pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions  (Read 49904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: August 17, 2011, 18:42 »
0

did you stop uploading to DT or delete your portfolio when they cut commissions ?

Of course I did.  I'm no-one's doormat. I deleted all and left one image in case they respond to people crying out and so no one takes my ID.  It's a vector so now I will upload my crappiest JPG and delete that one too because it's popular.

Did you really? I can still see your portfolio on DT with all 122 images.

Oh sorry, oops "DT". I was eating dinner and rushed it and read "FT".  I thought she was asking whether I deleted my port at FT after the first cut earlier this year.

As for DT, I joined them after commissions were cut.  I never knew till late last year (after the IS riot) that they used to offer 50% (I think it was 50%).  That would have pissed off a lot of people but DT are different with their pricing.  I really like the levels because not only do commissions increase with the levels but so do the prices.  This was a real incentive to stay with them, however the new weekly subs isn't impressing me to be honest.  It hasn't effected me so much (yet) but seeing people here and in the DT forum reporting that they're selling 17/20 subs is disheartening.  I have about 100 new illustrations to upload and I'm finding little incentive to do so... at any site.  It's difficult not to feel deflated when these sites take turns at shafting us.  I'm just working on Zazzle and building my own site for now and I'll see where I go from there.  I suppose in the end, the worse these sites get, the easier it is to let them go and focus on doing my own thing.

hmmm hufff  for the record I'm not a she.
Some of the stuff seemed contridictory to me which why I kept asking questions
I understand now what you were saying if you misread FT / DT

On fair agency list my nomination is for support for Stockfresh, subs are limited to medium size 35 cents pricing is neither too cheap or expensive and royality percentage is 50%


TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #101 on: August 17, 2011, 19:10 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:25 by hasleftthebuilding »

helix7

« Reply #102 on: August 17, 2011, 19:43 »
0
...It doesn't make a differnce if they remove their portfolios and stick them in another agency with the same madel.  Eventually that agent will get big enough and will do the exact same thing.  They have to to compete with the iStocks and Fotolias...

StockXpert never cut rates. Their subs model wasn't anything great, but they always kept things at 50% and prices were fair and simple for buyers. That's why so many people are so hopeful for the success of SF.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #103 on: August 17, 2011, 19:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:25 by hasleftthebuilding »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #104 on: August 17, 2011, 21:38 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:26 by hasleftthebuilding »

« Reply #105 on: August 17, 2011, 22:38 »
0
But let's get real.  Most of you aren't going to do anything.  Look at IS.  Sure people left but most of the larger contributors who added their ports on other sites still left their portfolios at IS with the excuse "but it's a large chunk of my income".  They're not really supporting other sites if they still support the site that pays them 15%.  It doesn't give buyers an incentive to switch if their images are still there.  The same thing will happen with FT.  

Considering nothing will happen and most people won't move.  I may as well stop worrying about contributors in general and worry about making my own money.  I can do several things.  

Knowing the majority of microstockers are suckers, I can come up with something that will screw you all and make me a heap of money...

Or,

I can simply switch hats and focus on design.  I can buy the cheapest images from FT (and they're only going to get cheaper) and make money from your images.  If people don't want to make money out of their own images, I may as well make the money.  I can even buy cheap ELs on FT and sell designs... forever, making endless income while you made a pitiful $4.  Doing this will support FT and will drive your royalties into the ground but that's okay, cause most of you are suckers and won't move anyway.  I'll make money while these people sit there crying and I won't feel sorry for them.

There.  That's my solution ;)

Best of luck

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #106 on: August 17, 2011, 23:37 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:26 by hasleftthebuilding »

« Reply #107 on: August 18, 2011, 01:02 »
0
Edit:- Not relevant now that the previous post is deleted.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 10:10 by sharpshot »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #108 on: August 18, 2011, 01:17 »
0
There are sites that aren't greedy, FP, GL, SF, P5 and alamy spring to mind, I'm sure there are others.  They might be able to continue paying us reasonable commissions because they don't have greedy investors and shareholders.
...
Perhaps the way out of this mess would be to only use the sites with a fair commission but I don't think it's possible to persuade people to do that.  It might seem illogical to keep using sites that pay a pathetic commission but people don't do what we want them to do.


Deleting ports from major sites when they cut commissions would be the logical thing to do for long term effects, but in the short/mid term it means renouncing to a large part of earnings and throwing away years of work. Personally, I can't do that at present.

But since FT and IS started to cut commissions over and over, I started to upload my port to all low earners with good commissions, and those sites went from 0% to about 6% of my earnings in a few months. Not much, but not even completely insignificant.

For me, that's the way to go at present: supporting better sites - despite of their low present earning potential - while not leaving completely from major sites (yet). Bandwidth is cheap nowadays, and with a good workflow (IPTC / FTP / Lightburner) it's not so time-consuming.

Luckily, sites which cut commissions are also the ones which are losing sales in favour of better sites - don't know which is the cause and effect, but I like it.

I also started my own web site eventually - using Photoshelter (affiliate link of course, with $30 discount for you) because I don't have time to spend with ktools or coding; I'm glad to pay them a hundred $ each year for a basic account as an experiment; they already have the unified search we are looking for, and if many of us sell there at microstock prices, buyers may well consider photoshelter as a normal microstock site, which gives us 90%+ commission. Needless to say, I have 0 sales there - but I started 3 days ago! I will wait at least 1 year before drawing conclusions.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 01:54 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lagereek

« Reply #109 on: August 18, 2011, 01:18 »
0
Hell! NO!  Im making good money with FT,  inspite of their search, have always made good money there. No quitting here fellas.

Are you all going to quit every micro-agency there is then ( as soon as mistakes are made) and perhaps go back to film or something? although I dont think theres much lolly there anymore. ::)

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #110 on: August 18, 2011, 01:26 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:27 by hasleftthebuilding »

lagereek

« Reply #111 on: August 18, 2011, 01:31 »
0
^^^I don't think you will get anywhere with your attitude, sarcasm or not.  When I first started this, five years ago, I couldn't understand why we didn't have our own site.  Now I can see that it would be almost impossible.  People don't agree on anything.  It would be a nightmare.  Someone has to be in charge and make all the important decisions, they end up getting attacked by anyone that disagrees with them.

There are sites that aren't greedy, FP, GL, SF, P5 and alamy spring to mind, I'm sure there are others.  They might be able to continue paying us reasonable commissions because they don't have greedy investors and shareholders.  Some might sell out but I'm sure there will always be somewhere to sell for a reasonable commission.

Alamy still pay 60% and put most of their profits in to medical research.  I'm sending more and more stuff to them exclusively.

Perhaps the way out of this mess would be to only use the sites with a fair commission but I don't think it's possible to persuade people to do that.  It might seem illogical to keep using sites that pay a pathetic commission but people don't do what we want them to do.

I would be really interested in any ideas to improve our microstock commissions and earnings but just having a dig at people all the time gets tedious and isn't making the situation any better.

Actually, sharpshot, it's your attitude that's really annoying.  You're so negative about everything that I hardly read anything you type.  My idea that I was going to give to DT is bloody genius and change a few industries.  Problem is that it's a waste of time sharing it.  I'll sit on it and some day I might either implement it myself and make millions or I'll take it to the grave. 

It's pointless sitting here discussing anything with most of you.  You have people like Lisa... who is a lovely girl but has sat there for a year bagging iStock, yet she continues to support them by giving them 85% of her income... what?  There is absolutely no point in me helping any of you.  I'll just help myself from now on.

Honestly, most of you make me sick.  Who . do you think you are showing disgust with agents yet supporting them?  You're all slightly bonkers.  This industry will run itself into the ground and you'll only have yourselves to blame.  Most of you have no dignity so it won't matter in the end.

And lagereek, you're a joke :)


Oh come on, its all a laugh anyway. Now your getting too serious about it all.  All of us are a joke really, I mean the very second we sell our work for pittens we should be certified, so were all a joke  but I rather be a happy joke then a sad one ;)

« Reply #112 on: August 18, 2011, 01:44 »
0
^^^I don't think you will get anywhere with your attitude, sarcasm or not.  When I first started this, five years ago, I couldn't understand why we didn't have our own site.  Now I can see that it would be almost impossible.  People don't agree on anything.  It would be a nightmare.  Someone has to be in charge and make all the important decisions, they end up getting attacked by anyone that disagrees with them.

There are sites that aren't greedy, FP, GL, SF, P5 and alamy spring to mind, I'm sure there are others.  They might be able to continue paying us reasonable commissions because they don't have greedy investors and shareholders.  Some might sell out but I'm sure there will always be somewhere to sell for a reasonable commission.

Alamy still pay 60% and put most of their profits in to medical research.  I'm sending more and more stuff to them exclusively.

Perhaps the way out of this mess would be to only use the sites with a fair commission but I don't think it's possible to persuade people to do that.  It might seem illogical to keep using sites that pay a pathetic commission but people don't do what we want them to do.

I would be really interested in any ideas to improve our microstock commissions and earnings but just having a dig at people all the time gets tedious and isn't making the situation any better.

Actually, sharpshot, it's your attitude that's really annoying.  You're so negative about everything that I hardly read anything you type.  My idea that I was going to give to DT is bloody genius and change a few industries.  Problem is that it's a waste of time sharing it.  I'll sit on it and some day I might either implement it myself and make millions or I'll take it to the grave.  

It's pointless sitting here discussing anything with most of you.  You have people like Lisa... who is a lovely girl but has sat there for a year bagging iStock, yet she continues to support them by giving them 85% of her income... what?  There is absolutely no point in me helping any of you.  I'll just help myself from now on.

Honestly, most of you make me sick.  Who . do you think you are showing disgust with agents yet supporting them?  You're all slightly bonkers.  This industry will run itself into the ground and you'll only have yourselves to blame.  Most of you have no dignity so it won't matter in the end.

And lagereek, you're a joke :)
Sorry I'm not jumping for joy at having commission cuts and being called "slightly bonkers" by another contributor.  I suggest you hit the ignore button.  And I'm sure your principles wouldn't be so great if you had Lisa's income and a big mortgage to pay off.  You'd be more than "slightly bonkers" to just throw that away.  And you can't even get the % right, those that sell the most had a much smaller commission cut with istock, they have a tough decision compared to those that are only on 15% and don't rely on the income.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #113 on: August 18, 2011, 01:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:27 by hasleftthebuilding »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2011, 01:52 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:28 by hasleftthebuilding »

lagereek

« Reply #115 on: August 18, 2011, 02:12 »
0
lol I'm too serious?  Actually this is the problem with you.  I can't take you seriously at all.  I've tried but I just can't.  But here's an idea.  How about we stop selling our work for 'pittens'?  Has that ever crossed your mind?

Oh I do, and have done for years,  micro is but a side income but its quite fun. The trouble with forums like this or that is that its impossible not to say down out dangerous to take anybody seriously.
We are all competitors, murderous competitors ( we all tend to forget that) so, to trust or take a fellow member too seriously can backfire badly.
Anyhow the selling for big-money-days, are over, this business has done its fair job to make sure of that.

best.

« Reply #116 on: August 18, 2011, 02:16 »
0
Don't give them your new photos!
Promote everyday sites with better deal for us...
"Change the river flow"

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #117 on: August 18, 2011, 02:20 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:28 by hasleftthebuilding »

fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« Reply #118 on: August 18, 2011, 05:52 »
0
Does anyone know how the vector downloads were compensated at the OLD pricing model?

The new one is 1 vector download treated like 1 photo download, right?

EDIT: Found it myself: OLD was 1 vector download equals 3 photo downloads.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:23 by fotorob »

« Reply #119 on: August 18, 2011, 06:23 »
0
Does anyone know how the vector downloads were compensated at the OLD pricing model?

The new one is 1 vector download treated like 1 photo download, right?

Bronze: vector subscription sale equals 3 x XL photo subscribtion (1,08 / 0,36). I'm not sure if it was same in other levels.

« Reply #120 on: August 18, 2011, 06:47 »
0
Does anyone know how the vector downloads were compensated at the OLD pricing model?

The new one is 1 vector download treated like 1 photo download, right?

Bronze: vector subscription sale equals 3 x XL photo subscribtion (1,08 / 0,36). I'm not sure if it was same in other levels.

Am I reading this right? Under Bronze we've now gone from 1.08 down to 0.27 for a vector  ???

If so, this is ludicrous - I won't be uploading any more, and am seriously considering taking down all my images. Wasn't at all happy that all our images have ended up on a POD site without needing to have the appropriate license, and now this!!!!!

« Reply #121 on: August 18, 2011, 07:13 »
0
Something has changed. Or broken. I have vector subscription sale for 0.81 today.

« Reply #122 on: August 18, 2011, 07:25 »
0
I've just sold a photo xxl for 0.27c of today  :-\

« Reply #123 on: August 18, 2011, 07:40 »
0
I have decided to stop uploading to FT. It has reached the point where they represent a much smaller percentage of my overall microstock income anyway. Stopping uploads to them isn't going to impact my earnings much at all.

lisafx

« Reply #124 on: August 18, 2011, 09:16 »
0
I'm all for solutions, not just griping.  Unfortunately, solutions take time to implement.  I am supporting Warmpicture, and I invested over 1k in starting my own site.  Sales appear to be slowly building on each of those. 

I wish they would bring in enough RIGHT NOW to enable me to quit the micros, or at least the ones whose royalty structures I don't like. 

Too paraphrase an old cliche - If I quit two of my most lucrative outlets in haste, I can repent in leisure (and in the cardboard box I'll be living in). 

Don't assume that people who don't quit each and every site they are unhappy with are just sitting back and doing nothing.  I am sure quite a few of us are exploring our options and putting together exit strategies for when that last straw breaks the camel's back. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4429 Views
Last post June 07, 2008, 06:30
by sharpshot
35 Replies
15625 Views
Last post February 03, 2010, 10:31
by leaf
197 Replies
57062 Views
Last post February 03, 2011, 07:19
by OM
170 Replies
26610 Views
Last post May 18, 2014, 09:31
by Jo Ann Snover
39 Replies
13626 Views
Last post September 04, 2015, 09:33
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle