Agency Based Discussion > Adobe Stock

HOW to earn fair prices on FT

(1/7) > >>

gustyx:
As you know, Fotolia (FT) is one of the cheapest fotosellers on the web, and their greed will not end. It is good for customers but bad for photografers.  :'(

Me, as a fotografer, annoys that FT bit the hand that feeds them.

for eg.:
Substcribtions:
you canŽt choose if you want subscribers (except you load up exclusive) or not, so by example it is possible that you get 0,31 credits for a XL pict placed on a cover of a Magazin. FT mentioned that they will get new customers that way – but why on the back of us fotografers? This is really an unfair point of their selling strategie, besides the prices of the fotos they sell, are rather cheap at all.

...so there is only one way to avoid this fact: you have to upload exclusiv picts, to stop subscription. By the way you are able to rise the price of you picts up because the are exclusiv.

IŽll give you a small example:
My last 10 downloads at FT where 60% subscriptions (L or XL) so I lost about 1,4 credits (1,75 for a XL or 1,56 for L) per download or 8,6 credits for 10 downloads (average). Thats to much for customer relationship.

For an exclusiv file IŽll get 4,16 credits (before 1,56) for a Large – thats far better (+350%). ::) ::) Same for extended license: 20 credits (6.6 for me) before now 50 credits (16.6 credits for me).

So I ask you why should I give my fotos for 0,31 credits away? Think customers will understand that they should pay for a good foto.

....what do you think?

leaf:
you are forgetting to calculate in what you loose by not having sales on other sites when having an image exclusive on fotolia

gustyx:
Thats not the problem, because my very best picts are not for sale as microstock, only these which are not that high quality at all. Besides I shot series, so that I am able to deliver a similar pict (not the same) to other agencies.

DanP68:
Gustyx,

If you go exclusive with Fotolia, you run the risk that they will change the rules (which they are known to do) and not allow a subs opt-out.  If you are unhappy with FT, then I don't understand why you would even consider exclusivity with them.

iStock would seem a more viable option if you choose exclusivity.  They already have a subs plan in place, which is clearly not a subs plan as we would define it.  Also you will get a decent commission share once you hit silver as an exclusive. 

Dreamstime may not currently have the earnings power you desire, but their subs plan for exclusives pays 42 cents per sale.  And they raise it regularly.  Perhaps you could consider them too.

Good luck to you.

Fred:

--- Quote from: gustyx on January 20, 2009, 06:19 ---Thats not the problem, because my very best picts are not for sale as microstock, only these which are not that high quality at all. Besides I shot series, so that I am able to deliver a similar pict (not the same) to other agencies.

--- End quote ---

I thought exclusivity restrictions applied to all images in a series.  Kind of a useless policy if images only slightly different can be sold elsewhere.  

fred

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page