #98 on: June 03, 2012, 12:24 »
0
Why any one is entertaining the idea of going exclusive with SS is beyond me......

+1

« Reply #99 on: June 03, 2012, 12:25 »
0
Why any one is entertaining the idea of going exclusive with SS is beyond me......

+1
A big +2


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
5365 Views
Last post January 09, 2011, 17:17
by Tomboy2290
6 Replies
7402 Views
Last post February 21, 2011, 17:17
by CD123
8 Replies
1599 Views
Last post December 21, 2012, 05:29
by rubyroo
55 Replies
7982 Views
Last post May 23, 2013, 01:46
by quailrunphoto
21 Replies
4384 Views
Last post June 21, 2013, 11:26
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results