MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: gostwyck on January 31, 2010, 18:06
-
As a UK contributor the value of a commission 'credit' appears to have just (literally a few seconds ago) jumped from 75p to £1. That's a 33.3% increase and follows a rise, only a few months ago, from 60p to 75p.
This month Fotolia is alone, amongst the agencies I contribute to, in producing significant gain over Jan 2009 __ over a 50% increase compared to last year. This apparent rise in credit value could take them from contributing about 22% of my stock income to nearly 29%. A year ago they were just 16%. That's impressive growth in any language.
Food for thought on the big decision whether to go exclusive with IS.
-
Seems so,
1 Credit = $ 1.20.
No idea why I'm in the dollar currency, should be in Euro but heck knows.
Also last I recall a pound was more like 1.60$, why the price difference?
-
1 Credit = 1.20 Euro
-
I just cashed out for the month and my conversion rate was 1 credit = £0.75 :(
-
There is no more credit value information???
Yesterday was 1credit =1,20 $ but today there is nothing.... ???
-
It was there late last night (British time) but has now gone and it did say £1 not £0.75 ?
I have asked support to let us know whats going on those of you who can keep having a look in the forum those who cant will try and keep you informed here !!
Warren
-
Cashed out yesterday too............I think for GBP0.75/credit. One small sale today and the credit is indeed now increased GBP 1.00/credit. Ooh, that's nice.
-
Still showing £1 here:
http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Credits (http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Credits)
-
Same on US...
http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Credits (http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Credits)
New value 1,20 $
That mean 20 % more of earnings for us, also there is a raise in credits price from this year...
That is big raise for us,not bad!
Here is "new year" earnings changing for Bronze level:
XS: -13% $0.32 --> $0.28
S: +31% $0.64 --> $0.84
M: +9% $1.28 --> $1.40
L: +23% $1.60 --> $1.96
XL: +17% $1.92 --> $2.24
XXL: +25% $2.24 --> $2.80
Now + 20 % more ;) ;)
-
That`s right, it was there, but it is gone now.
-
I think, they removed that because of buyers...
It's ugly to see bad change for them...
Not bad, not bad!!! ;D
-
Fotolia paying me more? I doubt.
I think they will rather find a new way to take more from us, like refund on 100% of commission on which 30% of tax was withhold.
-
Fotolia putted on their site that credit worth 1,2 or 20 % more, so if you make payout of 50 credits that mean you have to get 75 $ or € or GBP etc.
But we need official news from them....
-
Just in case it helps: A fotolia employee on the German forum confirmed that the credit value will stay the same for contributors and will vary for buyers from $ 0,75 to $ 1,20 (or Euros, GBP respectively) according to how many credits are purchased.
-
Just in case it helps: A fotolia employee on the German forum confirmed that the credit value will stay the same for contributors and will vary for buyers from $ 0,75 to $ 1,20 (or Euros, GBP respectively) according to how many credits are purchased.
I assume we will get more per sale or are they just going to keep the extra?
-
Of course they'll keep the little extra! ;)
Our credit value just says the same - 1 credit = 1 whatever currency.
-
I am a little confused ... is this a raise across the cannister levels? Or is it a raise to the credit level? Or both ... If someone could clarify that would be great.
Thanks.
-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com (http://markwpayne.wordpress.com)
-
It's only the credit value that is changing, and as I said: only for buyers. You as a contributor still get $1 for every credit you earn. That has nothing to do with the cannister levels.
On the other hand: You might wake up tomorrow to find that you'll need 1500 DLs to become bronze. You never know with them.
-
Just in case it helps: A fotolia employee on the German forum confirmed that the credit value will stay the same for contributors and will vary for buyers from $ 0,75 to $ 1,20 (or Euros, GBP respectively) according to how many credits are purchased.
This doesn't make any sense to me. As contributors we are supposed to be paid a fixed % commission on the value of our sales (at Gold level it is 34% for non-exclusive sales for example).
If they are increasing the cost of credits to customers, and thereby the prices that the licenses are sold at, then our commission should increase accordingly. They can't value a credit at one price to the customer but pay us as if it were a lower value.
It is really important that we get to the bottom of this, find out what is going on and how we are affected.
-
Well it isn't actually a rise in price if you sell credits for various prices. The way they've thought this up, the average credit price is still $1, ranging from 0,75 to 1,20.
You're absolutly right - yet again a change has taken place, and we are waiting to be informed. :-\
-
My last DL was a 5 credit sale which correctly has registered at 1.7 credits commission for me. Obviously I don't know where the sale occurred or what currency was used to buy the credits.
If the license was bought by a UK customer then they would have paid to £5 for it and my 34% commission on that should be £1.70.
However, if my earned credits still only have a value of 75p (as they did before today's increase to the customer) then I will only receive £1.275. That's a royalty of only 25.5% __ and I'm supposed to receive 34%.
-
I just looked and it said Currancy = dollar...what's that supose to mean? It doesn't say how much the credits are in relation to the dollar. That just doesn't make sense. You think they screwed up and now they are trying to fix it?
-
You think they screwed up and now they are trying to fix it?
I sincerely hope so. On my 'Contributors' page it is still showing "1 Credit = £0.75" which suggests that they've just imposed a 33.3% increase in prices for UK customers and are not intending to pass any of that on to us.
-
You think they screwed up and now they are trying to fix it?
I sincerely hope so. On my 'Contributors' page it is still showing "1 Credit = £0.75" which suggests that they've just imposed a 33.3% increase in prices for UK customers and are not intending to pass any of that on to us.
Mine doesn't even show what the credits are worth. Mine just say's Currancy = dollar...the 1 credit = ?? isn't even showing up. Wonder why your's show what your credits are worth?
-
Why do I get the impression that at FT the contributor is the enemy. If you look at one of the later posts on their forum by FT UK office, it basically says that they do whatever they want and contributors can like it or lump it.
They also insisted that everyone must submit an ITIN for US tax authorities just a few weeks ago. :'(
-
OM ,
was just gunna mention that it was a reply I got to some simple questions I had asked them Ill post it here
This is what I asked first and the reply I got :-
Ok
the grey box to the left "info" it used to have the credit value, ie in my case £0.75, late last night that changed to £1 so a lot of people are now thinking they get more for 1 credit tham they used to !! only prob is that now that line has vanished fron the info box no one knows as a contributor how much credit is worth ????
Responses: Fotolia : All you need to be concerned with, Warren, is what you will receive, and that has not changed. Our credit packages have changed, that is all. Your payout stays the same.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
So then I sent this :-
1 Why did it go up to £1 in the info box ie 1 credit = £1 (for us that is)
2 Why did that then Vanish after an hour or so ?
3 Why is it still not there (even if it is still the same at £0.75) ?
If it was a mistake then thats ok we all make mistakes but we do derserve to be told what happened and why so many people were thinking the credit value had gone up. To say " all you need to be concerned with" is just not good enough.
I like Fotolia I honestly do but come on treat us with a bit of respect and honesty we deserve PLEASE.
And the reply which took my breath away was :-
it will have been a technical issue on the £1 - it must have been, while updating our website.
I have no answers for you as far as the other why why why's. We update our website sometimes, we change prices sometimes. We create new products sometimes. Why? Because we decide to :)
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
-
Yeah, I couldn't believe it when I saw it on the forum. I would like to say that they must be happy banging nails in their coffin, but no one will leave FT and FT will carry on as it always has, because they can.
-
Thanks for posting Warren. I find that last reply showing total disdain for you as contributor/writer of the email and for Fotolia contributors in general. Really rather shocking.
-
Yeah not just shocking but sad very sad it was the first site I joined and used to love being a contributor with them, but recently have took all my images off exclusive and started uploading them at other sites.
I only wish I could attend one of the Fotolia board meetings if only to bang a few heads together and make them see what they are doing to us contributors and perhaps make a little change :-\
-
... but no one will leave FT and FT will carry on as it always has, because they can.
I will __ most definitely. Do they really think they can increase prices to the customers by over 30% and pass none of it to us? They are supposed to be paying us a fixed % royalty on our sales and when prices go up then so should our commissions. I've taken copies of all the relevant documentation and am seriously considering taking court action to recover the difference.
Once again FT are acting as Istock's Chief Exclusivity Recruiting Officer.
-
... but no one will leave FT and FT will carry on as it always has, because they can.
I will __ most definitely. Do they really think they can increase prices to the customers by over 30% and pass none of it to us? They are supposed to be paying us a fixed % royalty on our sales and when prices go up then so should our commissions. I've taken copies of all the relevant documentation and am seriously considering taking court action to recover the difference.
Once again FT are acting as Istock's Chief Exclusivity Recruiting Officer.
I did. That dictatorial attitude drove me away long ago. Actually, I left eight images there just so I could "stay in touch." :P
-
WOW that response just blows my mind!! As soon as I reach payout I'm pulling all my images off there.....they proubably won't care since there are plenty more joining on a daily basis and they don't care about all us contributors that helped to grow their site to what it is today. They to were my first site and the first site I made a sale on. HOW RUDE!!!!
-
... but no one will leave FT and FT will carry on as it always has, because they can.
I will __ most definitely. Do they really think they can increase prices to the customers by over 30% and pass none of it to us? They are supposed to be paying /us a fixed % royalty on our sales and when prices go up then so should our commissions. I've taken copies of all the relevant documentation and am seriously considering taking court action to recover the difference.
Once again FT are acting as Istock's Chief Exclusivity Recruiting Officer.
BTW, they never really did. And all depends on where one happened to register. Even though I registered from withink EU, I'm $$ contributor meaning that one my credit is 1$. Whereas others may have their credits praiced in Euros or Pounds and in fact earn significantly more per credit.
In they are selling their credits in variying prices, then they need to give us variable commissions for every sale based on the credit spent price. Just like IS does.
-
With the deplorable reputation that Fotolia has for communication with its contributors, I'll wait awhile to see what really is happening. If it is a bad as it appears today then I'll be forced to follow in Warren's footsteps.
-
If they are selling their credits in variying prices, then they need to give us variable commissions for every sale based on the credit spent price. Just like IS does.
Exactly. The % commission stated should be paid to the contributor __ that's all we're asking for.
If a UK customer buys the basic package of 20 credits then those sales are being paid at just 25.5% commission to Gold level contributors. If you are a UK customer you have to buy a package of 700 credits or more before you are paying equal or less than they are paying us.
-
OM,
I havent taken all my images off Fotolia ( I need the income !) just took them from exclusive images so I can sell the same images elsewhere. :)
-
I just requested payout and am ready to pull my port.
I was already sick of all their sneaky tricks and about my pics being sold on all sorts of sketchy partners i know nothing about. This one is just the drop.
A question though: i've never closed my account before.... my payout request on FT is now pending and my credits are at $0,78. (they can keep that). Should i wait until the money hits paypal before closing my account or is it safe to do it right now?
Thanks!
-
Do wait for the money to come through, artemis, nothing is safe with them.
-
OM,
I havent taken all my images off Fotolia ( I need the income !) just took them from exclusive images so I can sell the same images elsewhere. :)
Not sure which Warren he's talking about, mate; there are two of us. :o
WarrenP
-
OM,
I havent taken all my images off Fotolia ( I need the income !) just took them from exclusive images so I can sell the same images elsewhere. :)
I understood what you wrote, Warren. I think that is a sensible course for me to follow too. I'm too old to cut off my nose to spite their face. :)
-
OM,
I havent taken all my images off Fotolia ( I need the income !) just took them from exclusive images so I can sell the same images elsewhere. :)
Not sure which Warren he's talking about, mate; there are two of us. :o
WarrenP
Oh no, not 2! ;D Sorry hadn't seen that. I'll go with Warren0909's strategy.
-
;D
Yeah sorry Warren forgot you had posted gere too !!
-
My post vanished?
This is just shocking. I hope there is some misunderstanding. The reply to Warren is confusing to me, but the tone seems pretty dismissive.
If they really aren't going to be passing this increase on to contributors then I think Gostwyck is right - they are doing the work of recruiting exclusives for Istock.
Maybe an admin will come on and explain what's going on? Or perhaps Matt can find out?
-
Do wait for the money to come through, artemis, nothing is safe with them.
Thankies, will do :)
-
Do wait for the money to come through, artemis, nothing is safe with them.
Thankies, will do :)
By the way, probably not what you want to hear right now, but it might be better not to have your account closed, but to delete all your images yourself. That way, you keep your cannister level. You never know, if they are sold some day or some kind of miracle happens you might want to go back. But do keep in mind, if you go and keep your account with an empty port, and one day you want to go exclusive elsewhere, you will have to check their partner sites before exclusivity. Seems to take ages before pixmac and co. delete images.
-
Thanks stardust! I'm aware of this and still giving it some thinking. Right now in anger i'd love to close my entire account (and let them keep their sorry *ss quarter of a download subscription count)... but you never know what the future brings, so i'll probably end up deleting them one by one. I do want ALL my pics taken off their partner sites as well though and wonder if this will happen automatically if i delete my pics on FT...
-
Don't think so! People have been having trouble with the partner sites and becoming exclusive to istock. When you've deleted them on FT, wait a while, and then contact pixmac or any other site you can still find your images on directly.
-
On contributors page it says 1 credit = 1 USD.
On buyer page (info) it says 1 credit = 1.2 USD.
If that is the case, it is not fair at all.
-
This may actually be even worse than we realised at first, especially for USA contributors.
I've got a buddy who is an infrequent buyer of images from FT. He usually buys the minimum package of 21 credits which will now cost him £20 or £0.95 per credit. If he then buys a Medium image for 5 credits it will have cost him £4.75 or about $7.60.
If that image happened to be from a UK contributor at Gold level the royalty will be 1.7 credits which, at £0.75 per credit, will pay £1.275. That's less than 27% of the purchase price __ not the 34% commission that is supposed to be paid.
Now let's assume the image purchased was from a USA contributor at Gold level. The Medium image still costs 5 credits, yes? The contributor gets 1.7 credits which, with a conversion ratio of 1/$1, will result in a payment of $1.70. That's the equivalent of £1.06 or just 22.4% of the original purchase price __ much, much less than the 34% commission the contributor is entitled to.
Even if the UK buyer buys the largest credit package available (3200 credits at £2000 or £0.63 per credit) the USA contributor will still only receive 33.6% of the purchase price __ still less than the stated commission of 34%.
-
This may actually be even worse than we realised at first, especially for USA contributors.
You can use your logic the other way, and UK photographers get a much higher percentage than they would from sles to USA.
This has been discussed before, and it seems FT considers that in the end, for them, it will all be the same $$. of course, this means that sales in UKP and EUR would be equivalent to sales in USD. For us members it doesn't look different, but UK members get more than non-UK ones, in real money.
And I wasn't even given a choice upon joining FT, I had to join FT US. :-\
-
You can use your logic the other way, and UK photographers get a much higher percentage than they would from sles to USA.
This has been discussed before, and it seems FT considers that in the end, for them, it will all be the same $$. of course, this means that sales in UKP and EUR would be equivalent to sales in USD. For us members it doesn't look different, but UK members get more than non-UK ones, in real money.
I'd agree, in the UK we are currently a bit better off but it would only need another swing in exchange rates to change the picture __ but that's not the point.
The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.
I've just proven above that every single purchase of a USA contributor's image by a UK buyer will result in a commission lower than 34% __ in most cases massively lower. How is that going to even out?
They've just increased credit prices to UK customers by over 33% (and 20% US customers?) and yet none of that extra money is to be distributed to contributors. Unbelievable.
-
Is there, on their forum on FT, any explanation about this injustice for US registered contributors??
-
The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.
Actually I think they say a % of credits. Observe that all our accounting there is in credits, which only become $ when we ask for a payout. Not that I agree with this, but I think they have their wording correct.
-
The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.
Actually I think they say a % of credits.
But even if that is true, a credit should be a credit. You can't say that a credit is worth X for a buyer, and Y for a contributor.
-
But even if that is true, a credit should be a credit. You can't say that a credit is worth X for a buyer, and Y for a contributor.
Exactly __ that's the point madelaide is missing. The value of a credit has just increased by 33% if you're a UK buyer but apparently not for sellers.
-
Sure they say credits but they also specify a set value for credits. I don't see how they can credibly run a dual pricing system.
As for it all working out the same dollars at the end - baloney! I've been forced to sign on to the American site but I live outside the US and most of my sales - like 95% - are made outside the US. So I'm being paid way below the theoretical announced rate. You can bet your bottom dollar, if you have been left with one, that Fotolia knows exactly what it is doing. It's got a long history of treating its photographers with complete contempt, today's comments were just more of the same.
-
This where I jump in and tell everyone they should delete their portfolio at Fololia. I did a while back and don't regret it at all. Sure I lose income but...
-
Exactly __ that's the point madelaide is missing. The value of a credit has just increased by 33% if you're a UK buyer but apparently not for sellers.
A credit is a credit. A credit in USA doesn't havethe same value as in UK. Don't UK members receive more?
-
A credit is a credit.
It was until about 24 hours ago. Now it depends if you are buying that credit or earning it.
-
This where I jump in and tell everyone they should delete their portfolio at Fololia. I did a while back and don't regret it at all. Sure I lose income but...
I also have no regrets that I deleted my portfolio at FT. Not only did their management practices annoy me (understatement), but FT was also one of my lowest performing sites... rarely earning more than BigStock.
-
Strange, FT is my top performer...
-
Just in case it helps: A fotolia employee on the German forum confirmed that the credit value will stay the same for contributors and will vary for buyers from $ 0,75 to $ 1,20 (or Euros, GBP respectively) according to how many credits are purchased.
Can I buy 1000 credits at $0.75 per credit then request payout at $1.00 ? Somehow I doubt it.
-
How about legal action? I'm willing to send few hundreds of $$$ to anyone willing to take the lead. I strongly believe we could collect enough for this to get realistical without ruining anyone's wallet.
Even if the result is just them realizing we are not nameless and clueless crowd.
Even if their papers are written so that all they mention are just credits, I doubt they could get away with this credit having different value for buyer and for seller, not in civilized country. And they are registered in civilized country.
Let's finally do something about this...
-
Same here. The only way I can afford to delete my portfolio is if I went exclusive with IS. I am going to have to sit and do the math now that things have changed at IS as it seems that exclusives get a great deal there.
Strange, FT is my top performer...
-
Same here. The only way I can afford to delete my portfolio is if I went exclusive with IS. I am going to have to sit and do the math now that things have changed at IS as it seems that exclusives get a great deal there.
Strange, FT is my top performer...
Exactly my thoughts, I'm just waiting for istock to become a better earner for me - I had been concentrating on fotolia last year and have a lot of exclusive stuff there because they were so strong for me. Now I'm trying to build a stronger portfolio at istock, and off to istock I will be! I've so had enough of that place!
In istock's introduction to the information about exclusivity it says: "We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you." - that sounds so soothing and tempting to me!
-
"We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you."
Fotolia's is :-
"We want to scew you, and dont give a monkeys about what you want"
Warren !!
-
If you look at one of the later posts on their forum by FT UK office, it basically says that they do whatever they want and contributors can like it or lump it.
This is a no brainer. FT, and all the other agencies, are in the position of power. There's so few of them, and so many of us. It's simply the law of supply and demand, and if you don't have the stomach for it, microstock is not the place for you. We can whine all we want about not liking the terms at a certain agency, but the truth of the matter is that it is a business that is making decisions it feels is right to compete with its rivals, and as a vendor you have the power to accept their decisions or decide those moves are bad for your own business and walk away. No one is forcing you to play by rules you don't like. We can either choose to be victims and stay in a situation we feel isn't fair, crying the whole time, or be grown-ups and say "I don't like your rules" and stand behind our convictions and end the relationship.
-
PowerDroid
Yeah I know I cant do anything FT and other agencies will, and do do just what they want to. But I wont just stand there and say nothing when I think somthing is unfair I will say so, but will stand my ground being as polite and respectful as I can.
If i didnt need to stay I would leave FT now not because of the pricing and stuff, but simply because the staff dont seem to have any respect for the contributors at all.
Warrem
-
This is a no brainer. FT, and all the other agencies, are in the position of power. There's so few of them, and so many of us. ... (snip) ...
We can either choose to be victims and stay in a situation we feel isn't fair, crying the whole time, or be grown-ups and say "I don't like your rules" and stand behind our convictions and end the relationship.
We're nothing like as helpless as you seem to think __ don't be so defeatist. We have got a voice, here, which we know they read and we have also got several graduated levels of action that we can take. By acting collectively we have forced significant changes before and I'm sure we can do it again.
Actually there really aren't that many of us either __ not serious players anyway. I've no doubt that the 60/10 and the 80/20 rules apply here just as anywhere else. Most likely 60% of FT's sales and their uploads will come from just 10% of their contributors. If enough of the top echelon take action the agency will be in a difficult position.
Quite simply we want our commissions paid as per the agreement. If, according to your ranking, you are supposed to receive xx% then that's what it should be. We are meant to be paid a fixed percentage of the sale price not a percentage of some nefarious floating 'credit' system, the value of which the agency can change to suit themselves and their profit margin any time they like. What other agency operates like that and what contributor would possibly accept it? We want our percentage, no more and no less.
Firstly we stop uploading new images to them. If that doesn't work then ultimately we can choose exclusivity with Istock which is becoming ever more financially attractive __ but that's the 'nuclear option' to be avoided until the last moment.
As it stands right now FT can be paying out as little as 16% to a Silver level contributor, paid in $US, on an image bought via the minimum credit package in £ Sterling. That contributor is meant to receive 31% of their sales and this is not acceptable. Every other significant agency is able to pay us our due percentage according to the sale price of the license, fully adjusted for discounts and currency, and that's what we want at FT too. Nothing else will do.
-
We're nothing like as helpless as you seem to think __ don't be so defeatist.
I think we're on the same page. Sounds like we both encourage the same thing... the empowerment of the contributor.
Your post does an eloquent job of drawing a line in the sand. I say it's time for everyone to figure out on which side of the line they wish to stand and move there.
I just feel little sympathy for those who stand on one side of the line and whine about not liking it but being too afraid to move.
-
"We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you."
Fotolia's is :-
"We want to scew you, and dont give a monkeys about what you want"
Warren !!
That's it in a nutshell Warren M! :(
I'm surprised our posts on the FT forum haven't been deleted already! Especially when it started becoming more and more heated and critical!
It beats me that the Fotolia directors don't read their forums more regularly. They are aware that buyers also read the forums, right?!!! It can't be good for fotolia's reputation to see their contributors getting angry with being treated like crap! Now the buyers know that 1 credit for them is worth less to the people who actually photograph/design the images!
-
Typical Fotolia. It will be interesting to see what things will be like as we approach summer and the dreamstime lock-in expires. I'm sure there are many diamond contributors and others, considering, or making preparations to go exclusive, many which never post. Will it make a difference, who knows? Fotolia isn't helping themselves here. They're obviously above the law.
-
here is a link to the fotolia thread.
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25159 (http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25159)
it doesn't look like anyone there knows anything more ???
-
>:(
-
Good timing, Fotolia. All the bad PR is getting lost in the Getty,Thinktank,StockXpert,iStock Noise. ::)
-
Good timing, Fotolia. All the bad PR is getting lost in the Getty,Thinktank,StockXpert,iStock Noise. ::)
I really don't understand why people want to discuss comparatively minor issues such as those when Fotolia has pulled a stunt such as this.
Getting paid your rightful commissions is about as fundamental a requirement of any agency as you can ever have __ and yet most people seem to be just accepting it.
I've had my buddy who buys from FT check out his receipts. In December he bought a package of 40 credits for £30 which works out at £0.75 per credit __ that's exactly the same value as a contributor's earned credit.
Now he either has the option of buying 21 credits for £20 (at £0.95 per credit) or 55 credits for £50 (£0.91 per credit). The buyers credit has increased in value but the contributor's credit remains the same.
Please can anyone whose FT account is in other currencies (notably the $US and the Euro) share how much image packages cost in their region and also how much the earned credit is worth in their currency. The more information we share amongst ourselves the more we can work out what is going on.
Here's the full package options for the UK;
Buy credits in quantity
Buy in quantity and pay as little as £ 0.63 per credit!
21 credits = £ 20.00 (included 1 bonus credits - £ 0.95/credit)
55 credits = £ 50.00 (included 5 bonus credits - £ 0.91/credit)
115 credits = £ 100.00 (included 15 bonus credits - £ 0.87/credit)
180 credits = £ 150.00 (included 30 bonus credits - £ 0.83/credit)
325 credits = £ 250.00 (included 75 bonus credits - £ 0.77/credit)
700 credits = £ 500.00 (included 200 bonus credits - £ 0.71/credit)
1500 credits = £ 1,000.00 (included 500 bonus credits - £ 0.67/credit)
3200 credits = £ 2,000.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - £ 0.63/credit)
-
The US offer seems to be here:
21 credits = $ 24.00 (included 1 bonus credits - $ 1.14/credit)
55 credits = $ 60.00 (included 5 bonus credits - $ 1.09/credit)
115 credits = $ 120.00 (included 15 bonus credits - $ 1.04/credit)
180 credits = $ 180.00 (included 30 bonus credits - $ 1.00/credit)
325 credits = $ 300.00 (included 75 bonus credits - $ 0.92/credit)
700 credits = $ 600.00 (included 200 bonus credits - $ 0.86/credit)
1500 credits = $ 1,200.00 (included 500 bonus credits - $ 0.80/credit)
3200 credits = $ 2,400.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - $ 0.75/credit
The Credit for contributor is worth $1. They should really pay us % of the price, i.e. if someone buys our image with credits worth $0.75, our percentage should be calculated from that.
From looking at the above prices it is not really 100% if it would result in bigger or smaller commission (for us in US zone).
-
Off topic
Warren M,
I know I should have used a PM but I'm rushing out the door. No time.
Since you've recently started uploading to other sites (besides Fotolia), can I ask you to take a moment and have a look at Deposit Photos?
They're only new but they're offering a very good deal for photographers right now.
Disclaimer - I have no connection with DPhotos and no referral links. No personal financial motive.
Remember the 'Most favorite people in the world'? :)
This is why I'm doing it, I just think it might be a good idea, and I told Princess already.
Go to the Home page on this forum and click on 'Deposit Photos - affiliate' topic to learn more about it.
There's a buzz going on and plenty of info and plenty of links to click on and help others.
Actually, this goes for both Warrens. See what you think about it.
Have fun :)
-
Responses: Fotolia : All you need to be concerned with, Warren, is what you will receive, and that has not changed. Our credit packages have changed, that is all. Your payout stays the same.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
it will have been a technical issue on the £1 - it must have been, while updating our website.
I have no answers for you as far as the other why why why's. We update our website sometimes, we change prices sometimes. We create new products sometimes. Why? Because we decide to :)
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
Unbelievable arrogance, this is extremely unprofessional. I have never seen anything like this. I'm stopping uploads there.
They suck as business partners and they suck as human beings.
-
Here's the offer from the German page. It should be the same all over Europe:
21 Credits = 24,00 € (inklusive 1 Bonus-Credits - 1,14 €/Credit)
55 Credits = 60,00 € (inklusive 5 Bonus-Credits - 1,09 €/Credit)
115 Credits = 120,00 € (inklusive 15 Bonus-Credits - 1,04 €/Credit)
180 Credits = 180,00 € (inklusive 30 Bonus-Credits - 1,00 €/Credit)
325 Credits = 300,00 € (inklusive 75 Bonus-Credits - 0,92 €/Credit)
700 Credits = 600,00 € (inklusive 200 Bonus-Credits - 0,86 €/Credit)
1500 Credits = 1.200,00 € (inklusive 500 Bonus-Credits - 0,80 €/Credit)
3200 Credits = 2.400,00 € (inklusive 1200 Bonus-Credits - 0,75 €/Credit)
A contributor's credit is worth 1 Euro, at least that is what has been said. The figure in the grey box which states the contributor's country and currency isn't there anymore.
-
Thanks Stardust and Danicek __ very useful to have all the info to hand.
-
The US offer seems to be here:
21 credits = $ 24.00 (included 1 bonus credits - $ 1.14/credit)
55 credits = $ 60.00 (included 5 bonus credits - $ 1.09/credit)
115 credits = $ 120.00 (included 15 bonus credits - $ 1.04/credit)
180 credits = $ 180.00 (included 30 bonus credits - $ 1.00/credit)
325 credits = $ 300.00 (included 75 bonus credits - $ 0.92/credit)
700 credits = $ 600.00 (included 200 bonus credits - $ 0.86/credit)
1500 credits = $ 1,200.00 (included 500 bonus credits - $ 0.80/credit)
3200 credits = $ 2,400.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - $ 0.75/credit
The Credit for contributor is worth $1. They should really pay us % of the price, i.e. if someone buys our image with credits worth $0.75, our percentage should be calculated from that.
From looking at the above prices it is not really 100% if it would result in bigger or smaller commission (for us in US zone).
so if buyer paid for package of 325 credits or more - we are actually getting higher % then specified in our level?
-
here is a link to the fotolia thread.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25159[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25159[/url])
it doesn't look like anyone there knows anything more ???
Hey fellows!
Did you see respond from support about this "question"!???
:o :o :o
-
The US offer seems to be here:
21 credits = $ 24.00 (included 1 bonus credits - $ 1.14/credit)
55 credits = $ 60.00 (included 5 bonus credits - $ 1.09/credit)
115 credits = $ 120.00 (included 15 bonus credits - $ 1.04/credit)
180 credits = $ 180.00 (included 30 bonus credits - $ 1.00/credit)
325 credits = $ 300.00 (included 75 bonus credits - $ 0.92/credit)
700 credits = $ 600.00 (included 200 bonus credits - $ 0.86/credit)
1500 credits = $ 1,200.00 (included 500 bonus credits - $ 0.80/credit)
3200 credits = $ 2,400.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - $ 0.75/credit
The Credit for contributor is worth $1. They should really pay us % of the price, i.e. if someone buys our image with credits worth $0.75, our percentage should be calculated from that.
From looking at the above prices it is not really 100% if it would result in bigger or smaller commission (for us in US zone).
so if buyer paid for package of 325 credits or more - we are actually getting higher % then specified in our level?
Yes, the numbers seem to suggest that. However very high % of FT buyers are from Germany and the rest EU. These buy in Euros and Pounds. Whereas most contributors are probably in the $$ realm (I'm even though I registered from within EU where I also live now). This changes the % significantly.
-
What!?
Is it mean that isn't so bad about this credit price changing!?
-
What!?
Is it mean that isn't so bad about this credit price changing!?
If that's meant to be a question for me, then I don't know. I just posted the credit prices I see in the US zone. The $1 fixed credit price for contributors seems to be someplace in the middle.
-
so if buyer paid for package of 325 credits or more - we are actually getting higher % then specified in our level?
Well that's the theory and that's what they are trying to fob us off with on their own forum __ but it doesn't hold water for me.
Btw, in the UK the buyer has to buy a package of 700 credits at £500 (about $800) before the price per credit drops marginally below what the credit value is to the UK contributor for commission purposes.
I simply can't see why anyone would buy the larger credit packages at all, apart from perhaps a very few really unusual circumstances, when a subscription would be so much cheaper.
In the UK you can buy 3200 credits for £2000 which would enable you to buy 457 Large images over the course of one year. Alternatively you could buy a Premium subscription for just £1125 which would enable you to download 9125 XXL images over the same year.
Why on earth would anyone buy the credit package over the subscription? Those large credit packages cost so much more than a subscription that it is difficult to believe that they sell __ so they must be there to either drive buyers to the subscription model and/or to obfuscate what FT have done to reduce our commissions.
-
Off topic
Warren M,
I know I should have used a PM but I'm rushing out the door. No time.
Since you've recently started uploading to other sites (besides Fotolia), can I ask you to take a moment and have a look at Deposit Photos?
They're only new but they're offering a very good deal for photographers right now.
Disclaimer - I have no connection with DPhotos and no referral links. No personal financial motive.
Remember the 'Most favorite people in the world'? :)
This is why I'm doing it, I just think it might be a good idea, and I told Princess already.
Go to the Home page on this forum and click on 'Deposit Photos - affiliate' topic to learn more about it.
There's a buzz going on and plenty of info and plenty of links to click on and help others.
Actually, this goes for both Warrens. See what you think about it.
Have fun :)
It seems to be always the same history. When contributors are desperately needed (without contributor there's no
business), site owners are friendly, nice, cool. The pay for uploads, FT also did it. They are supportive and they asnswer fast the questions and work out problems. Chad was your friend at the forums. At SS, at the very beggining you could talk as much as you wanted at their forums about competitors sites; when IS launched exclusivity all were good words and appeals to the community spirit to retain contributors. Also on DT. But when there's a enough supply of contributors, things change, canisters are made more difficult, al same places, as FT, comissions decrease, one, two times. It's just businness. If they do it and don't have any consequences besides of some angry posts at the forums, they will do it again in the future. No doubt.
-
But when there's a enough supply of contributors, things change, canisters are made more difficult, al same places, as FT, comissions decrease, one, two times. It's just businness. If they do it and don't have any consequences besides of some angry posts at the forums, they will do it again in the future. No doubt.
We can change it. Without us they don't have a business. We have to stick together, not upload new images to them, re-evaluate exclusivity at Istock and, most importantly, DO NOT LET THEM FORGET THAT WE WANT OUR COMMISSIONS PAID IN FULL.
Don't give up. It may take time, possibly weeks or even months, but we will eventually get our commissions paid properly.
-
I'll probably get jumped on for this - but I don't know how many of you work for corporate entities where this is common practice. For example, my experience working with the number one and two computer companies in the world has been exactly this; whether hiking the price or reducing it, the quick and dirty way to increase your profit/share price always ends up by reducing opex ie. wages and salaries. I've seen top class people leave the company in question and nobody cares as long as Wall Street and London are happy.
And my cynicism extends to not believing the gold plus contributors will really leave Fotolia - it's bad for their business to write off a revenue stream in the belief they can generate it elsewhere in a short time frame.
Prove me wrong but that's been my experience.
-
Well, I can't do anything, in fact I went to IS exclusivity years ago. Not that IS is perfect but, by comparision, it almost seems.
-
Actually I think they say a % of credits. Observe that all our accounting there is in credits, which only become $ when we ask for a payout. Not that I agree with this, but I think they have their wording correct.
I am not sure I agree with that.
Fotolia can charge a buyer whatever they want, and report a sale as an arbitrary number of "credits" to the contributor, but is there actually any fixed ratio between buyer dollars and credits? The ratio is apparently whatever Fotolia decides it is, on a given day, for a given buyer. If that's the case, they're not committing to any set commission as a percentage of the sale. They're just paying whatever they choose to pay.
-
And my cynicism extends to not believing the gold plus contributors will really leave Fotolia - it's bad for their business to write off a revenue stream in the belief they can generate it elsewhere in a short time frame.
Prove me wrong but that's been my experience.
I will be proving you wrong, on both counts, but your support for the campaign is needed too.
Just because something similar may have happened before ... somewhere else ... in another industry ... at another time ... does not mean it has to happen again here. Nor do we have to lie down and accept it. No sir.
-
Off topic
Warren M,
I know I should have used a PM but I'm rushing out the door. No time.
Since you've recently started uploading to other sites (besides Fotolia), can I ask you to take a moment and have a look at Deposit Photos?
They're only new but they're offering a very good deal for photographers right now.
Disclaimer - I have no connection with DPhotos and no referral links. No personal financial motive.
Remember the 'Most favorite people in the world'? :)
This is why I'm doing it, I just think it might be a good idea, and I told Princess already.
Go to the Home page on this forum and click on 'Deposit Photos - affiliate' topic to learn more about it.
There's a buzz going on and plenty of info and plenty of links to click on and help others.
Actually, this goes for both Warrens. See what you think about it.
Have fun :)
Thanks Eireann,
Will defo take a look at the moment my time is spent getting my port up on two other sites but as soon as I get the chance I will join and may I just thank you on a personal level I felt so let down by Fotolia and your support (and others) made me stronger ;D
Warren
-
I am lost now.
They say credits cost from 75c in the US Fotolia. I understand there are different prices according to the credits package purchased by the buyer, right? This is what I read here:
http://en.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount (http://en.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount)
And this is new, right?
But then we will be always receiving our share based on 1 credit = 1 USD (for those in US Fotolia like me). If so, it is not so outrageous. We lose in the cheap packages but win in the more expensive ones. Of course we can never know which package sells more (but we can bet it's the cheapest ones).
I felt much more harmed by the commission change months ago.
-
There still isn't any Credit=(dollar amount) on the site. You'd think if they screwed up they would change it back on the site....
I have "28.586 credits".....now I'd like to know how they would figure that into $$$
-
Warren,
I was so upset about this thing, I kept on thinking about it all night long.
It's not about money, (I don't make any), it's the way they replied to you.
That email made me feel like I was worth nothing.
I was (again) on the verge of stopping all uploads to Fotolia.
I would have done it in a second, I have nothing to lose.
Well, good news :)
You've got yourself an official apology. Well deserved and well done!
It's the second time you've made Fotolia think twice, for the good of everyone involved.
Check Fotolia's forum - Chad's 2 posts.
I have to tell you, after reading his posts I feel a lot better (I know it's silly, but I do!).
As if suddenly, I too matter.
There's power in your voice, Warren. ( I know why. More about it at some other time). Don't let them shut it up.
Now, let's wait for the changes. Will they be good for us?
-
Actually I think they say a % of credits. Observe that all our accounting there is in credits, which only become $ when we ask for a payout. Not that I agree with this, but I think they have their wording correct.
I am not sure I agree with that.
Fotolia can charge a buyer whatever they want, and report a sale as an arbitrary number of "credits" to the contributor, but is there actually any fixed ratio between buyer dollars and credits? The ratio is apparently whatever Fotolia decides it is, on a given day, for a given buyer. If that's the case, they're not committing to any set commission as a percentage of the sale. They're just paying whatever they choose to pay.
I think you are right , in case when that credit for buyers and our credit are not valued the same , the % they pay us has no meaning whatsoever. What is that credit now , they are not paying the % of the image price
but % of something they invented. Whats next , 100$ credits for buyers and we get % of number 1 again ?
I wonder if that's even legal , maybe it is , but definitely its not nor ethical nor moral.
-
doesnt matter, found it :)
-
it looks like there is a new thread on fotolia now
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25258 (http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25258)
-
Eireann,
Thanks for your kind words, and I do see the apology as one to all Fotolia contributors not just me, at the end of the day it could have been anyone of us who got that reply. I felt real down last night what with one thing and another and had decided not to even bother with any forum at all and just work hard at producing more photos and illustrations.I have now changed my mind on that and will still be posting as I enjoy it so much (usualy!)
-
so if buyer paid for package of 325 credits or more - we are actually getting higher % then specified in our level?
I couldn't give a monkey's uncle if every single sale I've made has actually been paid out at a higher % than agreed. All that argument says is that there is no agreement and you just take what you get, higher or lower.
In fact, hardly any of my sales are subject to American tax so presumably most of them are to Europe and cost 40% more than the US price. It seems to me that Fotolia is implying that it probably all averages out, while the reality is that it is probably crediting me with an average nearer 25% than 31%.
And look what that does: if they credited me with, say, $100 at a rate that was really 25% but should have been 31%, then I lost $24 in unauthorised deduductions. That isn't a six percent reduction in my earnings, going from 31% to 25%. It is a 20% pay cut.... all hidden behind a smokescreen of "well, it probably doesn't make much difference".
Now, multiply that out across the entire company earnings
-
I skimmed that Fotolia thread, and it only reinforces the conclusion I reached yesterday after reading the contributor agreement: these people are simply incapable of making a clear, unambigious statement of policy.
As far as I can see, the agreement makes no real, specific, quantifiable commitment with regard to commissions. It uses words like "percentage" and "credit" with no context or definition.
Sure we could leave our images there, take whatever we get, and tell ourselves it's just easy money. But do we really want to trust these same people to protect our interests with regard to all these shady "partner" sites that seem to have access to our images? That I think is where we could really get hurt. Yes I know they can supposedly only generate thumbnails. Do I accept that on faith?
How do we know we're even getting paid for sales on these partner sites? Do we just trust Fotolia?
For whatever reason, Fotolia doesn't sell much for me - it's way behind IS, SS and DT. I plan to give Fotolia a week or so to issue a sensible, clearly worded comittment on commissions and if they don't, I'm pulling out. Or I should say, I'm starting the process of pulling out - I suspect it may not be easy to flush my images out of those wonderful partner sites.
-
I skimmed that Fotolia thread, and it only reinforces the conclusion I reached yesterday after reading the contributor agreement: these people are simply incapable of making a clear, unambigious statement of policy.
As far as I can see, the agreement makes no real, specific, quantifiable commitment with regard to commissions. It uses words like "percentage" and "credit" with no context or definition.
Sure we could leave our images there, take whatever we get, and tell ourselves it's just easy money. But do we really want to trust these same people to protect our interests with regard to all these shady "partner" sites that seem to have access to our images? That I think is where we could really get hurt. Yes I know they can supposedly only generate thumbnails. Do I accept that on faith?
How do we know we're even getting paid for sales on these partner sites? Do we just trust Fotolia?
For whatever reason, Fotolia doesn't sell much for me - it's way behind IS, SS and DT. I plan to give Fotolia a week or so to issue a sensible, clearly worded comittment on commissions and if they don't, I'm pulling out. Or I should say, I'm starting the process of pulling out - I suspect it may not be easy to flush my images out of those wonderful partner sites.
I'm pulling out. Do you know if we have to delete the images one by one or can you request they delete the whole port?
-
I'm pulling out. Do you know if we have to delete the images one by one or can you request they delete the whole port?
As has been suggested previously, I would make sure that you (politely) let them know why you are leaving them.
Nothing speaks louder than an unhappy customer (or supplier in this case) that is willing to take action.
-
I'll let them know why I'm leaving, but not until I'm sure all my images are deleted and no longer available on partner sites. Some of the people running these microstocks are petty, immature and vindictive and I'm not just talking about Fotolia.
-
I'm pulling out. Do you know if we have to delete the images one by one or can you request they delete the whole port?
I did all but two images, one by one. I'm done. I asked if I could close my account and cash out, they said no. (fair enough that's their policy, I read it, I agreed, no problem here)
All I'm hoping is that I can spend the credits on something useful and go away.
I don't think that one little person is going to make a difference and I think that so many people are hungry for income that most will put up with this rude and insulting treatment. Too many will just take the whipping from the boss man (Fotolia), whimper in the corner, and take the slave wages. The big ones don't care and the little people don't matter.
For three years I've been reading how FT pulls crap like this, over and over. If you speak up they say they will close your account and keep your money, even if it's on a forum like this one. Their attitude sucks. They control contributors with fear and threats. Then the double talk message about how they care about us, which didn't answer one question or address the issues, was the final straw.
I had already removed most of my files quietly, but now I'm a quitter.
Maybe someone would like to start a petition or Facebook group, "I quit Fotolia" >:(
What does this really say below? As far as I can see, nothing but, we'll get back to you, here's a bunch of fluff and snow that we'll throw at you until the peasants quiet down. Nice to apologize Chad, that's kind. Now how about the real questions? Things like commission is a percentage of what? Credits are valued how?
Hi Fotolians,
I realize you have a lot of questions about some of the strategies Fotolia has rolled out lately. Fotolia is committed to providing clear communication and individual attention to each of our Customer Service inquiries. In the last couple days, brevity has taken precedence over clarity on some individual inquiries. This is not to Fotolia standards. On behalf of the entire team, I extend a sincere apology.
We have taken this opportunity to learn from this experience and reaffirm our commitment to our community. Our contributors are extremely valued for the content they provide. We ask for your continue support and patience as the details develop over the coming days. We are adjusting the website and communication materials, so this new structure is clear to all those in the Fotolia community. In the meantime, we will be starting a new thread and encourage you to post any inquiries there or to contact Customer Service directly. Thank you for your understanding.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia LLC
What happens when the customers find out about this?
I can be replaced by a chimpanzee with a camera, but the buyers can't! ;D
-
I wish I had a million dollars and could take them to court over all this. I haven't read the contributors agreement but it more than likely it says if you close your account they keep the money. I know alot of them have this in their contracts. How many people actually read the terms and conditions before they click "accept". I am deleting my files one by one as I post. I also have 28.00 sitting in my account.
-
I wish I had a million dollars and could take them to court over all this. I haven't read the contributors agreement but it more than likely it says if you close your account they keep the money. I know alot of them have this in their contracts. How many people actually read the terms and conditions before they click "accept". I am deleting my files one by one as I post. I also have 28.00 sitting in my account.
Convert them to credits and buy something from someone here, that's my plan.
-
Well great - so I can't just request my money and leave, I have to wait until I make a payout. After that, I'll close the account so fast they'll notice a brief red glow from one of their servers.
-
I think that a good measure against this way of working of FL would be if we could come up with a good mail, stating all the negative actions, wrong-doings and deceptions that FL has been submitting it's contributors, as well the damage they constantly inflict on us and starting to send it to every site, magazine and client using FL images.
Just googling we get a lot of references.
This way they would know that they were collaborating with an agency that is dishonest in the communication, using deception to lower the commissions and exploitive with their contributors.
We are "bombarded" with fair-trade products rightfully showing how multinationals exploit people in poor countries. Well, we're being exploited also so let's show FL costumers the way they operate and present other agencies (like SS and DT for example) that could serve them as well, but use greater respect with their contributors.
This mail should state only factual events so there would be no place for legal action from FL.
I think subversion is the only way to fight people like the FL, since it's impossible to unite microstockers in any organized action.
FL is one of the biggest agencies to me (and I live from stock alone) but I'm tired of getting worried with this crap, when I should be more preoccupied with taking new photos. I don't wish FL to fall but if they don't start respecting us, I don't care if they fall because the buyers will go to other agencies where we all have the same images.
Let the clients of FL know that when they buy an image from this agency they are contributing to people that exploit the good-will (and pockets) of their contributors.
If a photographer leaves it's easily replaced by another, but does the same happens if a client leaves?
I think FL would start listening then...
-
@Stockastic, Donding,
I'm not trying to change your mind, but let's do this in a more organized manner. The more of us do it, the greater our chances for success.
Let's first decide what's the best way to deal with this issue.
Are we writing a letter? Who's writing it?
Do we stop uploading? When do we stop?
Are we pulling ports out? When do we start?
Is there anybody wanting to take charge of this?
I worry, don't go by yourselves, wait for all of us.
230 images online, no sales, no money, nothing to lose. Count me in.
@XPTO,
I already use the 'fair trade' argument all the time :)
I posted about it on DT a few months ago.
And I keep repeating this to all my friends and all the designers I know.
I'm also going to leave a note on my DT profile.
When buying a fair-trade pack of coffee my cappuccino tastes just that bit better.
In my case, whenever possible, it works.
-
I've already started pulling my port one by one...I'm sure they are noticing this on their site if there are alot of contributors that have already started doing this. I agree with Eireann as being just a small fish in the big ocean, they proubably don't care, but if the big boys get PO they might realize what is going to happen!!!
-
@Donding,
I thought about it a bit more, and I realised that unfortunately, if you're doing it this way, you're not going to make much of a difference. Neither will I for that matter.
You're only going to hurt yourself, don't do it, Donding!
For this to work we need the big players, experienced photographers with thousands of great images to step in.
But of course, these are the people who make a lot of money and have to consider things very carefully.
Wait until they decide what's best to do. Then it's our turn to follow in their steps. Just wait a little bit longer please! Give yourself a bit more time!
-
@Donding,
I thought about it a bit more, and I realised that unfortunately, if you're doing it this way, you're not going to make much of a difference. Neither will I for that matter.
You're only going to hurt yourself, don't do it, Donding!
For this to work we need the big players, experienced photographers with thousands of great images to step in.
But of course, these are the people who make a lot of money and have to consider things very carefully.
Wait until they decide what's best to do. Then it's our turn to follow in their steps. Just wait a little bit longer please! Give yourself a bit more time!
Doing what you feel is the right thing doesn't mean you need to wait until someone with more clout goes first. Likely they won't. They may in fact have sweetheart deals making all this fuss irrelevant to them. It's simply deciding if you are being taken advantage of and then deciding if you want to do something about it.
-
@Donding,
I thought about it a bit more, and I realised that unfortunately, if you're doing it this way, you're not going to make much of a difference. Neither will I for that matter.
You're only going to hurt yourself, don't do it, Donding!
For this to work we need the big players, experienced photographers with thousands of great images to step in.
But of course, these are the people who make a lot of money and have to consider things very carefully.
Wait until they decide what's best to do. Then it's our turn to follow in their steps. Just wait a little bit longer please! Give yourself a bit more time!
I'll wait but I imagine things are not going to change there. I started deleting from the back to the front and have gotten alot of them deleted already, starting with the old dust gathering photos. After thinking about it...don't you have to wait six months to get your most recent uploads taken off?
-
True Zeus,
you're right.
And this is why I'm offering to take part.
But I don't just want to pull my port and leave. I don't have those kind of feelings and doing so won't be much help to anyone anyway.
It goes nowhere.
My motivation is not so much personal, it is the hope of making a difference.
If I am to pull my port, I'm in, but let's do it in an organized way. Better chances of success.
I'll be watching this thread.
-----------------------------------------------
Actually, sorry, Zeus, I came back. No matter how I look at it, you're right. They are taking advantage of us. Should I just pull my port out now? Will that make them stop? I'm thinking about it, give me a bit more time.
-
donding and lizard,
Some facts.
In the contributor's FAQ, it's written: 1 credit = 1 USD
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_8 (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_8)
Then there is the table of sizes vs ranking vs credits. If you want to understand that table as USD instead of credits, it's up to you. But when you go to any other FT, it's always the same number (therefore, credits). The table for subs is more clear: commission is in credits.
In the buyer's FAQ, it's written: 1 credit = 1.2 USD
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Faq#a07 (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Faq#a07)
And in the Credits' page: prices are in credits; credit from US$ 0.75
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Credits (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Credits)
This is the new part. Indeed, this means we are being ripped off. However, given that there are actually discounts, the price of a credit is actually variable.
http://www.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount (http://www.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount)
I do agree it's more likely the actual, effective average credit price will be above US$1, and then we will lose money. Even if they say the actual average is below US$1 - and we will not believe them if they do - I always prefer the transparent way. 31% of 75c or 31% of $1.20, it doesn't matter, that's my fair share. I may even lose in the end, but it's transparent and fair.
However, this is not what is written in the site. Our share is 31% (in my case) of each credit. Was it not written like this when we signed up? Unfortunately I did not print a copy of the terms that time, but I think it was. If we interpreteded it differently, it's our problem.
Transactions on the Website, including downloads of Works and the remuneration to an uploading Member in the event his or her Work is downloaded, shall be conducted using Website credits (“Credits”) in accordance with Fotolia's Standard pricing and payment policies and subject to any amounts that may be owed to Fotolia with respect to such transactions
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#7. (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#7.)
As in any other site, FT puts a not in the TOS saying they can change anything at anytime.
Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, and any such changes shall be effective immediately upon member notification and publication of such changes on the Website. Your continued use of the Website after the effectiveness of such changes and notice constitutes your acknowledgement and acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as so amended. If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement as so amended, do not use or access the Website.
If at any time the terms and conditions of this Agreement are no longer acceptable to you, whether or not as a result of an amendment by Fotolia, do not use the Website.
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#2. (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#2.)
I've always wondered if it's legal to have this one-side breech, but the terms are there. I questioned them also when DT introduced subs, as it was a change in our agreement.
Now, is it a fair way to treat contributors? No. Should they have implemented a new pricing with at least a small increase to us? Yes. But what they did, to my understanding, is legal. Unfair, unethical, but legal. Or not?
Like they said in other occasions, as also DT said in other occasions, they may say now we will not lose because, according to their numbers, the average will be below US$1 and the discount packages will attract buyers, thus bringing a higher overall revenue. Given our previous experience with FT, we will not believe them.
But again, I certainly was much more harmed when they changed my commision from 35% to 32% in April. Overall earnings increased because of the higher credit/image in larger sizes, but our share was nevertheless reduced. Then came January and we had our commissions cut ever further. THAT was outrageous for me. The recent change was so small compared to this...
-
The thing is, Madeline, that there is no longer any such thing as a "website credit" because it is defined in different ways on different pages. I have no doubt that tomorrow if we go and look there will be a new classification "subscriber credits" and "customer credits" replacing the now ambiguous "website credits".
The value of a credit for customers is now clearly defined as being $1.20 on the US site, it is not somewhere between 0.75 and 1.20. Anything other than $1.20 is defined as a discounted rate from the true credit price of 1.20.
-
It's madelaide. ;)
Everything you said is in my message. We simply have different interpretations.
Mind you, some of us are always suspicious of new members coming only to post flamed replies on a specific controversial thread (a series of them, in this case).
I only discuss facts.
-
donding and lizard,
Some facts.
In the contributor's FAQ, it's written: 1 credit = 1 USD
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_8[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_8[/url])
Then there is the table of sizes vs ranking vs credits. If you want to understand that table as USD instead of credits, it's up to you. But when you go to any other FT, it's always the same number (therefore, credits). The table for subs is more clear: commission is in credits.
In the buyer's FAQ, it's written: 1 credit = 1.2 USD
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Faq#a07[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Faq#a07[/url])
And in the Credits' page: prices are in credits; credit from US$ 0.75
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Credits[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Credits[/url])
This is the new part. Indeed, this means we are being ripped off. However, given that there are actually discounts, the price of a credit is actually variable.
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount[/url])
I do agree it's more likely the actual, effective average credit price will be above US$1, and then we will lose money. Even if they say the actual average is below US$1 - and we will not believe them if they do - I always prefer the transparent way. 31% of 75c or 31% of $1.20, it doesn't matter, that's my fair share. I may even lose in the end, but it's transparent and fair.
However, this is not what is written in the site. Our share is 31% (in my case) of each credit. Was it not written like this when we signed up? Unfortunately I did not print a copy of the terms that time, but I think it was. If we interpreteded it differently, it's our problem.
Transactions on the Website, including downloads of Works and the remuneration to an uploading Member in the event his or her Work is downloaded, shall be conducted using Website credits (“Credits”) in accordance with Fotolia's Standard pricing and payment policies and subject to any amounts that may be owed to Fotolia with respect to such transactions
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#7.[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#7.[/url])
As in any other site, FT puts a not in the TOS saying they can change anything at anytime.
Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, and any such changes shall be effective immediately upon member notification and publication of such changes on the Website. Your continued use of the Website after the effectiveness of such changes and notice constitutes your acknowledgement and acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as so amended. If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement as so amended, do not use or access the Website.
If at any time the terms and conditions of this Agreement are no longer acceptable to you, whether or not as a result of an amendment by Fotolia, do not use the Website.
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#2.[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#2.[/url])
I've always wondered if it's legal to have this one-side breech, but the terms are there. I questioned them also when DT introduced subs, as it was a change in our agreement.
Now, is it a fair way to treat contributors? No. Should they have implemented a new pricing with at least a small increase to us? Yes. But what they did, to my understanding, is legal. Unfair, unethical, but legal. Or not?
Like they said in other occasions, as also DT said in other occasions, they may say now we will not lose because, according to their numbers, the average will be below US$1 and the discount packages will attract buyers, thus bringing a higher overall revenue. Given our previous experience with FT, we will not believe them.
But again, I certainly was much more harmed when they changed my commision from 35% to 32% in April. Overall earnings increased because of the higher credit/image in larger sizes, but our share was nevertheless reduced. Then came January and we had our commissions cut ever further. THAT was outrageous for me. The recent change was so small compared to this...
well stated.
-
It's madelaide. ;)
Everything you said is in my message. We simply have different interpretations.
Mind you, some of us are always suspicious of new members coming only to post flamed replies on a specific controversial thread (a series of them, in this case).
I only discuss facts.
Sorry about the mistake Maria, I was tired. I shot processed and uploaded a dozen photos yesterday of several different subjects, which takes me quite a lot of effort.
Obviously you discuss facts and also chuck about innuendos. What is the second paragraph supposed to imply? It is as factual as Gostwyck (I was careful to check the spelling ;) ) implying that you are the new Matt Hayward.
You also get your facts wrong. If you check the Bigstock downloads increase thread you will find I posted in that yesterday about something that was nothing to do with Fotolia, so your "only" goes out of the window.
If, however, you mean that I signed up because I was outraged over Fotolia's latest behaviour and wanted to comment on it, then you are right. Is one only meant to sign up out of a general interest in the micros, not because of a specific issue of concern? If so, sorry. I'm too busy building my portfolio to spend all my time hanging around chat sites.
I have been doing stock much longer than you and have thousands more files online at all the main agencies, so I reckon I have a right to comment. And, yes, I personally have been treated badly by Fotolia including getting emails from THE CHAD that have been rude, condescending or verging on the threatening in answer to ordinary business requests.
This latest move by Fotolia has poked a hole in the dam holding back my growing resentment at the way I've been treated both as an individual and in the general cutting of commissions, etc. that affects everyone. So maybe my "flames" are "motivated", but isn't being insulted, threatened and now in my personal opinion cheated something to get "motivated" about?
If Fotolia behaved like a civilized company instead of acting like a thug towards the people who supply it then I wouldn't be posting this and I wouldn't feel the need to be anonymous.
-
BaldricksTrousers,
Spot on, as you know I have personaly been subject to rude replys to genuine questions I have put to Fotolia, and to be totaly honest with you its this fact that gets me anoyed more than anything else simply because there is no need for it.
I can understand why Fotolia want to scew us its greed, what I cant understand is why they want to be rude and disrespectful to as at the same time !!
-
@Donding,
I thought about it a bit more, and I realised that unfortunately, if you're doing it this way, you're not going to make much of a difference. Neither will I for that matter.
You're only going to hurt yourself, don't do it, Donding!
For this to work we need the big players, experienced photographers with thousands of great images to step in.
But of course, these are the people who make a lot of money and have to consider things very carefully.
Wait until they decide what's best to do. Then it's our turn to follow in their steps. Just wait a little bit longer please! Give yourself a bit more time!
Just what FL wants you to do that's nothing, sit and wait take the lies until this goes away or they come up with a new avoid. Fear and threats they will control us. I'm closing my acount and following this advise. My Advice to You. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMz_RQuTBlI&feature=related#normal)
-
Yep!
This is not first and unique case, this is politics...
Deja vu!
-
YadaYadaYada,
Just wish I could put and external link on Fotolias forum thats so "of the hour"
Personaly I cant afford to just take my portfolio away from Fotolia, If I could I would do it right now. But I am not just going to sit and do nothing. Fotolia have a habbit of shooting themselves in the foot, after all this is how we found out about this !!
And if I think something is wrong I will say it.
I do think that some people at Fotolia would make a hell of a lot more money if they came and worked for the political parties over here as they do need new spin doctors.
-
21 credits = £ 20.00 (included 1 bonus credits - £ 0.95/credit)
55 credits = £ 50.00 (included 5 bonus credits - £ 0.91/credit)
115 credits = £ 100.00 (included 15 bonus credits - £ 0.87/credit)
180 credits = £ 150.00 (included 30 bonus credits - £ 0.83/credit)
325 credits = £ 250.00 (included 75 bonus credits - £ 0.77/credit)
700 credits = £ 500.00 (included 200 bonus credits - £ 0.71/credit)
1500 credits = £ 1,000.00 (included 500 bonus credits - £ 0.67/credit)
3200 credits = £ 2,000.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - £ 0.63/credit)
This is the credit buying structure £ as it stands now, if you average these up it does indeed come to £0.75 per credit Fine.
These prices are only for buying bulk credits, at the end of the day 1 credit = £1 (at least to the buyer) and thats a fact.
So Fotolia do have a double standards on the value of the credits depnding on if your a buyer or seller and sorry but thats also a fact.
Can you see a car dealership saying to a car supplier "well we are only going to pay you so much for this car as we intend to give the customer a discount" !!!!
-
I do think that some people at Fotolia would make a hell of a lot more money if they came and worked for the political parties over here as they do need new spin doctors.
Spin spin spin - yep you're right there Warren. The only clear communication we have had since this whole thing started was that rude reply you got back from support!!! >:(
-
Can you see a car dealership saying to a car supplier "well we are only going to pay you so much for this car as we intend to give the customer a discount" !!!!
Thsi reminds me of sales advertisements in which they say there are no interests in monthly payments, but we give you a discount if you pay the total value. And a lot of people believe they are not paying interests.
BaldricksTrousers,
My problem with your posts is that we've seen too many new people coming to stir the discussions more than necessary, and I am tired of that. Writing in caps, or bold, or red, just yelling, I do find it annoying and unpolite.
-
BaldricksTrousers,
My problem with your posts is that we've seen too many new people coming to stir the discussions more than necessary, and I am tired of that. Writing in caps, or bold, or red, just yelling, I do find it annoying and unpolite.
I'm sorry you find red annoying, I won't do it again. Can you tell me what the permissible degree of stirring up discussions is for a newbie? Or should I just not say anything because you might not like it?
-
My problem with your posts is that we've seen too many new people coming to stir the discussions more than necessary, and I am tired of that. Writing in caps, or bold, or red, just yelling, I do find it annoying and unpolite.
I can relate to what you are saying Maria, but in this case I would not assume that all the "newbies" on the forums are actually newbies to the micro business. Maybe they are just incognito. You can kind of tell the ones who know what they are talking about from the ones who don't.
-
Baldricks,
The big problem is with me and prob a few of the others is that we just dont know who you are and where your coming from. I have no problem as I use the same name here as I do with all the stock agencies. this can be verified by other people here in a matter of clicks, so for me nothing to hide.
You have posted your reasons for not wanting to be known and thats ok but I have no way of finding out if those reasons are true or not, and you could say anything you like (within reason) and get awat with it, i cant do that what I say here I have to stand by and have good reason to say it, i cant tell any lies here and what I post is based on what I know to be the truth.
Cheers
Warren
-
The big problem is with me and prob a few of the others is that we just dont know who you are and where your coming from. I have no problem as I use the same name here as I do with all the stock agencies. this can be verified by other people here in a matter of clicks, so for me nothing to hide.
I'm not sure about you but there are people out there making living from this possibly with families dependant on their income. FT has record of treating anyone they perceive as 'hurting their business' rather violently. I would understand anyone trying to hide their identity. Yet, obviously, we would have more credibility if people did not do that, especially in case they are larger/large contributors.
-
Danicek,
I totaly depend on the money I earn on stock sites, people who know me know this only too well, and dont doubt for one second what FT are capable of, so yeah anyone can hide there true identity, even Fotolia so thats why the likes of me have to be careful in what we say and what we do.
-
I totaly depend on the money I earn on stock sites, people who know me know this only too well, and dont doubt for one second what FT are capable of, so yeah anyone can hide there true identity, even Fotolia so thats why the likes of me have to be careful in what we say and what we do.
Then you are the brave one (seriously). I don't blame some of the others not taking the risk, though...
-
You've hit the nail on the head, Danicek.
Warren, I do understand the issue with anonymity and credibility but that wasn't Maria's issue. First she didn't like newbies appearing and posting "flames" on a single topic, then she was bothered about one paragraph because the colour and size offended her. She hasn't said anything about anonymity.
By itself, a name proves nothing. Anybody could sign up here using the name I use everywhere else and people would think it was really me.
Lisafx's method of judging the credibility of a contributor's comments by the evidence contained in all that person's posts is really the only certain way of arriving at a sensible conclusion. Thank you, Lisa.
As for Maria's concern about "flames" - if telling the truth is "flaming" then it's the fault of those who created that truth in the first place. And I'm in Catch 22. If I tell you exactly who I am and what THE CHAD did to anger me so much, then I will undoubtedly get the Bobby Deal treatment.
You see, I do understand the messages Fotolia sends to us. It doesn't matter if you are their fifth-biggest selling artist, if they don't like comments you make anywhere, not just in their own forum, they will have no qualms about kicking you off. And, despite keeping my mouth shut in public up to now, I had already been threatened. I can't tell you how or why, because that would identify me and, no doubt, get me kicked off. If I'm going to quit I want to decide when - and it would be six months after I stopped uploading at Dreamstime.
Anyway, despite the resentment it creates, I don't care much about the threats or insults as long as they pay me the right percentage of the actual sale price of each file. The only relationship I want between them and me is that I send them images and they Paypal me the agreed commission without undue delay. Then I can shut up again and concentrate on creating images.
-
Fair points all round you two, now dont you agree talking and being open and as honest as you can be gets you places.
Now lets see if we can get things done as far as this latest upset is concerned :)
-
...Anyway, despite the resentment it creates, I don't care much about the threats or insults as long as they pay me the right percentage of the actual sale price of each file. The only relationship I want between them and me is that I send them images and they Paypal me the agreed commission without undue delay. Then I can shut up again and concentrate on creating images.
I completely understand the anonymity thing even though I don't like it much. I don't blame you, however, but FT whose repeated underworld-like behavior has necessitated this sort of thing. They threatened me too a while ago for speaking up and organizing on an independent forum on one of their earlier lets-hose-our-contributors-and-hope-they-don't-notice/fuss maneuvers.
I think the long term problem exists with agencies like FT even if you get some sort of resolution on the current issue. They've repeatedly pulled stunts, it gets noticed, there's a big fuss, they make some changes and then things go quiet for a bit. I was hoping that when Patrick Lor joined them things might improve, but I guess culture trickles down from the top of the organization and nothing much has changed.
Forums like this one have time and again been the point for people to find out what's going on and try to organize and fix things. Having to deal with one another anonymously instead of openly (where we can see people's portfolios and tell the newbie who's uploaded 50 images from the person who's been around for years and has thousands of images) makes things much more difficult.
I don't have a direct stake in this tussle any more, but I'm sure Getty's watching this and I think it's better for all of us that FT not be able to succeed in a stealth royalty cut because that will encourage copycats.
I wish we could just get on with creating stuff, but I guess a cost of doing business for contributors is the ongoing struggle for fair and straightforward dealings with our agents.
-
Is there any photographer/contributor with US zone account?.. Do you have 50$ on your account??.. The conversion is on 1.2$ or not?..
thanks!
-
Is there any photographer/contributor with US zone account?.. Do you have 50$ on your account??.. The conversion is on 1.2$ or not?..
thanks!
I 've reached that and the cash-out value today is $1 per credit, not $1.20.
-
Has any one heard anything about all this yet?? I think they are stalling thinking it will all die down and go away. That's what usually happens then they make their move and no one knows the difference.
-
^^ None yet. I'm watching that FT thread from Chad and expecting something there... It may well be they are expecting us to give up on following this.
-
I'll give them a few more days, then I'm closing my dinky, insignificant account.
The money isn't a big deal to me - it's the absence of communication or even a well-defined set of rules. The "partner sites" worry me. I have no way of knowing how many there are or whether they're even honestly reporting sales and paying commissions. I might be competing with myself every day at 20 cents for an XL and not even know it. Fotolia just has no credibility .
-
Do you know of any way to check the partner sites? I know I've heard someone in one of these threads talking about their pictures still being on the partner sites, but I don't remember who it was.
-
I don't know if this helps anyone.
I asked FT:
Hi
I have noticed that the grey box to the left of my contributor account page no longer contains the credit value of which I will my commission is based. Has this changed and will it be displayed in the future? Thanks
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail.
We are currently updating our website. I was told that we will won't display that anymore.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
I asked FT a further question beceause the first reply didn't realy answere the question:
Hi
Thanks for the prompt reply. As the current credit value is no longer displayed in the grey box, please could you let me know where I can find this information. Is the current credit value for contributors commission still £0.75 and will it be changing in the near future. Thanks.
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail. The current value for contributors is the same - £0.75, it never changed so far. I am not certain about any future plans.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
So there you have it, make of it what you will. I still don't know where on the site I can find out how to calculate my commission, does anyone?
-
I don't know if this helps anyone.
I asked FT:
Hi
I have noticed that the grey box to the left of my contributor account page no longer contains the credit value of which I will my commission is based. Has this changed and will it be displayed in the future? Thanks
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail.
We are currently updating our website. I was told that we will won't display that anymore.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
I asked FT a further question beceause the first reply didn't realy answere the question:
Hi
Thanks for the prompt reply. As the current credit value is no longer displayed in the grey box, please could you let me know where I can find this information. Is the current credit value for contributors commission still £0.75 and will it be changing in the near future. Thanks.
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail. The current value for contributors is the same - £0.75, it never changed so far. I am not certain about any future plans.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
So there you have it, make of it what you will. I still don't know where on the site I can find out how to calculate my commission, does anyone?
Wow..if that ain't a slap in the face I don't know what is!! How the H*** are we suppose to know if they are paying us the correct amount or not...
-
Isn't the above old rather old communication with FT. They were acting like this before the main furror arise and before Chad posted that rather apologetic bit on the FT forum.
-
I don't know if this helps anyone.
I asked FT:
Hi
I have noticed that the grey box to the left of my contributor account page no longer contains the credit value of which I will my commission is based. Has this changed and will it be displayed in the future? Thanks
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail.
We are currently updating our website. I was told that we will won't display that anymore.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
I asked FT a further question beceause the first reply didn't realy answere the question:
Hi
Thanks for the prompt reply. As the current credit value is no longer displayed in the grey box, please could you let me know where I can find this information. Is the current credit value for contributors commission still £0.75 and will it be changing in the near future. Thanks.
FT Replied:
Thank you for your e-mail. The current value for contributors is the same - £0.75, it never changed so far. I am not certain about any future plans.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
So there you have it, make of it what you will. I still don't know where on the site I can find out how to calculate my commission, does anyone?
Wow..if that ain't a slap in the face I don't know what is!! How the H*** are we suppose to know if they are paying us the correct amount or not...
As FT unusual commission structure becomes more and more widely known and becomes unattractive to serious new recruits, I think that it is inevitable, FT will eventually have to come out with a fair and transparent commission structure to get new fresh smart content. But as we have seen two months ago with their ITIN number requirement, it took a while to make them understand, although they would have found out the hard way anyway later on with massive W7 letter rejections if we had not intervene. I think that FT should now take this opportunity to provide a new fair and transparent commission structure to prevent another unfortunate situation. I think that the reason why they are not communicating about this at the moment is because they are probably working at such a transparent commission structure and probably trying to bridge the gap between the time we did not know about this and the time when the new commission structure will be announced so that this present gap will not look as bad even if it still look bad as it is. I am just guessing.
Denis
-
Its all very frustrating so now it looks like we will not know how much we are all working so hard for ? very strange. I dont understand why Fotolia think this is in anyway helping the situation and cant understand why our credit rate was removed in the first place. we all now know that a buyers credit is worth more than a contributors credit so its not as if they are hideing anything.
Umm oh well no doubt we will find out sooner ar later ::)
Warren
-
Why they removed it from the grey box I have no idea, but I did some more searching and the info is available here: http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors) about halfway down the page. I don't know why FT didn't point that out to me in their reply.
-
It seems like they're determined to break, once and for all, any direct link between what a buyer pays for an image, and what the photographer gets. They want to run all sorts of pricing and subscription games with buyers, while payments to contributors stay the same.
You get what you get, and don't bother trying to figure out whether it's correct, because they're won't be any "correct".
So why don't they just make it explicit, and say - here is what we pay for a photo when it sells, you don't know what we got from the buyer, and you don't need to know. It's not a "commission" system any more, you're just a supplier producing a product, and here's what we'll pay for it, per unit sold.
-
I'm sorry you find red annoying, I won't do it again. Can you tell me what the permissible degree of stirring up discussions is for a newbie? Or should I just not say anything because you might not like it?
No need to be sarcastic, I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. I don't mind the anonymity much, but I surely don't like it either. It's the attitude however that matters, and I do expect that a person that is new to a group has a more low-profile attitude.
-
I wrote to FT on Feb 3rd, and got a very standard reply back:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding Fotolia's introduction to credit bundle purchases. As we move forward with our 2010 marketing plans, we continue to implement strategies to benefit the entire community. Providing consumer incentives for larger, bulk purchases directly benefits Fotolia contributors.
Commissions are earned on every $1 of image sales. With strong incentives for buyers to purchase large quantities of credits, revenues are anticipated to remain above industry average. For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75.
Please take the opportunity to share your experiences over the next few months with us. Should you need anything further, please feel free to contact us directly.
-
I don't mind the anonymity much, but I surely don't like it either. It's the attitude however that matters, and I do expect that a person that is new to a group has a more low-profile attitude.
BT is well known to many of us here and certainly has both the time within the industry and the sales record to qualify any opinion he might have. He's perfectly entitled to consider himself in the company of friends here even if you do not personally know him.
I think that 'the attitude' you seem so concerned with is not directed at you or this group but is actually a natural and indignant reaction to Fotolia's actions of increasing prices to customers without passing on a proportionate amount to the contributors.
Surely every worthwhile and long-standing business relationship is ultimately based on trust. If Fotolia won't tell us how much our images sell for how can we believe them when they claim to be paying us a certain percentage? Especially when we can see for ourselves that the % in some cases, if not most, is evidently much less.
-
I wrote to FT on Feb 3rd, and got a very standard reply back:
...
Commissions are earned on every $1 of image sales. ...
In other words, Fotolia no longer has any interest in percentages ... we will just get some sort of random commission that they decide.
contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75
...
this is either worded extremely incompetently or extremely cleverly. It either means that we will get 0.75 credits per credit on bulk sales at 75c, in which case it is an additional cut in our commissions, or it means that credits that cost 0.75 will still be listed as worth one credit to us.
For the moment I will assume that the wording is incompetent and they don't plan to charge us for discounts that reduce the price below $1....in which case this is just another example of how Fotolia are unable to communicate in plain English even when they are trying to.
If they are saying that we still get from 25c to 46c per credit depending on our colour level even if they are getting only 75c, which I assume is what they are trying to say, then it is just the usual corporate double-speak. If they are trying to make out that we are the winners out of all this, why won't they pay us the real percentage of the sale price?
It's perfectly obvious that they will pocket a higher percentage of the money our images earn than before and that this special case of the 75c discounted sale is just window-dressing designed to conceal the truth.
****
Concerning your remark to me - this is a forum for discussing issues, not a primary school where we have to settle in and get peer approval before we should dare to put our hand up in class. The fact you had been posting here endlessly before I signed up doesn't give you the right to any special privileges m and it doesn't automatically make your statements more valid than mine or mean you know more about this business than I do, whatever you may think.
If you find me presumptuous for daring to arrive and speak plainly, I find it arrogant that you "do expect" that people new to the group adopt "a low profile attitude". In other words, you object to anybody expressing a strong opinion until you feel they have been posting long enough to qualify for membership of your clique. Who appointed you to impose your expectations on anybody else?
-
It seems like they're determined to break, once and for all, any direct link between what a buyer pays for an image, and what the photographer gets. They want to run all sorts of pricing and subscription games with buyers, while payments to contributors stay the same.
You get what you get, and don't bother trying to figure out whether it's correct, because they're won't be any "correct".
So why don't they just make it explicit, and say - here is what we pay for a photo when it sells, you don't know what we got from the buyer, and you don't need to know. It's not a "commission" system any more, you're just a supplier producing a product, and here's what we'll pay for it, per unit sold.
That's a scary thought.
-
It seems like they're determined to break, once and for all, any direct link between what a buyer pays for an image, and what the photographer gets. They want to run all sorts of pricing and subscription games with buyers, while payments to contributors stay the same.
You get what you get, and don't bother trying to figure out whether it's correct, because they're won't be any "correct".
So why don't they just make it explicit, and say - here is what we pay for a photo when it sells, you don't know what we got from the buyer, and you don't need to know. It's not a "commission" system any more, you're just a supplier producing a product, and here's what we'll pay for it, per unit sold.
That's a scary thought.
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
-
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
With that quote I believe they were saying how generous they are. When they sell credits for $0.75/credit, they still give us commissions as though the credits were sold at $1.00 - so we get our % of $1.00, not $0.75 - if that makes any more sense. The same sort of difference as when they sell credits for $1.20 and we only get commissions on $1.00, except the other way around.
-
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
With that quote I believe they were saying how generous they are. When they sell credits for $0.75/credit, they still give us commissions as though the credits were sold at $1.00 - so we get our % of $1.00, not $0.75 - if that makes any more sense. The same sort of difference as when they sell credits for $1.20 and we only get commissions on $1.00, except the other way around.
Thanks for explaining that. So they are still going to pay a percentage of $1.00 rather they sell it for .75 cents or 1.20, except they won't be sellin the .75 cent one anymore and only the 1.20 ones. Am I understanding that right?
-
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
With that quote I believe they were saying how generous they are. When they sell credits for $0.75/credit, they still give us commissions as though the credits were sold at $1.00 - so we get our % of $1.00, not $0.75 - if that makes any more sense. The same sort of difference as when they sell credits for $1.20 and we only get commissions on $1.00, except the other way around.
Thanks for explaining that. So they are still going to pay a percentage of $1.00 rather they sell it for .75 cents or 1.20, except they won't be sellin the .75 cent one anymore and only the 1.20 ones. Am I understanding that right?
No. As far as I know up to now the diff in the 'real credit price' and 'credit price for photographers' was dependent only on one thing - the 'platform' (EU vs. UK vs. US) where you happened to register yourself. As a result customer might purchase 1 credit for 1 Euro and your commission could be computed as % from $1 per 1 Credit.
Now, on top of that long existing boobery, they introduced floating credit price. So on top of that currency uncertainty that remains the same, there is also floating prices of credits (based on how much of them you purchase).
The worst case is, I believe, 16% commission (white user, being on the US platform (in $), customer pays with credits from smallest package bought in Euro) as Gostwyck computed in another thread.
They will buy credit at Euro 1.143 which is approx. $1.6 and you will get your % as if the credit cost $1.
There are obviously cases when you actually get more than the % you are supposed to get based on the official commission structure.
However, and that's very important, essentially all the credit packages for which you would get more % and not less % than what your commission should be are packages that do not make any sense when compared to subscription packages FT offers. They are much more expensive and as far as I know do not offer any pros when compared to them. No one in their right mind would buy them.
-
You get what you get, and don't bother trying to figure out whether it's correct, because they're won't be any "correct".
So why don't they just make it explicit, and say - here is what we pay for a photo when it sells, you don't know what we got from the buyer, and you don't need to know. It's not a "commission" system any more, ...
That's a scary thought.
It's not especially scary. Shutterstock has always paid a flat rate per download. The difference is that Shutterstock's doesn't have a deal with us to pay a certain percentage, it has a deal to pay a fixed lump.
Look at what Fotolia is doing by comparison. One photographer credit equals one dollar, absolutely fixed (unless you are on their Europe or UK site, when it is fixed at a different rate). One buyer credit now equals $1.20 (except UK and Europe, of course), this is also absolutely fixed but there are "free" bonus credits for big packages. But they now quote the fixed US buyer price recalculated to include the largest free bonus credit package when they talk about what we will get, so the buyer credit is revalued at 75c in this new calculation. But none of this fits in with the concept of a percentage commission in line with the contract.
In the end, the whole thing is about trustworthiness and transparency. We need our agencies to show that they believe in fair dealing.
-
Ok now explain the Fotolia "partner sites" to me. I saw one recently - Chinese, so I couldn't read a word on it. But they have my images. So are they using the same 'credit' system? Is there any way I can find out how many of my Fotolia sales came through that site, or what was paid for them? Were they sold on the basis with regard to publication rights and restrictions? If someone bought my full size images through the Chinese partner, and began reselling them as his own, what recourse would I have, legally? What if the Chinese 'partner' himself was corrupt? Would Fototlia have any responsibility?
-
If someone bought my full size images through the Chinese partner, and began reselling them as his own, what recourse would I have, legally? What if the Chinese 'partner' himself was corrupt? Would Fototlia have any responsibility?
You'd have the same recourse as you would have if somebody bought your images from any site no matter where they were based, it's where the person that resold your images as they're own that is the part to worry about, and if that person is based in China, Russia or any other country that might have a bad reputation of abiding or enforcing international law the probability of successful recourse is pretty low I'd imagine.
I wish all microstock sites would follow Alamy's example and give you the opportunity to opt out of having your images distributed in countries that you choose, but what is becoming clearer and clearer each day is that microstock is slowly dissolving into an industry of 'make as much money as we can without a care for the contributors welfare'
-
That's a scary thought.
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
[/quote]
seems clear enough -- FT sells images at a price in credits, and pays royalties based on 1 credit = $1
it says that FT is doing the OPPOSITE of what the conspiracy thoerists here are claiming -- they sell credits at a discount to buyers, but contributors still get paid AS IF the buyer paid full price -- FT is absorbing the difference
steve
-
Steve, that does appear to be what they are trying to say.
However, it is just like the lottery advertising that tries to persuade you to hand over your cash because "it could be you" who wins.
Have you seen Gostwyck's poll of which currencies people are registered under for payouts?
-
Thanks for explaining that. So they are still going to pay a percentage of $1.00 rather they sell it for .75 cents or 1.20, except they won't be sellin the .75 cent one anymore and only the 1.20 ones. Am I understanding that right?
The problem is that they can say credits will be sold on an average below the current US$1.00 (in the USA site), and in fact we can only speculate this isn't true.
It's like when DT reduced commissions, saying the money invested in advertisement would mean more sales. It didn't work for me. My RPD and my monthly earnings are smaller. Ok, I am a very small fish and I haven't been uploading for over a year (in any micro), but my result was negative in DT changes.
-
That's a scary thought.
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.
"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."
How can $1.00 equal 1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.
seems clear enough -- FT sells images at a price in credits, and pays royalties based on 1 credit = $1
it says that FT is doing the OPPOSITE of what the conspiracy thoerists here are claiming -- they sell credits at a discount to buyers, but contributors still get paid AS IF the buyer paid full price -- FT is absorbing the difference
steve
This is not based on a theory, this is based on fact. Simply go to a FT France site and look at the 20 credit package bottom right of the screen. You will see that each credit averaged 1.14 euro each. However, in this particular case I am paid 31% of $1.00 per credit and not 31% of 1.14 euro per credit if that buyer happens to buy my images. That is a big difference as 1.14 euro is equal to $1.61 and not a $1.00
http://fr.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount (http://fr.fotolia.com/Member/BuyCreditsChooseAmount)
Denis
-
No doubt some credits will be sold for less than a dollar. But that isn't our problem, is it? I am quite willing to take 31% of 75c if that is what the credit is sold for. But I also want the 31% of the $1.61 that other credits are being sold for.
When Fotolia says it is paying above the odds on 75c sales, it is trying to pretend that it is a virtue that it is hiding the true price that it is selling our images for.
There are something like 15 or 20 different price points ranging from 75c to $1.61, and the average sale price is hidden from us but I'd bet that it is significantly above $1.
-
Although I agree the differences in currencies are unfair, it is a totally different problem than the current credit price changes. To begin with, it's been there for ages.
I would love to see a parity, but on the buyer's side, it wouldn't be pleasant to find price changes every month (if they would adjust prices according to exchange rates monthly). Then, of course, the right thing to do would be paying us according to the currency of the purchase.
I'm curious, how other agencies with international sites work, such as IS and DT and even StockXpert before it's demise?
-
Its this simple,
The value of one credit for a buyer is £1 ($1.20)
The value of one credit for a contributor is £0.75 ($1.00)
the fact that fotolia decide to give bonus credits to buyers who buy in bulk has sod all to do with what we should get They give them the bouns credits that bring the value of a buyers credit down !!!!
-
Although I agree the differences in currencies are unfair, it is a totally different problem than the current credit price changes. To begin with, it's been there for ages.
I don't think the problems are that different, it just that we recently took notice because of the price change. Even if the differences in currencies have been there for ages, it is still part of the problem as a whole. It is not just the differences in currencies, it is a fact that the buyer's credit has been on its own from the contributor's credit at first because of the differences in currencies and thereafter when FT took a step further by increasing the buyer's credit without increasing the contributor's one regardless of currencies. We should all share the same piece of pie regardless of currencies. Exchange rates are there to facilitate our own currency if need be. Denis
-
All I know is they have created a huge mess with their "mistake" by posting those credits on the contributors accounts and they are going to have a very hard time cleaning it up and they better get started before the garbage starts to rot and stink!!
-
Although I agree the differences in currencies are unfair, it is a totally different problem than the current credit price changes. To begin with, it's been there for ages.
I would love to see a parity, but on the buyer's side, it wouldn't be pleasant to find price changes every month (if they would adjust prices according to exchange rates monthly). Then, of course, the right thing to do would be paying us according to the currency of the purchase.
I'm curious, how other agencies with international sites work, such as IS and DT and even StockXpert before it's demise?
They don't need to change the buyer's side because of exchange rate fluctuations. What they do (and are already doing ) is charge more for non-native (in this case non-US) credits as a protection for themselves against exchage rate fluctuations. The base price/lowest price on which everything is calculated is in the currency the company itself uses. As long as the other prices exchange at a rate above that, then there is not a problem.
That doesn't stop them paying us a percentage of what the credit actually cost.
I'm pretty sure Istock pays the true percentage cost of the credit, there was a discussion about it when they wanted to charge much higher non-dollar prices for non-North American users two years back. It meant higher commissions for artists. I don't know how DT works it.
-
did fotolia just change the credit prices again? when I look at buying credits - the most expensive ones are now $1.09 instead of $1.20
-
did fotolia just change the credit prices again? when I look at buying credits - the most expensive ones are now $1.09 instead of $1.20
oh, sorry no - i figured it out. I was looking at the credit packages. if you buy 55 credits they are $1.09/credit but if you click on custom package of 10 credits it is $1.20/credit
-
It is now Day 9 since this issue started - and still no word!
-
I asked a few questions yesterday and got a few answers , it all boils down to our credit as contributors has not changed and juging from the answers I got is not going to change.
Ok I sent this to support today as adivsed by THE CHAD
Hiya
Chad posted on the forum almost a week ago on the above subject, the new perchase incentives have now been in place for a week and mean that 1 Credit for a buyer is worth £1 sterling or $1.20.
When will the new commission structure be in place so both buyers and contributors will be on a level playing field ?
Thanks
Warren
And this reply has just come back ....... I read it that nothing is going to change dont know about you ?? what you think ?
Thank you for your inquiry. Our website has been updated to all the new structures - both for buyers and contributors.
Both buyers and contributors benefit under this new
structure. We've provided buyers with incentives to purchase more credits through our credit bundle purchase options.
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid
out at £1.
Fotolia is still able to offer some of the highest commissions in the business. Plus, unlike other stock sites, Fotolia honors free and promotional credits as if they are regular sales.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
So sent this and here are the replys also !!
Hiya your answer is below to my last question and thanks but can you confirm that the buyers credit is worth £1 and the contributors credit is worth £0.75 and will not be changing from £0.75 ?
Thanks
Reply
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. Could you please clarify?
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84 2010-02-08 08:28 pm
So made it a bit more simple
Is a contributors credit still worth £0.75 and if so is that amount going to change ?
Warren
and the reply
For contributors + £0.75 (as before). Please see also the contributor page as any updates would also be made here:
http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors)
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
So no dont think things are about to change anytime soon
-
Truly great communicators. They should have worked in the Nixon White House.
-
It starts to look like they will leave it at this. No more info, no more changes.
The ThinkStockPhoto came at right moment for them dragging much of the attention ...
-
Sounds like a "copy and paste" response.....grrrrrr
-
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid out at £1.
^ Just a portion from FT's reply to Warren.
Am I misunderstanding this. Does is say we are paid at the rate of £1?
-
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid out at £1.
^ Just a portion from FT's reply to Warren.
Am I misunderstanding this. Does is say we are paid at the rate of £1?
massman,
I honestly think its a play on words, think it means that even if buyers go for the £0.63 bundle we still get paid as if they have paid £1 ....... It forgets to say thet our credits are not £1 but £0.75 ....... its just spin they will be using phrases like "In real terms"......... "at todays value" etc, soon.
-
Was Bernie Madoff involved in Fotolia?
-
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid out at £1.
^ Just a portion from FT's reply to Warren.
Am I misunderstanding this. Does is say we are paid at the rate of £1?
Only contributors signed up through British Fotolia are paid at the one Pound rate. (sorry I don't have that symbol on my keyboard), just as those signed up through European Fotolia sites are paid at the rate of one Euro, as I understand it.
If you are in USA then your credit is worth $1.
-
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid out at £1.
^ Just a portion from FT's reply to Warren.
Am I misunderstanding this. Does is say we are paid at the rate of £1?
Only contributors signed up through British Fotolia are paid at the one Pound rate. (sorry I don't have that symbol on my keyboard), just as those signed up through European Fotolia sites are paid at the rate of one Euro, as I understand it.
If you are in USA then your credit is worth $1.
Yeah, but theirs is not worth one pound but 0.75 pound. I really think that's just typo in support's message.
-
Okay, I see, usual FT double talk. A £ is not really a £ it's an FT £, which is sort of like a £, but not really.
-
Okay, I see, usual FT double talk. A £ is not really a £ it's an FT £, which is sort of like a £, but not really.
Be careful...you're starting to sound like them..... :D :D :D
-
Yeah, but theirs is not worth one pound but 0.75 pound. I really think that's just typo in support's message.
Oooops! My mistake. Sorry.
-
I think they would get themselves off the hook more easily just telling the truth in plain English and saying it is out tough luck, rather than pretending that they can't understand.
Or maybe they have been so indoctinated with Fotolese that they don't understand English any longer.
-
This whole thing now smells very fishy to me. All the evasions and double-speak can't be simpley attributed to a language barrier. Either there's an internal conflict at Fotolia, or there's been a de facto decision to simply obfuscate the entire relation between buyer and contributor payments, freeing Fotolia to run any sales and pricing schemes they choose.
I'm giving them a couple more days in which to post a clear and complete statement of how contributors are paid, and I'm not holding my breath expecting one. After that, I'm closing my account. Ironically, it's not about the money - this is a hobby thing for me at present. I just don't want these people (and their so-called "partners") in possession of my images.
-
Anyone know what it would take to start a class action suit?
-
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid out at £1.
^ Just a portion from FT's reply to Warren.
Am I misunderstanding this. Does is say we are paid at the rate of £1?
Only contributors signed up through British Fotolia are paid at the one Pound rate. (sorry I don't have that symbol on my keyboard), just as those signed up through European Fotolia sites are paid at the rate of one Euro, as I understand it.
If you are in USA then your credit is worth $1.
Yeah that right in the states as a contributor your credit woth is $1.00 .... but a buyers credit worth is $1.20
-
It dont matter what you get paid in, Pounds Dollar or the Euro your credit worth is lower than the buyers credit worth.
But Fotolia are saying (with the bundles) the average credit of a buyer is the same as your credit which is true, but at the end of the day if a buyer buys just one credit to buy just one of your photos he will then be paying a lot more for that credit in Fotolia money than Fotolia are giving you for that one credit !!
The only way, as i say, to be on a par with the contributor is to buy into the higher price bundles, and the only reason that then the buyer is paying the same in value of credits is because then Fotolia give extra credits as a bonus and that brings down the price of the credit for the buyer !!
Pheww hope you all understand that ??
-
Pheww hope you all understand that ??
I had to read it 4 times, but I think I finally got what you meant. :)
-
It dont matter what you get paid in, Pounds Dollar or the Euro your credit worth is lower than the buyers credit worth.
But Fotolia are saying (with the bundles) the average credit of a buyer is the same as your credit which is true, but at the end of the day if a buyer buys just one credit to buy just one of your photos he will then be paying a lot more for that credit in Fotolia money than Fotolia are giving you for that one credit !!
The only way, as i say, to be on a par with the contributor is to buy into the higher price bundles, and the only reason that then the buyer is paying the same in value of credits is because then Fotolia give extra credits as a bonus and that brings down the price of the credit for the buyer !!
Pheww hope you all understand that ??
But then it also depends on both the currency used to buy the credit and where the contributor, whose image is downloaded, lives. There's up to a 40% differential on that alone. That's neither fair nor transparent.
-
will ever FT respect contributors??
-
But then it also depends on both the currency used to buy the credit and where the contributor, whose image is downloaded, lives. There's up to a 40% differential on that alone. That's neither fair nor transparent.
Thats always been the case gostwyck, not saying thats right but this value change in the buyers credit only came into effect on the 1st Feb 2010
-
I was going to purchase credits from another photographer so I could reach my payout and bailout, but in order for me to purchase 22 credits, which is all I needed to add to my 28 to cash out, it would cost me $30.00 because their currency was in Euros and mine is in $$$. That's an example of the differences in currencies depending on which one you get paid with.
-
But then it also depends on both the currency used to buy the credit and where the contributor, whose image is downloaded, lives. There's up to a 40% differential on that alone. That's neither fair nor transparent.
Thats always been the case gostwyck, not saying thats right but this value change in the buyers credit only came into effect on the 1st Feb 2010
Exactly. It's unfair, but what we must focus at this moment is in the change of price with stagnant commission.
-
Exactly. It's unfair, but what we must focus at this moment is in the change of price with stagnant commission.
I totaly agree madelaide, but it seems to have died a bit on the fotolia forums and THE CHAD seems to have forgot too !!!
-
here is a link again for the fotolia thread to so you time digging for it
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=289422 (http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=289422)
I just went to look for news - and saw Madelaide's post looking for news, but that was about it :)
-
It's doing exactly what they were waiting for...dieing down. I noticed there hasn't been nearly as much activity about it here on the forum either. Just what they want!
-
It's doing exactly what they were waiting for...dieing down. I noticed there hasn't been nearly as much activity about it here on the forum either. Just what they want!
Unfortunately, for something like that to change we would need massive continuous participation from hundreds of members. Just a few of us will never make a dent. Maybe in time.... Denis
-
And this reply has just come back .......
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid
out at £1.
Fotolia is still able to offer some of the highest commissions in the business. Plus, unlike other stock sites, Fotolia honors free and promotional credits as if they are regular sales.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84
Talk about having your cake and eating it! First he claims that credits are sold for as little as £0.63 but you are still paid as if they were a pound (which you aren't, of course, because your pound is not the same as the customers' pound and we don't even know if any credit is or ever will be sold that cheap). Next he conveniently forgets that he's averaged out the biggest bundle prices to reach the 63p figure, and announces that they are paying full whack on promotional credits given away free - but that only works if all credits are actually £1 or free, the 63p credit ceases to exist even in theory if he uses that calculation.
They must think we are absolute morons to feed us this drivel!
-
I'm trying to keep the topic at the top, or near the top of the forum until we get some kind of official news from Fotolia so we will see :-\
thats the Fotolia forum sorry !
-
I think the reply above is the official news
-
We deleted my husband's portfolio today. No sales, very few pics uploaded, but we don't want to support the system.
-
They also got lucky the whole Thinkstock disaster is distracting peeps away from this i think; makes it die even faster.
My portfolio is deleted now too, also because i'm not supporting their trickeries and am fed up with their attitude.
Website is a few days away from being finished and on my 'stockpage' i'll be posting a notice to buyers about how FT treats it's contributors.
I know the impact will be little to zero, but if it puts even one buyer away from there i'll still feel like i've won ;)
-
They also got lucky the whole Thinkstock disaster is distracting peeps away from this i think; makes it die even faster.
My portfolio is deleted now too, also because i'm not supporting their trickeries and am fed up with their attitude.
Website is a few days away from being finished and on my 'stockpage' i'll be posting a notice to buyers about how FT treats it's contributors.
I know the impact will be little to zero, but if it puts even one buyer away from there i'll still feel like i've won ;)
Just be careful what you say because they could get you for slander so make sure you \ print out any thing said by them on the forums or in person...not that they would do it, but with them, you never know what to expect.
-
yes, i have been thinking about that too donding. I won't put anything there that isn't the truth, just some info on how FT treats it's contributors :)
Also planning to double check with a friend who is a lawyer; might be complex material though since probably every country has it's own rules... either way, with some dry facts that are nothing but the plain truth i suspect little can happen.
-
I looked over all my sales this year and it's subs, subs, subs and more subs. I was pretty worked up over this deal, but if FT is becoming a subs site maybe I should just give up.
-
I am getting lots of 7 credit sales. My earnings have gone up there nicely in the past few months. They do have lots of problems but they are getting sales right for me.
-
I looked over all my sales this year and it's subs, subs, subs and more subs. I was pretty worked up over this deal, but if FT is becoming a subs site maybe I should just give up.
Just over one third of my sales are subs/premium subs there but these amount to a total of about 1/10th of my yearly earnings. Only got a small portfolio and have just canceled subs last week.........give it a month and see how it affects regular sales. Sometimes with new uploads, I get the impression (never applied the rigors of statistical analysis to it) that subs sales may lead to real sales sometimes.
Often a subs sale is followed a few hours later with an L or XL sale. Cannot be the same buyer because they already get L size in their subscription. It's puzzling. I'm wondering if subs buyers maybe get a daily view of all new accepted files that are in subs whereas regular buyers have to search for them?????
-
So I guess Fotolia will win again without giving us an answer. Great.
-
Just over one third of my sales are subs/premium subs there but these amount to a total of about 1/10th of my yearly earnings. Only got a small portfolio and have just canceled subs last week.........give it a month and see how it affects regular sales. Sometimes with new uploads, I get the impression (never applied the rigors of statistical analysis to it) that subs sales may lead to real sales sometimes.
Often a subs sale is followed a few hours later with an L or XL sale. Cannot be the same buyer because they already get L size in their subscription. It's puzzling. I'm wondering if subs buyers maybe get a daily view of all new accepted files that are in subs whereas regular buyers have to search for them?????
(my emphasis)
What do you mean you "cancelled subs"? AFAIK you can't cancel, or opt out of subs on Fotolia unless you are exclusive. Are you exclusive at Fotolia? l
For most of us we are stuck with subs on the sites that have them.
-
Just over one third of my sales are subs/premium subs there but these amount to a total of about 1/10th of my yearly earnings. Only got a small portfolio and have just canceled subs last week.........give it a month and see how it affects regular sales. Sometimes with new uploads, I get the impression (never applied the rigors of statistical analysis to it) that subs sales may lead to real sales sometimes.
Often a subs sale is followed a few hours later with an L or XL sale. Cannot be the same buyer because they already get L size in their subscription. It's puzzling. I'm wondering if subs buyers maybe get a daily view of all new accepted files that are in subs whereas regular buyers have to search for them?????
(my emphasis)
What do you mean you "cancelled subs"? AFAIK you can't cancel, or opt out of subs on Fotolia unless you are exclusive. Are you exclusive at Fotolia? l
For most of us we are stuck with subs on the sites that have them.
Yes. I'm getting a feel for things slowly and I have neither the time nor inclination to submit to the other larger agencies just yet.
-
Yes. I'm getting a feel for things slowly and I have neither the time nor inclination to submit to the other larger agencies just yet.
Ah - that explains it. Thanks for clearing up my confusion :).
I have a feeling that soon the only way to avoid subs will be to go exclusive somewhere.
-
I might try exclusive images but not total RF exclusivity. Fotolia do allow you to submit exclusive images and submit different images elsewhere. I would try that, if they didn't keep changing commissions. I hope none of the other sites do what istock has done and make exclusives only use their site for RF. It is too restrictive for me.
-
Yes. I'm getting a feel for things slowly and I have neither the time nor inclination to submit to the other larger agencies just yet.
Ah - that explains it. Thanks for clearing up my confusion :).
I have a feeling that soon the only way to avoid subs will be to go exclusive somewhere.
Hi Lisa,
I have to say that I'm still having my doubts about canceling subs. I'm nearly 2 weeks into a subsless existence but it seems like the rate of PpD is dropping off from its previous tempo. It's too short a time to judge and, quite honestly, my portfolio is too small but I'm keeping a wary eye on it. I have noticed that the views/newly uploaded images is slower than it was with subs. But I just hate getting 30+ pence for an "L".............that's robbery.
-
I'm nearly 2 weeks into a subsless existence but it seems like the rate of PpD is dropping off from its previous tempo. It's too short a time to judge and, quite honestly, my portfolio is too small but I'm keeping a wary eye on it.
I'm pretty sure that opting out of subs, even if you could, would impact on the sort-order position of your images and therefore affect PPD sales too. As far as I'm aware a sub-sale still counts for the purposes of assessing the popularity of an image. I doubt that the impact would become evident within a couple weeks though.
The fact that FT were relatively slow to introduce subs (as indeed were IS via Getty/Thinkstock) suggests to me that agencies, generally speaking, don't like subs any more than their contributors do. However there is obviously a significant market for subs and presumably the agencies find them profitable.
-
I'm nearly 2 weeks into a subsless existence but it seems like the rate of PpD is dropping off from its previous tempo. It's too short a time to judge and, quite honestly, my portfolio is too small but I'm keeping a wary eye on it.
I'm pretty sure that opting out of subs, even if you could, would impact on the sort-order position of your images and therefore affect PPD sales too. As far as I'm aware a sub-sale still counts for the purposes of assessing the popularity of an image. I doubt that the impact would become evident within a couple weeks though.
The fact that FT were relatively slow to introduce subs (as indeed were IS via Getty/Thinkstock) suggests to me that agencies, generally speaking, don't like subs any more than their contributors do. However there is obviously a significant market for subs and presumably the agencies find them profitable.
Thanks for that info about sort order of images. I've checked on views/per day and there is no detectable change yet. On the other hand, from my tiny portfolio, I was often getting 2 or 3 PPD per day and the odd subs download. PPD sales were regular until I stopped subs. Now I have the feeling that they're less regular. I give it a month and report back with some figures.
-
The thread was closed at Fotolia.
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25258&p=5 (http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25258&p=5)
Sad; very sad. :-[
I guess this is why most of the big players do not get involved. Now I just need to figure out what I want to do since most seem to have given up.
-
The thread was closed at Fotolia.
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25258&p=5[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25258&p=5[/url])
Sad; very sad. :-[
I guess this is why most of the big players do not get involved. Now I just need to figure out what I want to do since most seem to have given up.
I already deleted all but about 100 photos....I'm waiting for my payout. I won't upload to them any more. What has happened is exactly they wanted...for it to die down and everyone just forget about it.
-
There's a weirdness to this that's hard to fathom. The questions were straightforward. It would have been easy to answer them, even if the answer was basically "that's the way it is, we hope you'll stay on". The obfuscation and avoidance imply something else is in the works - or maybe interpersonal conflict within Fotolia.
-
There's a weirdness to this that's hard to fathom. The questions were straightforward. It would have been easy to answer them, even if the answer was basically "that's the way it is, we hope you'll stay on". The obfuscation and avoidance imply something else is in the works - or maybe interpersonal conflict within Fotolia.
Exactly...by them avoiding the subject just made matters worse in my mind...maybe not in everyone's.....but in mine. Like you said they should have at least explained what happened and had a response that made sense rather than the run around we got. We still don't have a straight forward answer and doubt that we ever will....at least not until the next price cut!!
-
I'm stubborn, and I sent them another site mail.
-
Well dont understand why the thread was closed .... yeah people somtimes disagree but if you dont talk and thrash it out you dont get anywhere.
Guess thats it we will just have to get on with it and see if any news from Fotolia is forthcoming :-\
Shame such a simple thing as an honest reply could not be given to the contributors who fotolia say they respect
-
I'm stubborn, and I sent them another site mail.
Let us know if they actually give you a straight answer
-
I'm stubborn, and I sent them another site mail.
Let us know if they actually give you a straight answer
Don't bet they will. ;D
-
I sent multiple emails. None got me anywhere. What I am upset about is that they just flat out don't care to discuss the issue. The thread getting closed without any Fotolia response tells me that once again.
It's the same old thing.
I wonder if the dying of the issue is really others just doing what they need to do to go exclusive with IS? It would be nice to hear from everyone again on this thread as to what they think.
-
Now unless I'm stupid and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this go against everything they said about nothing changing???
11-06-09 subscription XL .35 credits
12-23-09 subscription XL .35 credits
02-12-10 subscription XL .25 credits !!!!!
Do I see the writing on the wall or is there some other reason this would be less?
-
Now unless I'm stupid and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this go against everything they said about nothing changing???
11-06-09 subscription XL .35 credits
12-23-09 subscription XL .35 credits
02-12-10 subscription XL .25 credits !!!!!
Do I see the writing on the wall or is there some other reason this would be less?
You should definitely contact support and ask what's going on.
I just checked, and I've had (too) many XL & XXL sub sales recently (3 today so far), and they are all at the same, old price.
-
Now unless I'm stupid and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this go against everything they said about nothing changing???
11-06-09 subscription XL .35 credits
12-23-09 subscription XL .35 credits
02-12-10 subscription XL .25 credits !!!!!
Do I see the writing on the wall or is there some other reason this would be less?
You should definitely contact support and ask what's going on.
I just checked, and I've had (too) many XL & XXL sub sales recently (3 today so far), and they are all at the same, old price.
Are you in the US or some where else. I am going to contact support about it to find out what the excuse is. Did you get .35 credits for yours?
I just noticed I had a sale on 01-19-10 for a XS standard .18 credit
The ones that sold as that last year I would get .30 credit
This just doesn't make sense!!
-
Now unless I'm stupid and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this go against everything they said about nothing changing???
11-06-09 subscription XL .35 credits
12-23-09 subscription XL .35 credits
02-12-10 subscription XL .25 credits !!!!!
Do I see the writing on the wall or is there some other reason this would be less?
Looks like a USA sale for me (mine are 32c non USA and 22c USA)
-
How do you know if it's a US sale or not? I was just going back in history and 2008 XS standard was .33.....then the beginning of 2009 they drop it to .30....now they go for .18
-
Now unless I'm stupid and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this go against everything they said about nothing changing???
11-06-09 subscription XL .35 credits
12-23-09 subscription XL .35 credits
02-12-10 subscription XL .25 credits !!!!!
Do I see the writing on the wall or is there some other reason this would be less?
You should definitely contact support and ask what's going on.
I just checked, and I've had (too) many XL & XXL sub sales recently (3 today so far), and they are all at the same, old price.
Are you in the US or some where else. I am going to contact support about it to find out what the excuse is. Did you get .35 credits for yours?
I just noticed I had a sale on 01-19-10 for a XS standard .18 credit
The ones that sold as that last year I would get .30 credit
This just doesn't make sense!!
I'm in the US. I get .37 credits for mine (but I'm recently Silver). All the XS sales I looked at (out of my last 100) were .31 credits, except for those before I turned Silver, when I got .28 credits. Last year I was getting .32 credits (at Bronze), but that was before the recent commission cut. :'(
-
Now unless I'm stupid and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this go against everything they said about nothing changing???
11-06-09 subscription XL .35 credits
12-23-09 subscription XL .35 credits
02-12-10 subscription XL .25 credits !!!!!
Do I see the writing on the wall or is there some other reason this would be less?
You should definitely contact support and ask what's going on.
I just checked, and I've had (too) many XL & XXL sub sales recently (3 today so far), and they are all at the same, old price.
Are you in the US or some where else. I am going to contact support about it to find out what the excuse is. Did you get .35 credits for yours?
I just noticed I had a sale on 01-19-10 for a XS standard .18 credit
The ones that sold as that last year I would get .30 credit
This just doesn't make sense!!
I'm in the US. I get .37 credits for mine (but I'm recently Silver). All the XS sales I looked at (out of my last 100) were .31 credits, except for those before I turned Silver, when I got .28 credits. Last year I was getting .32 credits (at Bronze), but that was before the recent commission cut. :'(
I've been with them over two years and only received one payout of 54.00...I currently have 31.00 in there. Fotolia has always been my worst site. I'm at the lowest of the low level. I can really see the fall in prices since my level hasn't changed. I'll be old with grey hair by the time I get another pay out from them at this rate!
-
How do you know if it's a US sale or not? I was just going back in history and 2008 XS standard was .33.....then the beginning of 2009 they drop it to .30....now they go for .18
Go to My Credits. Some sales are marked "(withholdings included at 30%)".
-
How do you know if it's a US sale or not? I was just going back in history and 2008 XS standard was .33.....then the beginning of 2009 they drop it to .30....now they go for .18
Go to My Credits. Some sales are marked "(withholdings included at 30%)".
I didn't find any examples of sales like that (I looked through my last 400 or so). But I did find this one that others have mentioned:
Buyer's Wire transfer rejected (Photo Buy credit, 06-12-2009 09:51:51 am)
So it took them over seven months to figure out the buyer's wire transfer was rejected? Sheesh!
-
How do you know if it's a US sale or not? I was just going back in history and 2008 XS standard was .33.....then the beginning of 2009 they drop it to .30....now they go for .18
Go to My Credits. Some sales are marked "(withholdings included at 30%)".
All the sales I've made in 2010 have that "withholdings included at 28%" So does that mean they were sales sold in the US?
Since Fotolia is such a terrible site for me and there has been no status change for me as far as a raise in credits, I'm going to go back to Jan 2008 and figure how much each type of sale has dropped and ask them for an answer. We'll see if they stick to their.."there have been no changes"
Do you remember the date when they made that mistake of posting the wrong credits? I want to make sure I got the dates right
-
All the sales I've made in 2010 have that "withholdings included at 28%" So does that mean they were sales sold in the US?
ALL sales? Maybe you are looking the "Withholding" tab, that only shows the sales in which they retain a % (30% in my case) - yes, those are USA sales because only sales in USA are taxable. If you go to "My Credits" tab, you will probably see the regular non-US sales too.
-
All the sales I've made in 2010 have that "withholdings included at 28%" So does that mean they were sales sold in the US?
ALL sales? Maybe you are looking the "Withholding" tab, that only shows the sales in which they retain a % (30% in my case) - yes, those are USA sales because only sales in USA are taxable. If you go to "My Credits" tab, you will probably see the regular non-US sales too.
Thats where I went was to the My Credits tab. I finally filled out one of their tax forms...so I don't know why they still show that coming out of my sales.
Any way just some quick figuring..in Jan 08 I was getting .33 for 1 credit.
Starting in mid Mar 08 I was getting .30 for 1 credit
As of Jan 10 I am getting .18 for 1 credit
I've only made two EL sales off of there and the first was in April of 08...made $6.60
The 2nd was the 11th of Feb this year for a whooping $3.60
Then I noticed their Sub sales..all sizes... use to always be .30.
Then in Oct 09 the L Sub went for .35 and the same for the XL
Then the L Sub dropped to .30 but XL stayed at .35
Now the Sub L goes for .22.....XL for .25
-
I just sent a message to customer service with this question
"Was just wondering what percent do we as the photographer make on a sale of our photo with a standard license. I don't understand the way credits work so please tell me what the percentage is."
I'm being nice about it until I get an answer out of them and then we'll see if it adds up. If I don't get an answer then I'll start bugging them and show them what I discovered going back through my sales history. They'll probably end up kicking me off there and I loss my whopping 31.00... :o
-
My guess is this is just coincidence, but never had so many such low price sales in row there. The volume is nowhere near the SS and so rows like this make for a huge drop in earnings (yet my sample is obviously small).
Last 17 or so sales:
0.36 -- Subscription
0.36 -- Subscription
0.28 -- XS
0.36 -- Subscription
1.4
0.36 -- Subscription
0.31 -- Subscription
0.28 -- XS
0.84
0.28 -- XS
0.36 -- Subscription
0.31 -- Subscription
0.28 -- XS
0.36 -- Subscription
0.31 -- Subscription
0.31 -- Subscription
0.31 -- Subscription
-
All the sales I've made in 2010 have that "withholdings included at 28%" So does that mean they were sales sold in the US?
ALL sales? Maybe you are looking the "Withholding" tab, that only shows the sales in which they retain a % (30% in my case) - yes, those are USA sales because only sales in USA are taxable. If you go to "My Credits" tab, you will probably see the regular non-US sales too.
Nope , it happened to me , if you don't sent them that W-8 BEN Form ( if you are in the country that hasn't signed a tax treaty with the U.S like in my case) they are withholding tax on every file sold, it was 28% in my case , when I sent them that online form they started to withhold only on US sales i assume and its 30% now
-
Well, ok then. I've sent the form and they only collect 30% of USA sales.
But then what are the 35c subs in donding's sales?
-
They responded very quickly. Here's their response:
Question Was just wondering what percent do we as the photographer make on a sale of our photo with a standard license. I don't understand the way credits work so please tell me what the percentage is.
Answers:
Fotolia : Dear ,
Thank you for your e-mail. You can find all this information by visiting http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors)
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.S
718-577-1321
Royalty-free Images Starting at $1: www.fotolia.com (http://www.fotolia.com)
Follow us on Twitter:twitter.com/FotoliaUSA
Join our Facebook Fan Page: www.facebook.com/Fotolia (http://www.facebook.com/Fotolia) 02-19-2010 04:18 pm
Now when you go to the page that they say contains the information it says the royalties "Most royalties are between 25% and 65%" Of course I'd be at 25% because I still a white rank.
Now .18 cents for a XS standard is not .25%, but is 18% if 1 credit is still a dollar. Funny thing is I made a XS standard sale today and 1 credit was .25 cents. I think they noticed their screw up. I'm going to point the .18 cent sales to them...Even the EL license sold for 20 credits for 3.60 which translate into .18 cents.
Gotta put alot of thought into this letter to them so it is in plan
English so they have to give me a straight answer...hopefully!!
-
^^ Are you accounting for the tax witholding? The % they promise are before tax witholding.
-
Old credits?
-
^^ Are you accounting for the tax witholding? The % they promise are before tax witholding.
I filled out the withholding tax thingy on Feb 7, it wasn't validated until Feb 16. I hope they refund the withholding's. That .18 cents is minus the 28%. We'll see what happens where that is concerned. I had already sent the letter to administration before I read this.
The web page you gave me to look at for the percentage we get for sales shows 25% for a white ranting. That doesn't make sense.
I had a sale on 1-19-10 for a XS standard = 1 credit for .18 cents.
I had another sale on 1-29-10 for a XL standard = 8 credits for $1.44..that still equals .18 cents a credit.
I had another sale on 2-11-10 for a EL license = 20 credits for 3.60...again that equals .18 cents a credit.
That is 18% not 25%.
There was also a sale on 12-23-09 for a Sub XL for .35 cents.
Then a sale for another Sub XL on 2-12-10 for .25 cents....That's a 10 cent drop.
You said that nothing had changed at the contributors end after the recent mix up with the buyers credits increased from $1.00 to $1.20. Why in the world would our percentages go down rather than stay the same or increase???
We'll see what they say. I am so sick of these people!!
-
My latest 20 sales were:
- 4 XS @ 0.31 credits
- 4 S @ 0.93 credits
- 1 M @ 1.085 credits (USA)
- 1 L @ 2.17 credits
- 7 regular subs @ 0.32 credits
- 1 regular subs @ 0.22 credits (USA)
- 2 premium subs @ 0.37 credits
RPD: 0.57
RPD ex-subs: 0.82
-
My latest 20 sales were:
- 5 XS @ 0.31 credits
- 1 S @ 0.93 credits
- 5 M @ 1.55 credits
- 4 regular subs @ 0.32 credits
- 5 premium subs @ 0.37 credits
RPD: 0.67
RPD ex-subs: 0.93
My average RPD last year at FT was 0.77 (including ELs, however -- I don't break them out).
-
My last 20 Sales commissions at FT were the following:
3 xs @ .18
5 sm @ .22
1 m @ .30
2 L @ .35
1 XL @ .54
5 XXL @ .90
3 X @ 1.26
I am guessing at the pairings of the sizes due to the prices they've shown next to each sale ...
I am a few sales away from the next cannister level. I need to make that soon ...
-Mark
-
Actually this month I am at 20 sales!
- 2 XS @ 0.25 credits
- 1 XS @ 0.23 credits (USA)
- 2 S @ 0.75 credits
- 3 M @ 1.25 credits
- 3 XL @ 2 credits
- 1 XL @ 1.75 credits (USA)
- 1 EL @ 4.5 credits (USA)
- 5 regular subs @ 0.30 credits
- 2 premium subs @ 0.35 credits
RPD: 1.04
RPD ex-subs: 1.40
I am also near the bronze level!