MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Randy McKown on April 06, 2010, 20:29
-
Recently a buyer contacted me and happened to mentioned they had purchased an image from me through a FT partner .. they had bought it at non-sub prices ... got me curious so I looked in my FT earnings and saw that FT paid me for a sub sale. I looked a few pages deep and found more partner sales ... all of which I was paid sub-sale percentages. I'm thinking ok a 8% commission is just not cool.
Then I started looking into FT's new project Photoexpress. Through Photoexpress a buyer can get a subscription for $10 a month and have access to all of FT's free files plus 1 premium download. In other words FT is selling one of your images for $10 through a subscription process on a partner site which they own. So this made me ask .. ok can FT now sale our images for $10 a pop and pay us a 3% commission? This is a huge concern for me so I contacted FT about it.
I asked FT if one of my images uploaded to FT was sold through Photoexpress as a premium download what would I be paid? ... here was their reply ...
"Thank you for your e-mail. Please note that we are a separate company and we have no Photoxpress customer service department here. For more information please contact the Customer Service department from the Photoxpress site."
That sounds like a stupid reply ... why would Photoexpress tell me how much FT is going to pay me?
Ok so I emailed them again further explaining I do not have an account with Photoexpress and that my images showing on Photoexpress are premium images in my FT account .. I didn't put them there FT did and when I get paid on a partner sale FT is going to be the one who pays me .. now tell me how much I am going to be paid?
and here's FT's next reply ...
"Please note that some of your files were added into our API Free section, and they have been payed to you by Fotolia already. PhotoXpress is a sister website of Fotolia and all free files are currently showing on the same data base. For more information please contact PhotoXpress customer service."
What the F**K are they talking about ?!?!?!?! These are premium files in everyone's accounts that we make our living from. They are not free files. I made it clear I was talking about the premium files they are selling so why don't they want to tell us how much they are going to pay us.
Ok at this point I'm thinking it's a bunch of total BS but I'm going to play along and contact the Photoexpress people just for giggles. I ask how much will FT contributors be paid on PREMIUM image sales.
and here we go with the Photoexpress (AKA FT) reply ...
"Dear Randy, Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately PhotoXpress does not provide any royalties to members. Please note that Fotolia has already payed the contributors for those images, when adding them into the Free API section. Kind regards, PhotoXpress C.S. Department"
If I was a postal worker I'd be loading my gun right now. I feel like I'm talking to Sean Penn in a bad remake of I am Sam. Are these employees IQs so incredibly low that they cannot understand the difference between .. "How much will I be paid for a Premium sale?" and "Will I be paid for free image downloads?" ... I don't think so .. that would be pretty F'in bad. The only logically conclusion I can come up with is that ... FT does not want us to know how much they intend to give us ... if anything at all. At this point I would totally not be surprised if images were being sold and not reported.
I have absolutely no trust for FT at this point. I strongly urge everybody here to start paying attention to what's going on. How much money have you lost? For those who FT is your highest earner .. you should REALLY be looking into this .. because chances are you're getting the big stiff one harder and faster than everybody else.
Everyone should remember that yeah FT makes a lot of sales ... but if we don't upload to them the buyers go elsewhere .. they don't just up and shut their design businesses down. If FT was unable to produce fresh content buyers would just move over to SS, DT and IS ... which would mean more sales and faster payouts. The problem is too many hobbyist and the lack of microstockers organizing into a collective where we can have the power to make demands. At this rate I'm seeing this as my last year in FT.
Ok I'm done. If anyone doubts FT's intentions contact them for yourself and see if they give you the runaround too. I'd love to see some black n white facts on how exactly we are being paid for partner sales and FT's new Evil Empire Photoexpress.
Don't be a bunch of punks and just stand there .. or should I say bend over .. and let FT smack it to ya. Do something about it.
-
People who reply to email at FT seem not to read the sender's message other than a couple of loose words... I often need to send a second email.
How do you know that premium images are from FT's commercial collection? Is it written somewhere?
-
2 minutes of searching and I probably saw a thousand images of mine that are all premium files for sale on FT ... they have FT watermarks all over them and a huge ribbon that reads "PREMIUM" ... It's totally obvious and to the point yet FT refuses to answer on the subject.
-
I think you just helped me make up my mind to finally pull out of Fotolia.
I'd been thinking I'd wait for my next payout, which with my dinky portfolio takes a long time; now I'd like to close the account immediately. Has anyone on this forum recently closed their FT account and received payment of their current earnings, without a big hassle?
-
I think Fotolia's customer service is constantly working on perfecting their Abbot and Costello "Who's on first?" routine. That said, Fotolia seemed to insinuate that you had opted into something in their response (too vague to know for sure though). How did your portfolio get on there? I saw some people that looked like they had most of their images on there, but I didn't see any of mine.
I hope you can get a clear answer. These partner programs definitely seem a little devious at times, so I feel your suspicion (and pain). I think if Fotolia ever crosses the line too far, I'll be back on that IS exclusive fence. :-\
-
I think you just helped me make up my mind to finally pull out of Fotolia.
The problem (for me) is a bit that the income share from FT is on the rise, and that from DT is going down. Money doesn't smell. Of course Randy is right, but there is nothing you can do about it, in a market where new (and good) image suppliers pop up every second.
-
It sounds like $9.99 for 30 images (one a day) so it is roughly .30 per download. for buyer. How much did you get?
-
i think this is quite serious. any options to opt out from partner sales ?
-
Then I started looking into FT's new project Photoexpress. Through Photoexpress a buyer can get a subscription for $10 a month and have access to all of FT's free files plus 1 premium download. In other words FT is selling one of your images for $10 through a subscription process on a partner site which they own. So this made me ask .. ok can FT now sale our images for $10 a pop and pay us a 3% commission? This is a huge concern for me so I contacted FT about it.
Hello Randy, firstly I think everybody agree that Fotolia are and have been the worst communicator of all sites. It does show in the kind of replies you did get from them. However, without wanting to be a FT defender, I would like to point out that from what I can understand from the Photoexpress subsriptions page at http://www.photoxpress.com/Info/Upgrade (http://www.photoxpress.com/Info/Upgrade) that our photos are not sold at $10 a pop. That $9.99 deal is a subscription deal for which a buyer would have to pay $9.99 a month for a minimum of three months and would give him/her the right to download a maximum of 1 premium image a day for which I guess we get .32 per download. I still don't like subscription but I think this scenario is better then the one you presented. Denis
-
It sounds like $9.99 for 30 images (one a day) so it is roughly .30 per download. for buyer. How much did you get?
Good catch .. I overlooked that (one a day) but while they are not getting a crazy amount like I originally thought I still feel very uncomfortable with the fact that they are refusing to tell me what our precentages will be .. there is no reason why they should not be able to answer such an easy question with ... contributors will be paid X amount .. instead they are opting to completely avoid answering the question. I have went back n forth with multiple emails to both FT and Photoexpress and nobody will comment on what they intend to pay us. If I ran my studio with that same attitude I can guarantee I would lose all of my clients. An ethical business does not operate in that manner.
I haven't seen any partner sales that came from FT's new photoexpress but it's only a week or two old now I think. From their responses I trust them enough to believe they might pay us a couple pennies or nothing at all.
i think this is quite serious. any options to opt out from partner sales ?
I've searched and asked the same question before and from what I understand there is no way to opt out. If you're uploading they do whatever they want.
-
i think this is quite serious. any options to opt out from partner sales ?
I think sooner or later satellite partner sites will be future of microstock and they will not allow contributors to opt out :-)
-
It sounds to me like a subscription site that is allowing you to DL only free images except for one premium DL per day. I much prefer this to 10 premium DLs per day which would be more like the normal.
-
Don't agree at all with this. As and example in the last few hours I have sold an extra small image for 9 credits giving me 4.32$ and a small for 11 credits giving me 6.35$. I don't get these sort of commisions anywhere else for small and extrasmall images.
, and that from DT is going down.
-
Don't agree at all with this. As and example in the last few hours I have sold an extra small image for 9 credits giving me 4.32$ and a small for 11 credits giving me 6.35$. I don't get these sort of commisions anywhere else for small and extrasmall images.
, and that from DT is going down.
I agree .. my commission per download on DT is way higher than anywhere else.
-
Between this, their monkeying around with the whole "exchange rate" issue, opting you into stuff, etc... I think Fotolia is really sleazy. At least Getty tries to explain why and how they are raping you... Fotolia just seems to do it and try to hide it.
-
I think you just helped me make up my mind to finally pull out of Fotolia.
The problem (for me) is a bit that the income share from FT is on the rise, and that from DT is going down. Money doesn't smell. Of course Randy is right, but there is nothing you can do about it, in a market where new (and good) image suppliers pop up every second.
This is why the agencies continue to do whatever they want... To paraphrase: "I know it sucks, but it's too much money to give up just because they're wrong. As long as they lube me up and caress my cheek, I'll keep taking it."
-
Ah yes, the legendary FTL support. They mastered the skill of question-dodging. How to answer your questions without answering the question - no one is better in that, they the real masters. First it was annoying but now I find it more and more funny every time I read a story about it.
I tell you the secret counter action: never ask them anything you don't already know the answer for.
-
The list of reasons I don't like fotolia is growing and growing...
20 % of my microstock-income is the reason on the other hand.
...
-
... and the RPD at fotolia get smaller and smaller...
-
The list of reason why I DO like Fotolia is growing and growing :)
They are the only agency where income is constantly growing and growing from year to year. I mean significantly not with 50$s
-
Sure, last month at Fotolia I had a BME.
But for me, as a vector artist, other agencys have a better RPD.
And not only at Fotolia I had a BME last month. ;)
And the spring-sun is shining ! :D
-
For me it's not growing....it's getting worse every month. It's growing on Istock.
-
in Germany its already well-known that fotolia is not a trustworthy partner.
I also deleted my account at fotolia couple of months ago!
-
I've always wondered whether there is a possibility that the agencies do not show all the sales of our pictures?
It seems that we will in future need to have some "framework" for legal representation...
Until then, we need to know that We are guilty, because we do not have the courage to migrate out portfolios at fair Agencies...
-
This is a severe accusation, do not judge them before you hear them. Ah , I forgot they don't talk. Anyway I am sure they don't cheat but it would be nice to hear their voice.
-
This is a severe accusation, do not judge them before you hear them. Ah , I forgot they don't talk. Anyway I am sure they don't cheat but it would be nice to hear their voice.
They don't cheat; just hide or twist the truth.
Good riddance for me still.
-
What is funny to me is how they SELL our ( I mean your because I don't ) FREE images; BUT I do not hear anyone talking about that.
How do you SELL FREE images?
-
This is a severe accusation, do not judge them before you hear them. Ah , I forgot they don't talk. Anyway I am sure they don't cheat but it would be nice to hear their voice.
Are you talking to me...?
I do not condemn anyone, just wondering is it possible something like that, only because discussions like this...
-
My reply is directed towards Randy's messages.
I disagree with the Subject. It should be Is FT ramming us from Behind AGAIN ? ? ? ? ?
To answer your question about loss or gain, I either lost everything or nothing when I pulled out of FT and left one photo behind as a place holder. I have piece of mind and I don't think they really miss me. Mutual separation, everyone is happy.
As for the Who's on First routine, it's only a follow-up to the Three Stooges act, when they were flossing people with the tax withholding, which cost some folks money, which they aren't returning, asked for forms that cost money, sent out forms that the IRS wouldn't accept and in all, screwed the pooch. (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1252/3stoogesx.gif)
Then they came around and "fixed" it and some people wrote thank you notes! Thank you for stopping, screwing with us?
Please sir, can I have some more?
-
I've always wondered whether there is a possibility that the agencies do not show all the sales of our pictures?
It seems that we will in future need to have some "framework" for legal representation...
Until then, we need to know that We are guilty, because we do not have the courage to migrate out portfolios at fair Agencies...
I started similar thread long ago and everyone attacked me because I even thought that agencies can hide sales from us. Of course it's possible and it's very easy to do. I live in a country where almost every company has double books in the end of a month. One book for them selves and another one for the tax service. But lets hope agencies don't do this....
-
How do you SELL FREE images?
It's called subscription.
-
Half of my photos appear on this site with a premium banner. What makes them premium and not the rest (or have they not migrated everything yet?).
They are selling a subscription package for $10 per month and buyers can download one full size photo per day. There is a 3 month commitment required, so for $30, customers can download 90 photos that would cost around $900 on Istock. And then turn around and sell them on a disk, of course.
It is just not right to support a site that would do anything this naive. I've never been happy with FT in the first place, but the hypocrite in me is saying "What???? Quit and lose 12% of my earnings????"
Are we going to collectively do anything about this?
-
Think global, act local, it's the only way.
-
Are we going to collectively do anything about this?
Actions speak louder than words. The only way they are going to take notice is if the majority of contributors stop uploading (or remove their portfolios) in protest.
-
>:( WOW! I am always shocked and disappointed when I hear about this kind of stuff happening to artists.
As co-owner and 100% involved partner of ClipartOf.com I would never, ever, EVER treat our artists this way! If an artist asks a question, they get the honest answer from us, even if it sucks! We dont give the run around and neither should any other site.
What did your agreement say regarding distribution and commissions when you joined FT?
Frankly I feel that FT is majorly in the wrong and this is a big joke. If FT is the one paying you for your earnings they better dang well know what is going on and they better give you the information that you are requesting as it is their responsibility to do so, being as you are not a direct contributor of Photoexpress, FT is technically acting as your "agent" and needs to let you know what your earnings will be. You should also have an option to opt out of the Photoexpress site since apparently they are a whole different operation.
Its amazing what artists will put up with these days just to make money, but the truth is that you are being gypped even if you think are making the big bucks. You could be making more. You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!
Jamie
http://www.clipartof.com/ (http://www.clipartof.com/)
Sorry we are not accepting contributors at this time. We want to remain personable with our current artists. However feel free to keep checking back. When we are ready to take on more artists, we will have an artist application link somewhere on the site.
-
accidentally hit the quote button for the comment above instead of modify... sorry.
-
As for the Who's on First routine, it's only a follow-up to the Three Stooges act, when they were flossing people with the tax withholding, which cost some folks money, which they aren't returning, asked for forms that cost money, sent out forms that the IRS wouldn't accept and in all, screwed the pooch.
LMAO oh yeah their 28% tax rate was a joke.
You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!
Well put Jamie ;D
-
...
Its amazing what artists will put up with these days just to make money, but the truth is that you are being gypped even if you think are making the big bucks. You could be making more. You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!
...
Well, and to be fair, I think it's widely viewed that FT is the only micro agency that doesn't operate completely above board. I'm very happy to be where I am, and I'm not being "gypped" (a racist slur (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gypped), you should know) or "walked all over", that's for sure.
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
-
I think you just helped me make up my mind to finally pull out of Fotolia.
I'd been thinking I'd wait for my next payout, which with my dinky portfolio takes a long time; now I'd like to close the account immediately. Has anyone on this forum recently closed their FT account and received payment of their current earnings, without a big hassle?
I emailed them a couple of days ago asking if they would pay my earnings if I closed my account....haven't heard back yet but will let you know
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
The thing is, there are really no alternatives. Only very few agencies give out 50% or more to the contributor, and these are often the low earner agencies (not including ClipartOf). There are no way for me to get compensated if I take down my illustrations from FT, IS, SS, DT and so on - in other words I need the money. If I were to choose ClipartOf as my exclusive agency for selling my images I would have to sign away approximately 90% of my total earnings. So I have to accept iStocks 20% and I have to believe that a huge slice of their 80% cut is spent wisely on advertising and promotional campaigns. That said, I wish more agencies would split the royalties evenly like ClipartOf, but I don't think that's ever going to happen as it would take an entire revolution among microstock contributors. Untill then, the major agencies will keep driving down commissions simply because there's nothing stopping them. Just my thoughts
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
I used to think like that but then I realized it is much better to have 20% of a large amount of sales than 50% of hardly any. I don't like sites lowering commissions unless they increase my earnings and istock only get away with low commissions because they have such high sales volume but even though I like the thought of 50% or more commission, I prefer making more money.
Perhaps those that put up with low sales volume and not being able to reach payment levels are the ones that really don't value their work?
-
Dont get me wrong. I think its very important for artists to license their images at as many places as possible. I also think exclusivity is a bad thing. Having your work at just one site really restricts your possibilities of sales.
I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
The thing is, there are really no alternatives. Only very few agencies give out 50% or more to the contributor, and these are often the low earner agencies ...
Exactly! Absolutely I would love to be paid a minimum of 50% of every sale. If I made the rules I would be. But I didn't make the rules - I joined this game with the rules already in place.
Before I started selling at Istock in 2005 I kept 100% from every sale of my images. All 3 or 4 a year. But it's too late to go back to that. My family likes to eat, use electricity, and have a roof over our heads...
-
I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.
In principle I'd agree with you __ but the real world just doesn't seem to work like that. We've had plenty of agencies paying 50% or more but the truth is they couldn't compete against the marketing power of the agencies that paid out less. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Google makes more money from microstock images than the contributors do.
-
To me, even if I can't contribute there, an agency that pays 50% and plays fair, deserves respect, no matter the volume of sales.
But what happens some times if that this behaviour is used to attract contributors. When a great numbers of contributors have been attracted and they have a great number of costumers, things can change.
-
That is very true, loop, unfortunately... But if people stopped getting greedy and did the hard work themselves there is no need to decrease the earning percentage. We have better plans than that over here :)
-
That is very true, loop, unfortunately... But if people stopped getting greedy and did the hard work themselves there is no need to decrease the earning percentage. We have better plans than that over here :)
Jamie, I have always respected and appreciated your great attitude toward contributors back when you were on Acclaim. In fact I quit that site when you left, partly as a result of a post you made on another forum. :)
If clipartof.com handled stock photos, and if you were accepting new contributors, then it would certainly be a good alternative. Unfortunately, though, for photographers it just isn't an option.
Please be sure to let us know if/when that changes. Meanwhile, we will have to live with what's available to us...
-
I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.
In principle I'd agree with you __ but the real world just doesn't seem to work like that. We've had plenty of agencies paying 50% or more but the truth is they couldn't compete against the marketing power of the agencies that paid out less. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Google makes more money from microstock images than the contributors do.
haha, yeah very good point.
I think it is great and cool if sites scrape a hefty 60 or 80% of our sales and if they use that money to generate more and more sales... from NEW buyers. Unfortunatly I really doubt that is the case. I think a more accurate picture is that they are mostly fighting amoungst the customers that already exist. If sites are using their exorbant % to just fight over customers amoungst themselves then it is not cool. How can DT compete against FT, iStock and SS when the later 3 sites take ~30% more of our earnings and advertise more and potentially steal away DT's customers.
Note to self: work hard at promoting sites that I feel give photographers a good deal. When you link your images, or send a link to a future buyer, link them to the site that you feel gives you the best deal.
-
The site that gave me the best deal was Zymmetrical :( Its too late for them but I would like to see more done to support sites that treat us well. Perhaps having an annual contributors Gold, Silver and Bronze award would be a good idea? It could be used to bring some free publicity to the sites and perhaps make the buyers aware that some sites are much better to work with than others.
Instead of all these threads complaining about the way we are being treated, I would like to see more ideas about making the sites we like more successful.
-
Hi guys!
Maybe I'm gliding slightly of subject, but I couldn't start a new thread, so here we go..
How about this:
We make a list of x things that are completely unacceptable by F (maybe followed by suggestions of how they could improve each of those things).
We announce that due to these things we will suspend uploading from for example mid May to mid June.
We spreed the word wherever possible, and in very good time. We make a running count (people remain anonymous) of how many will participate in the protest – a crowing number in the time up until the protest can maybe motivate some. There could also be a list for them with huge balls that want to have their name public.
Many of us have too much to loose by closing our accounts or even coming public about our views on how they run their business. Big and small players could in this way anonymously protest collectively and largely without consequences.
Depending on how many and how big F victims joins the protest, it can potentially give F a small reminder of who is actually making the products they sell. Maybe it will reach some buyers and new contributors and raise awareness of the unethical behavior of this company.
Its a very loose idea that just came to mind, and I'd be happy if any would follow up constructively on this suggestion.
-
A noble idea but I doubt you will be able to round up much of a posse. At this point, even if someone at FT issued a coherent, grammatical and meaningful response (highly unlikely), it would have little credibility. I'd give 20-1 odds there would be no response at all.
-
A few of us have suspended our accounts at FT. I deleted all but two of my images, just as someone else had posted. I would gladly sign a petition and participate in a boycott. And, my name has already been linked to the "sh.t List."
I've only been here a short while but have seen many of these "let's organize" threads. It never seems to happen. :'(
-
Is there an existing union that would take us on? For example perhaps the Stock Artists Alliance? We would not have to become a part of the current union, but they could create a new one for us. Like the Teamsters have separate unions all over the place that cater to different needs.
I know at one time SAA had a real hate on for micro, but I'm sure their attitude must have cooled in the last few years with so many crossing over.
Unions are really businesses, the Teamsters have offices all over the place with paid staff and they are all about making money. I doubt we can ever form an alliance on our own. There needs to be someone who will benefit from managing it, and a cash incentive to fight the fights for us.
-
There is a proliferation of photographers (and illustrators) who join one or more microstock sites every day. There are 50 (probably more) new shooters who replace any 1 who deletes their account. As in any profession, you are not irreplaceable. The competition has become astounding. Microstock is full of user-generated content produced by amateur photographers and they number in the many thousands. The micro sites don't need the big players if they can get as many images from multiples of small players. How many photogs does Fotolia have in their stable? How many would have to delete their accounts to make a difference? And if a large number did delete their accounts what makes you think that those waiting in the wings wouldn't join and make your deleted accounts irrelevant?
Good luck trying to organize and make any difference. Unions have outlived their usefulness. Being represented by a union has 2 sides. Do you really want a union telling you what you can do. What if they told you that you could only upload a set number of images a day so all the other union members could compete on equal grounds? That's probably stretching it a bit when it comes to photography but be careful what you wish for.
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
This is why I love Fotolia so much! I receive a 54% commission on sales ranging in price from $5 to $40. Because I am exclusive I am paid very well. I don't know of any other site that pays as high a commission to their photographers exclusive or not. Is there one?
Mat
-
They are selling a subscription package for $10 per month and buyers can download one full size photo per day. There is a 3 month commitment required, so for $30, customers can download 90 photos that would cost around $900 on Istock. And then turn around and sell them on a disk, of course.
isnt that how subscription package suppose to work?
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
This is why I love Fotolia so much! I receive a 54% commission on sales ranging in price from $5 to $40. Because I am exclusive I am paid very well. I don't know of any other site that pays as high a commission to their photographers exclusive or not. Is there one?
Mat
I think DT is the highest giving up to 50% to non-exclusive and 60% to exclusive.
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
This is why I love Fotolia so much! I receive a 54% commission on sales ranging in price from $5 to $40. Because I am exclusive I am paid very well. I don't know of any other site that pays as high a commission to their photographers exclusive or not. Is there one?
Mat
I think DT is the highest giving up to 50% to non-exclusive and 60% to exclusive.
DT gives way less than 50 % to non exclusives on level 1 - 2 images. Exclusives get more, but nowhere near 60 % for level 1 - 2 images.
Patrick.
-
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.
This is why I love Fotolia so much! I receive a 54% commission on sales ranging in price from $5 to $40. Because I am exclusive I am paid very well. I don't know of any other site that pays as high a commission to their photographers exclusive or not. Is there one?
Mat
I think DT is the highest giving up to 50% to non-exclusive and 60% to exclusive.
DT gives way less than 50 % to non exclusives on level 1 - 2 images. Exclusives get more, but nowhere near 60 % for level 1 - 2 images.
Patrick.
I think to most of us going exclusive with FT sounds crazy, they change their policy to screw contributors all the time(so does DT with the huge drop in % for almost all images level 1-2), FT changes the bar for levels, lowers percentages, lets people skip ahead if they are new, don't let anyone complain about policy changes and who knows what is next. I don't love IS but I think the way they handle these kind of things is much more transparent and reasonable, that's why I dumped FT and DT a few months back. The money is probably near the same as last year but even if it was down a few % I would be much happier than dealing with those two companies.
-
StockXpert used to pay us 50% non-exclusive and they were closed down by the owners of istock. There is no way I want to go exclusive with a site that does that. I also don't like what they are doing with thinkstock. If istock was sold off and was independent again, with more contributor friendly owners, going exclusive there might look more attractive but at the moment I wont consider it.
I still think we would do better if we fully supported sites that have had great communications with us and have gone out of their way to answer our questions. Cutcaster is the one that stands out for me. I don't see that site prospering without our help, I hope more people will do all they can to send buyers there and make sure they have a competitive collection of images. It is easy to say that they have low sales and are not worth bothering with but then we will end up with a few sites that don't listen and keep cutting commissions.
-
I still think we would do better if we fully supported sites that have had great communications with us and have gone out of their way to answer our questions. Cutcaster is the one that stands out for me. I don't see that site prospering without our help, I hope more people will do all they can to send buyers there and make sure they have a competitive collection of images.
I believe we all want essentially the same thing. I also believe the majority of contributors (not the sites) are making it impossible. If Cutcaster is your horse, ride it to the finish. I think that we (when I say "We" I mean "You!" are crazy as an industry to post all images at all the sites. The commissions are going to drop lower and lower as stock sites are going to continue to fight to recruit buyers to purchase the exact same images available at every single site willing to accept their photographs. If Cutcaster is the best in your opinion...go! If you think I-stock is your best bet, go exclusive...Shutterstock, Dreamstime? I can't see any logic in them as my perception is their momentum is slowing but what ....do it! For me it's always been Fotolia and because I see they have the fastest and most consistent growth as well as the highest return for loyalty I have much to the chagrin of the bulk of contributors very publicly remained exclusive there. In my humble opinion my photography skills have evolved and in some cases improved. As a result my income has steadily increased. I don't know if I would be where I am today if I set my primary focus on blasting the market with my photo's. Please don't misinterpret what I am saying to imply I believe I'm where I should be as I have miles and miles to go. I have an infinite amount of time left to learn and evolve as a photographer.
I believe if you (yes YOU!) choose a site and commit some form of loyalty to them the ultimate result will be competition to recruit photographers instead of the status quo which is to recruit buyers.
It's very late/early in the night/morning and I'm being unrealistic and sentimental as it's obviously not reality for the bulk of photographers to commit to one site. We all feel powerless essentially as one photographer can't make a difference right?
That being said, imagine if Yuri simply said all of his portfolio were going to one site. How much could he charge? How much could he demand he get paid? How did he get to where he is? The same we are all where we are right now (yep, even YOU). He just chose to take it to the next level. I haven't had the courage to do so yet. Do you? If you did rise to the challenge don't you think you could single handedly change the industry? It's still so new and the possibilities are infinite. Don't settle and accept what's being given. Kick some ass and make a name for yourself. There are maybe 3 or 4 photographers in the "Micro" stock industry that have done so to date in my opinion. I can't help but feel there is more room. Quit bitching and put your money where your mouth is.
Mat
-
Absolutely I would love to be paid a minimum of 50% of every sale. If I made the rules I would be.
Lisa, If I made the rules I would be making %90 of every sale. :D and honestly that is what the artists really deserve in a perfect world.
-
... For me it's always been Fotolia and because I see they have the fastest and most consistent growth as well as the highest return for loyalty ...
Many interesting points in your post Mat. It does seem to me that being exclusive with FT is becoming more and more economically viable over remaining independent. I would still regard exclusivity with any one agency as being inherently less stable and riskier though, especially if microstock is your only or primary income. I'd need a significantly increased reward to make that risk worthwhile.
I know you've mentioned in the past how you've experimented with having your portfolio at different price points, whilst monitoring the effect on sales. I see you now have your entire port priced at 5 credits. Are sales still holding up despite that?
-
"You!" are crazy as an industry to post all images at all the sites. The commissions are going to drop lower and lower as stock sites are going to continue to fight to recruit buyers to purchase the exact same images available at every single site willing to accept their photographs.
This is an excellent point. If the same photos are available at all sites, they become in effect a commodity. Commodities are generally bought based on one thing only: price. So the only way that sites can effectively compete with each other is to keep lowering their prices.
-
I know you've mentioned in the past how you've experimented with having your portfolio at different price points, whilst monitoring the effect on sales. I see you now have your entire port priced at 5 credits. Are sales still holding up despite that?
They are holding up G. Since raising my prices my income has gone up consistently each month with March 2010 being my best month to date.
Mat
-
The commissions are going to drop lower and lower as stock sites are going to continue to fight to recruit buyers to purchase the exact same images available at every single site willing to accept their photographs.
I believe if you (yes YOU!) choose a site and commit some form of loyalty to them the ultimate result will be competition to recruit photographers instead of the status quo which is to recruit buyers.
Mat
Very valid point and well said Mat..thank you
Denis
-
I decided to request my balance and close my account - in that order. FT has never sold much for me anyway. Found out that I have to upload a photo ID, so I shot my driver's license and hit "upload", and got "413 Request Entity Too Large". If this has something to do with image size, I can't find any requirements - I suspect it's an actual error at FT's end as my JPG was only 1.4 MB. So I've messaged their legendary support center and am waiting for a reply.
"Even the simple things become rough.
Haven't we had enough?"
- Melissa Manchester
-
I decided to request my balance and close my account - in that order. FT has never sold much for me anyway. Found out that I have to upload a photo ID, so I shot my driver's license and hit "upload", and got "413 Request Entity Too Large". If this has something to do with image size, I can't find any requirements - I suspect it's an actual error at FT's end as my JPG was only 1.4 MB. So I've messaged their legendary support center and am waiting for a reply.
No need to wait for their reply. This is what it will say:
The "413 Request Entity Too Large" error indicates that the entity was too large. Please try again. If you continue to receive this error, try a different file. It might need to be larger. Thank you.
;D ;D
Try making it < 100K and you shouldn't have any problem. Resizing to no bigger than 800x at 80% quality should do it (more or less).
-
That being said, imagine if Yuri simply said all of his portfolio were going to one site. How much could he charge? How much could he demand he get paid? How did he get to where he is? The same we are all where we are right now (yep, even YOU). He just chose to take it to the next level. I haven't had the courage to do so yet. Do you? If you did rise to the challenge don't you think you could single handedly change the industry? It's still so new and the possibilities are infinite. Don't settle and accept what's being given. Kick some ass and make a name for yourself. There are maybe 3 or 4 photographers in the "Micro" stock industry that have done so to date in my opinion. I can't help but feel there is more room. Quit bitching and put your money where your mouth is.
Mat
Not only may all of Yuri's photo's be going to one site (his own), they may also be completely free. A blog is the name of the game with ads providing the revenue.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money- (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money-)!/100/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money- (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money-)!/125/
Scroll down for Yuri's posts.
Nothing sells better than free.
-
I have had big drop in views last two week...
"Similia" experience??? ??? ??? :P
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4498/screenhunter01apr101502.jpg)
-
I decided to request my balance and close my account - in that order. FT has never sold much for me anyway. Found out that I have to upload a photo ID, so I shot my driver's license and hit "upload", and got "413 Request Entity Too Large". If this has something to do with image size, I can't find any requirements - I suspect it's an actual error at FT's end as my JPG was only 1.4 MB. So I've messaged their legendary support center and am waiting for a reply.
No need to wait for their reply. This is what it will say:
The "413 Request Entity Too Large" error indicates that the entity was too large. Please try again. If you continue to receive this error, try a different file. It might need to be larger. Thank you.
;D ;D
Try making it < 100K and you shouldn't have any problem. Resizing to no bigger than 800x at 80% quality should do it (more or less).
I mashed it down to 172k and was able to upload it. At least I know they won't be giving away an XL image of my driver's license. :) As soon as the money shows up in PayPal, I'm closing the account.
This is still mostly a hobby for me. I see the posts from people who rely on microstock income, saying they can't afford to drop FT, and I fully understand. But I value my images and intend to make more money from them in the future. The real Fotolia contributor agreement is actually pretty clear: theyll sell, distribute or give away our images any way they want, directly or through unspecified partners; they have no obligation to tell us anything about what they're doing; and commissions will be any amount they chose to pay, or nothing. I'm getting off the bus right here, before my images are loose on 5 different pirate sites and discredited "former partners".
I think MatHayward is correct: in the long run, it's senseless to give all our work to multiple sites that compete only on price. We need to commit to new sites that make significant sales, play fair, communicate with contributors, charge reasonable prices and pay reasonable commissions. So far, I don't know of any that meet all 4 of those criteria, but there are a couple that may, in the future. As soon as one starts to 'click' for me, I'll be ready to drop the remaining "big 3".
-
No need to wait for their reply. This is what it will say:
The "413 Request Entity Too Large" error indicates that the entity was too large. Please try again. If you continue to receive this error, try a different file. It might need to be larger. Thank you.
;D ;D
Your guess was pretty good. Here's what I actually received after a few days:
"Thank you for your e-mail. That message does not seems to be related with the file requirements itself. You can find this information at http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contents/Images (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contents/Images)
Please describe in more detail how you are submiting the file so we can review it for you."
-
Your guess was pretty good. Here's what I actually received after a few days:
"Thank you for your e-mail. That message does not seems to be related with the file requirements itself. You can find this information at [url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contents/Images[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contents/Images[/url])
Please describe in more detail how you are submiting the file so we can review it for you."
That's funny. I think there may be robot overlords that control Fotolia. That really would explain a lot. ;D
-
Classic robo-support: take a few words from the question, use them in a sentence, hit Send and close out the question.
-
I can't believe this!!!
It is outrageous!!!