Author Topic: How fast you can fall? (Read 18260 times)

Lagereek · « **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2012, 13:34 »

Same here. Looks like another major agency is doing a nosedive.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2012, 14:45 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 20, 2012, 12:47

Oh good it's not just me... well actually nothing is good about it, my sales on Fotolia are really low right now. Yes a few new files sell but since I have a large portfolio (almost 13,000 images on Fotolia) those sales are just noise. All the hard work I put into building my portfolio over last few years seem to be getting flushed down the toilet by FT. Good thing I am not exclusive!
These are my stats for this week:
Ranking
Overall rank: 15
7 day rank: 101
Nice, eh?

Thanks for posting. It's crazy, isn't it? I am absolutely certain that there are not 100 people who have a larger and more marketable portfolio than yours (as your overall rank attests).

Whatever they are going over there, they are seriously risking killing off their business. Hope it turns around soon!

Mantis · « **Reply #27 on:** June 20, 2012, 16:27 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 14:45

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 20, 2012, 12:47
Oh good it's not just me... well actually nothing is good about it, my sales on Fotolia are really low right now. Yes a few new files sell but since I have a large portfolio (almost 13,000 images on Fotolia) those sales are just noise. All the hard work I put into building my portfolio over last few years seem to be getting flushed down the toilet by FT. Good thing I am not exclusive!
These are my stats for this week:
Ranking
Overall rank: 15
7 day rank: 101
Nice, eh?

Thanks for posting. It's crazy, isn't it? I am absolutely certain that there are not 100 people who have a larger and more marketable portfolio than yours (as your overall rank attests).

Whatever they are going over there, they are seriously risking killing off their business. Hope it turns around soon!

I think they're just running out of customers because it seems that the whole breadth of contributors (from high-enders to mid to low tier producers) are reporting the same thing...significant drops in sales...., accept for a few who claim to be still doing well.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 20, 2012, 16:37 »

I am silver, a lot lower ranking but I am feeling that change too, overall I have been getting better place (today at 4270) but the weekly have been jumping a lot between 1400 (lately) to 750

OM · « **Reply #29 on:** June 20, 2012, 19:34 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 20, 2012, 16:37

I am silver, a lot lower ranking but I am feeling that change too, overall I have been getting better place (today at 4270) but the weekly have been jumping a lot between 1400 (lately) to 750

Wow! Weekly under 1000..........it would be a dream for me!! Me silver too, overall around 5,000. Saw 3,500 momentarily last week but haven't sold anything this week and my weekly average is still better than my overall............is nobody selling anything then? Seems out of whack to me.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 20, 2012, 20:00 »

Quote from: OM on June 20, 2012, 19:34

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 20, 2012, 16:37
I am silver, a lot lower ranking but I am feeling that change too, overall I have been getting better place (today at 4270) but the weekly have been jumping a lot between 1400 (lately) to 750

Wow! Weekly under 1000..........it would be a dream for me!! Me silver too, overall around 5,000. Saw 3,500 momentarily last week but haven't sold anything this week and my weekly average is still better than my overall............is nobody selling anything then? Seems out of whack to me.

last week was pretty awesome, over 60 sales but this one doesn´t look very bright, will see

Kone · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2012, 20:05 »

Interesting discussion.
Everything was okay-ish until November 2011 (Fotolia never really worked well for me).
After that date, my revenue went down by 40%. Again, in April 2012, it went down by 50%, for no reason.
Now, I am getting around 25% of what I was getting before November, 2011.

I'm just wondering how far we are willing to go.

Kone

Lawren · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2012, 21:15 »

I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2012, 21:49 »

Quote from: Lawren on June 20, 2012, 21:15

I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

if so why don't buyers leave them and join SS per example once they can get 750 files for 250$ (not saying I want that) but I am sure most of the files are in there too (actually those and a few more millions), not to mention that we would all feel this down trend not only top contributors (they would feel more right)

I believe they have changed their "best match" which is hurting top contributors, doesn´t make much sense once they do most of FT money even paying more royalties

Lagereek · « **Reply #34 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:00 »

Quote from: Lawren on June 20, 2012, 21:15

I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

Ofcourse! Emeralds and Golds are pushed back, giving prefferance in searches to the lower cannisters. This is an action which can backfire very badly indeed.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** June 21, 2012, 03:48 »

Their overall sales can't be falling that much because they're still well above DT in the earnings poll rankings here. Or have DT fallen even more?

I think FT are trying to make it harder for people like me to reach the next ranking level. I should of been gold over a year ago but they moved the goalposts and now it's going to take a few years to get there, if I haven't left before then. They will of saved thousands of dollars in commission.

It's still a stupid policy though because I've no motivation to upload new images there now and my earnings are increasing with their rival sites. I'm sure some buyers have left and that trend will probably continue. They had a chance to overtake istock and rival SS but they were too greedy and it looks like SS are going to be the big microstock site that attracts most of the buyers.

Phil · « **Reply #36 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:53 »

overall I am earning about the same, but it has been made up from others. FT this year is 50% per month of any month pre december last year.
I had hit overall rank 403, now it is 477 with seven day at 2130 (it has been over 2000 most of this year). Seems like some people are still making money but...

Elenathewise · « **Reply #37 on:** June 22, 2012, 11:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 20, 2012, 16:27

I think they're just running out of customers because it seems that the whole breadth of contributors (from high-enders to mid to low tier producers) are reporting the same thing...significant drops in sales...., accept for a few who claim to be still doing well.

Well if they were just running out of customers then everyone's relative rank would remain the same, just fewer sales. My weekly rank has been consistently and significantly lower over the last few months than the one I earned on FT initially (it has been at 9 at some point). So the theory of FT pushing higher ranking contributors down their searches seems valid to me. I don't see any major players coming in at this point with large and well-selling portfolios, well at least not a 100 of them:) So looks like FT is just screwing with the search trying to maximize their profits... it looks like its a general consensus here, too.

Karimala · « **Reply #38 on:** June 22, 2012, 14:31 »

Quote from: Phil on June 21, 2012, 06:53

overall I am earning about the same, but it has been made up from others. FT this year is 50% per month of any month pre december last year.
I had hit overall rank 403, now it is 477 with seven day at 2130 (it has been over 2000 most of this year). Seems like some people are still making money but...

No fair...those used to be my normal rankings!!!

Now I'm 823 and 4,420.

Then again...I quit uploading to Fotolia two years ago, so I'm probably being punished.

Mantis · « **Reply #39 on:** June 22, 2012, 17:01 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 22, 2012, 11:20

Quote from: Mantis on June 20, 2012, 16:27

I think they're just running out of customers because it seems that the whole breadth of contributors (from high-enders to mid to low tier producers) are reporting the same thing...significant drops in sales...., accept for a few who claim to be still doing well.

Well if they were just running out of customers then everyone's relative rank would remain the same, just fewer sales. My weekly rank has been consistently and significantly lower over the last few months than the one I earned on FT initially (it has been at 9 at some point). So the theory of FT pushing higher ranking contributors down their searches seems valid to me. I don't see any major players coming in at this point with large and well-selling portfolios, well at least not a 100 of them:) So looks like FT is just screwing with the search trying to maximize their profits... it looks like its a general consensus here, too.

They can keep pushing up and down all they want, tweak this, rig that, to attempt to get the best revenue possible with the customer base they have. That would account for the shifts in ranking, but when all levels, by in large, are reporting the same thing my conclusion is that they have defecting customers. They are simply reacting by tweaking the sh_t out of the algorithm to get the most juice out of the squeeze as I believe you stated. My opinion, of course. No evidence other than anecdotal, of course

robynmac · « **Reply #40 on:** June 22, 2012, 17:17 »

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010.

FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

Mantis · « **Reply #41 on:** June 22, 2012, 17:24 »

Quote from: robynmac on June 22, 2012, 17:17

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010. FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

+1000

OM · « **Reply #42 on:** June 22, 2012, 20:34 »

Quote from: robynmac on June 22, 2012, 17:17

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010. FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

No they don't give a fig about anyone else but their new investors' bottom line and (consequently) the senior management's bonuses. Contributors interests and theirs are definitely not the same.

The search is also totally messed up and appears to promote certain contributors over others. I can't figure it out but not only do new images with no views and no sales (too) frequently occur on the first page of search, wrongly keyworded images from certain contributors keep popping up there too. Take the keyword 'disc'. Feed it in and click on the first image on page 1 That is an image of some sort of salami which does have 'disc' in the keywords. Click on that first image and look at the 'suggestions' on that page and there's a number of food shots shown, of which, most do not have 'disc' in the title and they're wrong anyway if you're looking for 'disc'. Look toward the bottom of that page and there are again a couple of food images that stick out like a sore thumb in that they shouldn't be there (not a disc in sight). Click on them and try finding your original search word disc in the description. Not there! As a buyer, I only need to see this sort of nonsense once or twice to know that I'm wasting my time and move on.

It just looks to me like some contributors get their images in prime positions, time after time, to the exclusion of others. Any form of merit appears to have gone out of the window. Many established images that are proven sellers (and by inference are images that buyers prefer) are actually excluded from the first pages of a search to have their place taken by any image from various (but what seem to me to be) favourite contributors. Whether these people are in some sort of club or receive megaticks on f***book, I have no idea but there's something very weird happnin' there. There's only one thing that I can't see and that is contributor bias on ranking and price. 'Favoured' contributors seem to come from all ranking groups and have various basic price levels from 1 thru 3.

fotografer · « **Reply #43 on:** June 23, 2012, 02:44 »

Quote from: robynmac on June 22, 2012, 17:17

All I know for sure is that so far in June, 2012 I've earned less than 15% of what I made on FT in June, 2010. FT doesn't seem to give a flying proverbial that they are messing with people's livelihoods.

Me too, I am at just over 15%. It has made a huge difference to the way I live.

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** June 23, 2012, 02:47 »

Are the former istock exclusives that were given a deal to go with FT getting a boost? Or is it people that have some exclusive images with FT? There has to be something going on because as people have said, for all of us reporting a fall in the rankings here, there must be others going up.

OM · « **Reply #45 on:** June 23, 2012, 09:32 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 23, 2012, 02:47

Are the former istock exclusives that were given a deal to go with FT getting a boost? Or is it people that have some exclusive images with FT? There has to be something going on because as people have said, for all of us reporting a fall in the rankings here, there must be others going up.

Difficult to say as FT tells no-one who their exclusives are. One way to get an idea would be to enter a keyword in the area of one's choice and see what images come up on the first couple of pages. When those images have a number starting with 40, 41 or 42 they are fairly new and being 'promoted' as they are on the first page. If any of those images have a credit price greater than 1 and the contributor is less than emerald, then it means that the contributor is wholly or partially exclusive as they are the only ones allowed to increase their image price prior to emerald status. But not all exclusives do it which makes it even more difficult to determine. The only pattern that I can detect is that the first few pages of some searches produce many new images from what appears to be a select group of contributors who also appear to be recent serial uploaders (20-60 uploads in the last week and often 100-500 in the last month). If I had, say, 400 shots ready to upload, I would upload 100/week for the next month and see whether the images get into top search positions. If that didn't work, then I'd have to think there's some sort of 'club' operating to which most are not invited.

wut · « **Reply #46 on:** July 10, 2012, 08:44 »

I just got deducted 5% from an EL sale, which never happened before. Does anyone has any idea why? It's a European agency, so it makes no sense.

dirkr · « **Reply #47 on:** July 10, 2012, 13:28 »

Quote from: wut on July 10, 2012, 08:44

It's a European agency

It's not. FT is officially located in NY.

wut · « **Reply #48 on:** July 10, 2012, 13:36 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 10, 2012, 13:28

Quote from: wut on July 10, 2012, 08:44
It's a European agency

It's not. FT is officially located in NY.

Wow, so why is everybody saying it here. And why do I have the eu subdomain?

OM · « **Reply #49 on:** July 15, 2012, 18:15 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 20, 2012, 21:49

Quote from: Lawren on June 20, 2012, 21:15
I think if customers buy images from photographer who has lower rank in FT, then FT can keeps more revenue. For example, from the ranking White to Gold (non-exclusivity) have the same price but they share different commission.

Although photos from Emerald to Diamond are more expensive, FT can share more. But maybe customers can find the same images easily with lower price in many other agencies (especially for non-exclusivity). So when my ranking is Bronze, I don't feel the "fall" at all. In actually, since 2012/01 my weekly rank jump from 8000 to 4000 then to 2000.

if so why don't buyers leave them and join SS per example once they can get 750 files for 250$ (not saying I want that) but I am sure most of the files are in there too (actually those and a few more millions), not to mention that we would all feel this down trend not only top contributors (they would feel more right)

I believe they have changed their "best match" which is hurting top contributors, doesn´t make much sense once they do most of FT money even paying more royalties

Buyers can stick with FT for those 3Credit emeralds.........just buy a $200 sub for a month and download all sizes @25X/day every day for one month.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How fast you can fall? (Read 18260 times)

Lagereek

lisafx

Mantis

luissantos84

OM

luissantos84

Kone

Lawren

luissantos84

Lagereek

sharpshot

Phil

Elenathewise

Karimala

Mantis

robynmac

Mantis

OM

fotografer

sharpshot

OM

wut

dirkr

wut

OM

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors