MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: Ploink on August 16, 2011, 09:19
-
I just received this e-mail from my dear friends at Fotolia:
<<We've been hard at work for the last few months adding features to make the site more convenient for both contributors and artists. With this latest release, we're also revising our subscription plans to align with what's happening in the marketplace. As a result, prices and commissions have been adjusted accordingly. Please see details here. Here are some of the highlights:
- To streamline the product offering for customers, we've merged standard and premium subscriptions into one product.
- Vectors now count as 1 download in subscription plans
- HD videos are no longer available in subscription plans, but web resolution videos are available, and count as 5 downloads.
We encourage you to create and upload HD quality videos to maximize your revenue stream. That's because HD resolution videos will only be available for purchase through the credits system.
Amongst the features you'll find in this latest version of Fotolia are powerful search faceting and filtering, which will allow customers to find the latest and greatest content, faster than ever before.
Fotolia contributors have contributed over 14 million images to date, and we look forward to you continued support in our collective quest to become the #1 stock photo agency in the world.
Sincerely,
Team Fotolia>>
The link to new commissions is here: Click (http://us.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions?utm_source=email_Fotolia&utm_medium=email_loyalty&utm_campaign=2011-08-05_3619US)
I haven't found out what the "streamlined" subscriptions are worth...
Edit: Darn, beaten by seconds - :D and jm73
Edited again: Okay, now i got it: These are the new subscription prices - wow, lowered the standard prices and removed the "premium subscriptions" altogether. Way to go, Fotolia!
-
During August and with premeditation, further reduction of the commissions in fotolia ...
Second in less than year. Olé! The reason (With this latest release, we have revised our subscription plans to align with what is happening in the marketplace. ), reasoned in 3 minutes.
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions?utm_source=email_Fotolia&utm_medium=email_loyalty&utm_campaign=2011-08-05_3619ES (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions?utm_source=email_Fotolia&utm_medium=email_loyalty&utm_campaign=2011-08-05_3619ES)
I think my relationship with Fotolia ends...
-
http://www.fotolia.com/Newsletter/4/2011-08-09/42 (http://www.fotolia.com/Newsletter/4/2011-08-09/42)
new prices:
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions)
old prices:
http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors)
>:(
-
Mustabin what six months since the 'rewards' were last lowered?
Can you feel it? Yup!
We've worked diligently for the past few months adding new features to make the site more convenient for both contributors and artists. With this latest release, we're also revising our subscription plans to be in line with what's happening in the marketplace. As a result, prices and commissions have been adjusted accordingly. Please take a look at some of the highlights:
-
Can anyone compare OLD and NEW commissions? In the link it seems I see no difference to the current commissions.
-
Can anyone compare OLD and NEW commissions? In the link it seems I see no difference to the current commissions.
old prices: http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors)
new: http://www.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions?utm_source=email_Fotolia&utm_medium=email_loyalty&utm_campaign=2011-08-05_3619ES (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/V3SubscriptionCommissions?utm_source=email_Fotolia&utm_medium=email_loyalty&utm_campaign=2011-08-05_3619ES)
-
Great! Looking forward to these new exciting changes :)
-
Ah, thanks. Instead of getting 34 or 39 Cent per Image Subscription Download, I now get only 33 Cent.
-
Can anyone compare OLD and NEW commissions? In the link it seems I see no difference to the current commissions.
At the bottom tier it would have been .3 or .35 credits now it's .25
-
It seems like the changes will go in effect when Fotolia releases their V3 version of the website. Until then they pay the old commissions. Might be a reason to hope it will take a while to V3 :-)
-
It's great especially for vectors artists - 0.29 instead of 1.08 for me.
On the other hand - it's true that other sites don't make difference between photos and vectors in subscription prices as well but that doesn't reduce my shock.
-
It's funny. I thought the vector subs were one of the only things Fotolia got right. I guess I can check that off the list. ;D
I'm so glad I decided to leave there.
-
What we don't know is how this will affect the prices they will be charging customers. Are they simply doing away with the 'Premium' subscription and customers will get the benefit of full-size images at the old 'Standard' price?
If so it suggests strongly to me that they are losing ground to the likes of SS and this is their attempt to get customers back.
I've just checked how many premium sub sales I average per 100 total sales and it would appear to be about 29. That means I'll be losing about 1.45 credits per 100 total sales. Not a huge amount but annoying anyway.
-
It's great especially for vectors artists - 0.29 instead of 1.08 for me.
On the other hand - it's true that other sites don't make difference between photos and vectors in subscription prices as well but that doesn't reduce my shock.
Let's celebrate! :)
Thanks for listening to us, Fotolia!
-
I'm sorry for anyone this has a big impact on.
For me, SS is streaking so far ahead of the pack now, and FT has fallen so far back, that this news is a bit like hearing that a distant, previously unknown relative stubbed a toenail in 1973.
-
Ok, let's stop crying and let's give to Fotolia our continued support in our collective quest to become the #1 stock photo agency in the world! :-\
-
It doesn't come as a surprise any more. I've really had enough of commission cuts. I'm working much more with alamy RM and some other ideas I have to make money from photography and other things. This is just another reason for me to work harder at getting away from sites that are becoming too greedy.
-
i just merged the 3 threads on the commission cut
-
I have calculated the loss in commissions. It will be difficult to know now whether it is standard or premium. But these are:
If there are errors, please say so and update
-
It seems like the changes will go in effect when Fotolia releases their V3 version of the website. Until then they pay the old commissions. Might be a reason to hope it will take a while to V3 :-)
If the introduction of V2 is anything to go by, than we better hope V3 isn't coming for a long time :P
-
Funny how I now end up with the same disgustingly low subs commission that I have refused to accept with Thinkstock. I don't think FT would try this if people had refused to use TS. Now were all paying for it and I think it will be inevitable that SS will go the same way.
-
Funny how I now end up with the same disgustingly low subs commission that I have refused to accept with Thinkstock. I don't think FT would try this if people had refused to use TS. Now were all paying for it and I think it will be inevitable that SS will go the same way.
Fotolia was doing stuff like this before TS ever existed.
At the rate sales and commissions are falling at FT, pretty soon they will price themselves right into irrelevancy. ::)
-
I have calculated the loss in commissions. It will be difficult to know now whether it is standard or premium. But these are:
If there are errors, please say so and update
Thanks for the chart, I was thinking of making the same but you beat me to it.
-
.
-
I have calculated the loss in commissions. It will be difficult to know now whether it is standard or premium. But these are:
If there are errors, please say so and update
Thanks for the chart, I was thinking of making the same but you beat me to it.
;)
The speed was for rage. For White, Bronze and Silver the difference is scandalous
-
For Illustrators it's really horrible. 70% less then now !
-
I've been able to claw my way up the ranks at FT so this will amount to a 5-10% hit to my FT earnings, based on a quick glance over my past 100 or so sales. I have to balance this against the fact that I seem to be dodging the FT trend... my sales have been shooting up in the past several months. So the commission cut stinks, but put in perspective, I can deal with it.
What would really stink is if they moved the goal posts (again) to get to the next level. Then I would revolt.
-
Wow I must not be good enough to even receive the * email from them regarding this. Can't tell you how much I enjoy being treated like a POS. They roll that out they can say bye-bye to my port. Course they probably won't care if a small fish like me leaves.
-
Can you believe this? I just turned emerald 1 week ago, after crawling up very slowly to 25000 downloads. So 1 week ago I went from 33 to 34 cents for subscriptions ... ;D ha ha ha, now I'm back to 33 cents! (with a larger loss for the XL subs).
Oh well, they did allow me to celebrate for 1 week ...
-
They are trying everything they can do to drop from the top tier down to middle tier - almost there....
-
I am Silver at Fotolia and I am seriously contemplating removing my portfolio from there. I surely don't like to cannibalize my sales at the other sites. I've seen clients leaving fotolia and moving to shutterstock, and perhaps this move is a desperate one. Well, whatever - I will not be a part of this mockery.
-
I believe this is benefiting IS in two ways: now they won't be treated by some ppl as the worst agency in the industry for cutting commissions, since FT has already done it twice this year and with SS rejecting almost every image, a lot of ppl will byte into the rotten apple that their exclusivity has become in the last year. I fear they'll once again become by far the strongest agency, this is surely going to happen if SS won't stop messing around with rejections and on a large scale if they'd also cut commissions. That would be a disastrous scenario, unless something good came out of it like a new licencing system (that would be fair to contributors). But there's no chance of that happening, since the buyers aren't idiots, who are willing to pay more, since they get to use an image for almost any purpose for a dollar or less. And because most contributors would still be submitting even if commissions got split in half in the next year or so (in a few steps, ppl are more and more willing to accept it ever time it happens). Quality would surely drop, since the best photographers would either stop doing it altogether or at least start doing it the low budget way, just the same as all the rest.
Yeah forget about the "something good could come out" of it scenario. It'll be just like the recession: those who screwed it all up, got bailed out, the bill was handed to the tay payers and so it goes on and on, those who cause crisis get saved, those who are paying to save them and make sure they keep on getting huge bonuses for short term profits will get hit again and again and again. It's neoliberalism baby;). BTW we're the taxpayers (so that even the stupid ppl will get it;)
-
Can you believe this? I just turned emerald 1 week ago, after crawling up very slowly to 25000 downloads. So 1 week ago I went from 33 to 34 cents for subscriptions ... ;D ha ha ha, now I'm back to 33 cents! (with a larger loss for the XL subs).
Oh well, they did allow me to celebrate for 1 week ...
Congrats on going Emerald, for what it's worth.
Looks like you haven't decided to double your prices? Did you know that's an option? Just wondering if it's something you considered... and if you did, what your thoughts are.
-
So are people going to stop uploading to FT, remove their portfolios or just carry on like nothing happened?
I'm stopping uploads but that's not much of a change because I haven't uploaded much this year.
-
I stop uploading images.
Nor is much, Fotolia is fifth in my ranking. And I am a very small fish, but I prefer give the opportunity to other banks.
-
I don't know what to do, if i stop fotolia, i'm losing almost 200$/month, that's huge amount for me. I can not stop until i've/we've found a solution to stop royalties decreasing in many microstock sites. It's a shame that international laws don't exist about a fixed minimum price.
We all know that the price can be 1$ by subscription download, even more! Actually photographer are feeding more and more stingy beasts who don't care about contributors and don't want anymore to share the cake.
-
For Illustrators it's really horrible. 70% less then now !
Am I reading the update info correctly? What was a $1.11 Premium subscription Vector royalty is now a $0.29 royalty at Silver level? Holy crap...
-
I don't know what to do, if i stop fotolia, i'm losing almost 200$/month, that's huge amount for me. I can not stop until i've/we've found a solution to stop royalties decreasing in many microstock sites. It's a shame that international laws don't exist about a fixed minimum price.
There's already a simple solution, just use sites that pay a reasonable commission and haven't cut it. Unfortunately we wont all agree to do that. What other chance is there?
-
I don't know what to do, if i stop fotolia, i'm losing almost 200$/month, that's huge amount for me.
if you keep your port there you'll lose money anyway because they've just cut your commission. You are also likely to lose cash from other agencies if some customers move to ft because it's cheaper. I for one wouldn't like to get 0.29 for subs instead of 0.38 as I have on SS.
-
I love this line:
With this latest release, we have revised our subscription plans to align with what is happening in the marketplace.
I only recall one other company cutting rates, recently, so to the best of my knowledge, this is not what is happening in the larger marketplace.
Looks like more B.S. to paint a prettier picture of a huge royalty cut.
-
I don't know what to do, if i stop fotolia, i'm losing almost 200$/month, that's huge amount for me.
if you keep your port there you'll lose money anyway because they've just cut your commission. You are also likely to lose cash from other agencies if some customers move to ft because it's cheaper. I for one wouldn't like to get 0.29 for subs instead of 0.38 as I have on SS.
The problem seems to be, "Which agency hasn't cut commission?" Will YOU abandon iStock and Dreamstime? Which site do we choose? And, I'm being serious. Which one do you trust? I even lost respect for John at Cutcaster. They all are in business for themselves ... NOT US!!!
I just can't believe that the guys with big ports are going to bail on any site that pays their rent/mortgage.
I feel irrelevant because I am a minor player. I deleted all of my images earlier but came back to Fotolia when everyone else seemed to be making money. I've still not reached a payout.
I dumped 123rf in a fit of anger. Now, they moving up quite well, it seems.
I don't know the answer. Someone make a recommendation
-
To put a dollar amount on this cut for vectors, I expect the new pricing will cost me about $1,100 per year at FT.
Thanks, guys.
-
So are people going to stop uploading to FT, remove their portfolios or just carry on like nothing happened?
I deleted everything except one image in January. I remember when I first turned Silver I got paid 37%, and they've lowered royalties every year since.
The problem seems to be, "Which agency hasn't cut commission?" Will YOU abandon iStock and Dreamstime? Which site do we choose?
I wouldn't trust any of them. It would be nice to abandon them all.
-
For the past year, Fotolia represented 8.6% of my stock earnings. A year earlier they were 13%. This month they're 4.2%. I can see that percentage only going lower.
I stopped uploading after their last royalty cut. And like an idiot, I decided to get back in and bring them current with my portfolio. Just finished in time to see this announcement.
So what will I do? I've already started deleting low earners from my port there. But not a few a day as I've been doing with iStock, but in big chunks. I'll leave up all the new uploads. Heck, I've done the work, so now let their reviewers earn their keep. But they won't stay up long; at the rate I'm going, I'll be mostly gone within a couple of months.
-
Few months back they FUUCCKKED up their search, this is why.
-
The same dickwads that came up with this one were sitting around naked drinking one night coming up with better ways to screw with their loyal followers. (See last line "The sexual tension around here is unbelievable). This photo is exactly the image I have of this number one European agency. (http://blog.fotolia.com/us/Fotolia.jpg) They posted this on their website. Seriously???????????
-
Can you believe this? I just turned emerald 1 week ago, after crawling up very slowly to 25000 downloads. So 1 week ago I went from 33 to 34 cents for subscriptions ... ;D ha ha ha, now I'm back to 33 cents! (with a larger loss for the XL subs).
Oh well, they did allow me to celebrate for 1 week ...
Congrats on going Emerald, for what it's worth.
Looks like you haven't decided to double your prices? Did you know that's an option? Just wondering if it's something you considered... and if you did, what your thoughts are.
Thanks for the congrats! Yes I know about the option of doubling my prices, and I already doubled them for 10 or 15 images. I think in the end I'll only do it for unique photos, and not for the ones where a customer gets 100.000 hits after typing his keyword(s) ;D
-
Can you believe this? I just turned emerald 1 week ago, after crawling up very slowly to 25000 downloads. So 1 week ago I went from 33 to 34 cents for subscriptions ... ;D ha ha ha, now I'm back to 33 cents! (with a larger loss for the XL subs).
Oh well, they did allow me to celebrate for 1 week ...
Congrats on going Emerald, for what it's worth.
Looks like you haven't decided to double your prices? Did you know that's an option? Just wondering if it's something you considered... and if you did, what your thoughts are.
Thanks for the congrats! Yes I know about the option of doubling my prices, and I already doubled them for 10 or 15 images. I think in the end I'll only do it for unique photos, and not for the ones where a customer gets 100.000 hits after typing his keyword(s) ;D
That's an interesting approach... testing it out on some of the more unique images and not on the ones that have the most competition. Makes sense. Keep us posted to let us know if those images with increased prices see fewer downloads after the price change.
I think if and when I get to Emerald (assuming the goal posts aren't moved before I get there) I'll have them switch all the images at once, test it for a month to see if I come out ahead, and decide whether to stay at that level or go back. I know I'll have fewer sales due to the higher prices, but I'm guessing it won't be a 50% decrease, which means I come out ahead.
-
It seems like the changes will go in effect when Fotolia releases their V3 version of the website. Until then they pay the old commissions. Might be a reason to hope it will take a while to V3 :-)
If the introduction of V2 is anything to go by, than we better hope V3 isn't coming for a long time :P
What I was thinking. V2 was a disaster.
-
Mustabin what six months since the 'rewards' were last lowered?
I don't think its been quite that long....
-
Thanks for the congrats! Yes I know about the option of doubling my prices, and I already doubled them for 10 or 15 images. I think in the end I'll only do it for unique photos, and not for the ones where a customer gets 100.000 hits after typing his keyword(s) ;D
I really think you should re-consider this approach. Doubling your prices will nearly double your revenue. You may lose a few sales but the dollar amount increase will more than make up for it. If you write to support they can do a mass price change for you so you don't have to do the tedious process of changing each individual shot.
Mat
-
So are people going to stop uploading to FT, remove their portfolios or just carry on like nothing happened?
I'm stopping uploads but that's not much of a change because I haven't uploaded much this year.
It was the same question with IS after their announcement last September. And their cut was a lot worse. All I have seen is everybody moaning and complaining in forums, but just very few people really stopping uploads or removing their port. So I would expect the same will happen here - a lot of moaning and screaming, but no action. FT knows they can easily pull this through - we have proven it for them by our (non-)reaction to Istock's move.
I haven't decided what I will do personally yet. But FT will certainly not be first in line for new uploads...
-
Seems to me there are three reactions people are having to this change (or any change any agency makes for that matter)... the first two are perfectly respectable, adult reactions... and the third, not so much...
1. You don't like the change, you estimate that it is bad for you either today or in the long run, and you are taking action in protest. You're deleting your port, you're gradually removing images, you're putting your money where your mouth is. Respectable response.
2. You accept the change after looking at your own personal situation, determining that you respect the agency's right to make the change and it's in your interest to continue the relationship. You keep your images there and keep uploading more. Respectable response.
3. You don't like the change and whine about how mean the agency is being to you, wishing the government or a union would step in to protect you, all the while preparing your newest uploads. You are the person that they are mocking with the below image... if you can't respect yourself enough to take a stand, you can't expect them to respect you... drink in your mockery...
(http://blog.fotolia.com/us/Fotolia.jpg)
-
Seems to me there are three reactions people are having to this change (or any change any agency makes for that matter)... the first two are perfectly respectable, adult reactions... and the third, not so much...
1. You don't like the change, you estimate that it is bad for you either today or in the long run, and you are taking action in protest. You're deleting your port, you're gradually removing images, you're putting your money where your mouth is. Respectable response.
2. You accept the change after looking at your own personal situation, determining that you respect the agency's right to make the change and it's in your interest to continue the relationship. You keep your images there and keep uploading more. Respectable response.
3. You don't like the change and whine about how mean the agency is being to you, wishing the government or a union would step in to protect you, all the while preparing your newest uploads. You are the person that they are mocking with the below image... if you can't respect yourself enough to take a stand, you can't expect them to respect you... drink in your mockery...
([url]http://blog.fotolia.com/us/Fotolia.jpg[/url])
personally I find this ad in completely poor taste and unprofessional. I have only been on FT since last November and I have been debating whether to stick with them or not since I am doing well on DT, SS and IS. this new drop in commissions pretty much has me ready to stop uploading. no, make that it definitely has me ready. I will probably even delete my port all together there so I don't have to hassle with it. Then I can concentrate more on other ventures with my photography.
-
Thanks for the congrats! Yes I know about the option of doubling my prices, and I already doubled them for 10 or 15 images. I think in the end I'll only do it for unique photos, and not for the ones where a customer gets 100.000 hits after typing his keyword(s) ;D
I really think you should re-consider this approach. Doubling your prices will nearly double your revenue. You may lose a few sales but the dollar amount increase will more than make up for it. If you write to support they can do a mass price change for you so you don't have to do the tedious process of changing each individual shot.
Mat
Can I email support and get them to do a mass price change for my subscription prices ?
did they change the price they charge to the customers for subscription plans ?
-
In their mail FT told me about the highlights of V3. And it seems they think, reducing the revenue/download will help them to become no. 1 microstock agency worldwide.
- I don't agree that reducing the revenue/downlod for the submitters is a highlight for me.
- And let me laugh about FT's idea, that lowered revenue/download would encourage me to help them getting no. 1 - good joke ;D.
What I have done in the past, when the payment/download was lowered:
- In 2010 I changed most of my images from "Partial Exclusivity" to "Non Exclusivity" and started uploading them to other agencies.
- In 2011 I reduced uploading images to FT.
What's to do now?
- I will look at my payment at FT in relation to other agencies.
- If the payment at FT goes down, I'll stop uploading to FT and perhaps I will delete my images at FT.
- If the payment at FT remains the same, I'll decide later.
- If the payment at FT grows, I'll upload more images at FT.
What will you do?
Please, don't tell me, that they will not notice my decision. I know, that I only have a small portfolio at FT. But I want to sell it - it's not to give away.
-
Can I email support and get them to do a mass price change for my subscription prices ?
Yes, you can. From my own experience (Emerald since March, 2010) it's worth doing. But given how sales are falling month by month this year, it's all a bit of a lottery, it seems. ???
-
Ok, when do we start saying "Way to go, Fotolia!" and "Yiipiie!!" :D
We know they can always make things worse. This is one thing they do well.
-
Can I email support and get them to do a mass price change for my subscription prices ?
Yes, you can. From my own experience (Emerald since March, 2010) it's worth doing. But given how sales are falling month by month this year, it's all a bit of a lottery, it seems. ???
Looks like you didn't see my sarcasim in that one. :)
-
And let me laugh about FT's idea, that lowered revenue/download would encourage me to help them getting no. 1 - good joke
Ah ah ah, for sure!!! One another thing is sure: they are very respectful with us!!!
-
Can I email support and get them to do a mass price change for my subscription prices ?
Yes, you can. From my own experience (Emerald since March, 2010) it's worth doing. But given how sales are falling month by month this year, it's all a bit of a lottery, it seems. ???
Looks like you didn't see my sarcasim in that one. :)
;D It was early morning here, and I hadn't had a coffee...
-
.
-
What pisses me off even more than FT doing this is that people take it. I blame these people for ruining the entire industry because they don't have the balls to stand up to the agents. Why wouldn't an agent lower commissions if they can? Why would anyone believe that a corporate company have us in their best interest and not themselves?
Whoever stays is as much an arse as FT because they're not only ruining it for themselves in the future, they're ruining it for everybody else! Their decision to stay and do nothing effects me just as much as it effects them. These people seriously annoy me. They're gutless! There are lots of things we can do but it's useless if the majority choose to do nothing.
+1
-
I haven't seen the stats. As others have noted, they most recently "aligned" their non-subscription prices to maximize their position in the market early in 2011. The results have been underwhelming for my portfolio, at least. Your mileage on the stats, of course, may vary as my portfolio is long on nature and travel and light on people.
Images In Portfolio. I compared the number of images I had available in July 2010 to July 2011: Increased by 25%.
# Downloads. I compared the number of downloads YTD (Jan-July) from 2010 to 2011: Decreased by 8%.
Revenue. I compared the total YTD revenue (Jan-July) from 2010 to 2011: Decreased by 40%.
As I seem to remember that FT chopped around 25% off my non-subscription royalties in the last cuts, even if they added that to their bottom line, if the decrease in revenue is shared, then these guys are bleeding share to someone.
-
2 posts were removed for sexual connotation. Feel free to post negatively but keep the sexual innuendoes at bay.
-
Fotolia is just not place for complex vectors at all.
-
.
-
I haven't seen the stats. As others have noted, they most recently "aligned" their non-subscription prices to maximize their position in the market early in 2011. The results have been underwhelming for my portfolio, at least. Your mileage on the stats, of course, may vary as my portfolio is long on nature and travel and light on people.
Images In Portfolio. I compared the number of images I had available in July 2010 to July 2011: Increased by 25%.
# Downloads. I compared the number of downloads YTD (Jan-July) from 2010 to 2011: Decreased by 8%.
Revenue. I compared the total YTD revenue (Jan-July) from 2010 to 2011: Decreased by 40%.
As I seem to remember that FT chopped around 25% off my non-subscription royalties in the last cuts, even if they added that to their bottom line, if the decrease in revenue is shared, then these guys are bleeding share to someone.
That's just wonderful! So six months ago when they reduced your commission, your response was to reward them by increasing your portfolio by 25%. Good move! So you and others just like you are responsible for this commission cut.
Now, six months later you've found out that uploading still won't make up the difference you're losing in revenue so how are you going to respond this time around? Are you going to keep uploading to these greedy pigs? I'd like to know now because your decision at FT will affect my sales at DT, CS etc. in the future. Am I fighting a losing battle because of people like you? Tell me please. Am I wasting my time? Should I quick microstock now? My future with microstock rests in your hands.
did you stop uploading to DT or delete your portfolio when they cut commissions ?
Did you know that CS subscription royalties are lower than fotolia's ?
-
.
-
you said that it would effect your sales at DT, looks like it would effect the sales on one image.
I agree that CS is better than fotolia (in terms of % and extended licences etc.)
I have bagged FT numerous times here
Please don't think I'm sticking up for Fotolia I was sticking up for other poster who you were blaming for the demise of microstock. One person out of 100,000
Is there a RPD target that is acceptable to you ? or % matters more.
If canstock % subscription sales increased what then ?
-
I'm out of there. They are a pain to upload to and have no respect for their contributors. You can't opt out from their 'partner sites' and, if I understand another thread correctly, they are allowing POD without the correct licence purchase. Oh, and if you were unlucky and registered to the US site from Europe, you can't change your payment currency and take a hit by being paid to convert the $$$ to euros so you earn less than your fellow countrymen who just happened to register though a different webpage. What else are they up to that we don't even know about?
If contributors bail then so will buyers. I figure lost revenue at FT will be made up for by increased sales elsewhere and, if I'm wrong, at least I can sleep at night.
-
Ok, let's stop crying and let's give to Fotolia our continued support in our collective quest to become the #1 stock photo agency in the world! :-\
You mean help FT win the Race To The Bottom with the lowest commissions and worst treatment for contributors. Yeah Baby, they are racing for #1 in that category. >:(
Yes qwerty I dropped DT and FT because of commissions but also because of other problems, partner programs, LCV, and "These Don't Sell Well" rejections for things that continue to sell on IS and SS regularly. I think they have lost touch with the contributors.
-
Yes qwerty I dropped DT and FT because of commissions but also because of other problems, partner programs, LCV, and "These Don't Sell Well" rejections for things that continue to sell on IS and SS regularly. I think they have lost touch with the contributors.
You should have dropped IS. Although FT has slashed commissions before, IS's last move showed all others (including FT) that they can do it again (and again and again...) - because most people just carry on.
If there had be a mass exodus from IS following last September, I'm sure the decision to cut commissions for FT would have been a lot harder.
-
I just deleted my portfolio at Fotolia.
I know I am just a small fish, but I still makes me feel good though...
-
.
-
Completely unacceptable for vectors.
They can continue on their way to a slow death alone.
-
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.
-
.
-
I'm done uploading there, you greedy FT *insult removed* and when I get to my next payout, I'm gone, I'll delete the whole * port
-
Completely unacceptable for vectors...
That's what it's looking like. Not sure how I'll proceed at this point. Need to think about it.
-
Completely unacceptable for vectors...
That's what it's looking like. Not sure how I'll proceed at this point. Need to think about it.
Emberstock.com ...
Great site! Congrats!
-
FT is going too far. First time I'm considering dumping them. Sales are about half what they were anyway. Soon it won't even be a hardship to let them go.
Seems like if I dump every site that is screwing contribs, though, that leaves only the small (no money) sites. Then it's time to find another job. Lots of those around these days. ::)
-
FT is going too far. First time I'm considering dumping them. Sales are about half what they were anyway. Soon it won't even be a hardship to let them go.
Seems like if I dump every site that is screwing contribs, though, that leaves only the small (no money) sites. Then it's time to find another job. Lots of those around these days. ::)
Exactly what I am thinking. I will find another possibility to earn money and dump all those greedy agencies...only submitting to the fair ones in the future...
-
Pseudonymous Says: I'm blaming that one person along with the 100,000 (or however many there are still contributing there).
I'm not saying it's a smart strategy. But, it was a thoughtful and logical strategy given the trends that I had seen in my own portfolio. If I recall correctly, the last change primarily (only?) affected non-subscription sales -- subscription payments on average were still higher on FT than on others. Throughout 2010, at FT I had been seeing a steady increase in downloads per image in addition to a mix-shift towards subscription so I figured that the overall decrease may not be that impactful. I generally don't think it makes sense to make major changes in my strategy until it is clear that a market change is sustained and impactful. This thread has forced me to analyze the current situation much more closely.
Specific to FT, they have a history of consistently reducing royalties. I figured that the last round in January would NOTbe the last time that they would cut royalties and negatively impact contributors. And, I am not naive enough to think that this will be the last time. In an agency where my number of downloads per image was increasing, this was acceptable as I figured that the royalty cut was (maybe) going to fund marketing which was resuting in an overall increase. But, so far this year, that basic fact has changed and so the double whammy with the royalty reductions is particularly noticeable. That said, I am also particularly conscious that other agencies that I'm hoping will fill the gap (think StockFresh) have not yet reached their potential. So I wait and look for reasonable alternatives as I adapt my personal strategy to meet what I see and hear in the market. My strategy has changed in the last 12 months as I look at the stock landscape. And, in terms of going forward, my strategy is likely to change again as the landscape changes. Everyone's mileage may vary.
To uplevel this discussion, in the face of what has been changes on the part of IS, DT, FT and others (all in a consistent direction), in your opinion, what are the primary agencies (or agency) that YOU would continue submit to these days? How would you adapt your own strategy to reflect the trends? Or, do you just pull the ripcord on every agency that you think has dissed your portfolio by changing their model? If the latter strategy, how do you expect to make up the revenue hold? Just wondering as I need some additional ideas on how to continue to grow. Continuing to submit every image to every agency may not be the right strategy -- but what is the winning strategy in today's climate?
-
I completely agree with pseudonymous. People have to take responsibility for their actions. The ones who are uploading to abusive agencies support abuse. Even more so if they are exclusives (istock).
The american business Model taught us not to take anything personal, to ignore moral considerations and that everything which brings Profit has to be accepted.
This business model has proven to be not sustainable. It has driven the world into recession. The Dollar itself as Fiat money may face a possible collapse and we face terrible imbalanced economic situations around the world. Not to talk about climate change and other consequences of blind business now...
It is time to change and learn that everyone on this planet has a certain responsibility at least for his own actions and what and whom he supports...
-
It doesn't really matter what pseudonymous or any of us think, people will continue to supply sites until they no longer pay a commission. I think some people might even pay for the privilege. In an ideal world, we would all just use the sites that pay 50% or more and the buyers would all move from the low commission sites. That isn't going to happen, so we really need to think of other ways to improve things.
Does anyone remember Zymmetrical? I sold some EL's with them for $100 and they paid me $70. Unfortunately they weren't very well supported by the majority of contributors and they decided to close their stock images site. That really made the problem clear to me. However much we want people to behave as we want them to, they just wont do it. We also have to respect their point of view. It's a waste of time bickering, I know I do it too much.
So what can we do? I have resigned myself to the fact that I'm not going to be able to make a living from microstock in the future. I really hope I'm wrong but there just doesn't seem a way for us all to do something effective about this.
-
It doesn't really matter what pseudonymous or any of us think, people will continue to supply sites until they no longer pay a commission. I think some people might even pay for the privilege. In an ideal world, we would all just use the sites that pay 50% or more and the buyers would all move from the low commission sites. That isn't going to happen, so we really need to think of other ways to improve things.
Does anyone remember Zymmetrical? I sold some EL's with them for $100 and they paid me $70. Unfortunately they weren't very well supported by the majority of contributors and they decided to close their stock images site. That really made the problem clear to me. However much we want people to behave as we want them to, they just wont do it. We also have to respect their point of view. It's a waste of time bickering, I know I do it too much.
So what can we do? I have resigned myself to the fact that I'm not going to be able to make a living from microstock in the future. I really hope I'm wrong but there just doesn't seem a way for us all to do something effective about this.
I am confident that we can cause change by our words and actions....at least we have to try :-)
-
So what can we do?
Ok. We should start a thread here comparing all the royalty percentages of the known agencies. People have to get conscious about what they are getting paid and agencies have to be aware that this is a matter of public discussion.
This is just a first step and many other small ones have to follow. I am quite sure that some of our arguments DID already change some behaviour of some agencies in the past. They are reading, otherwise people like Serban or Collis would not post here. Pessimism isn`t going to help.
-
Ok. We should start a thread here comparing all the royalty percentages of the known agencies. People have to get conscious about what they are getting paid and agencies have to be aware that this is a matter of public discussion.
This is just a first step and many other small ones have to follow. I am quite sure that some of our arguments DID already change some behaviour of some agencies in the past. They are reading, otherwise people like Serban or Collis would not post here. Pessimism isn`t going to help.
At last! A constructive suggestion amid all the finger pointing. Take a heart Velociraptor!
-
its pretty easy to complain about problems. Its very hard to come up with solutions. I think the overall nature of any crowd sourcing type of business will always be a lot more beneficial to the agency rather than to the supplier. There are too many willing suppliers and i dont see that trend slowing down.
All the things that the agencies are doing recently is to slow down the tide of contributors and images. harder to get in, lots of rejections, cutting commissions. Im afraid fotolia will get away with this and still be fine but i hope they go down in flames hard.
Which brings me to another point. At what point will you drop fotolia? Its pretty simple to shout about abuse and unfair practices of certain agencies and drop them when you make less than xxx amount of money a month. I would guess it gets pretty tricky to drop if that agency brings in XXX amount. At what point would be a comfort point for you? If i was an independent, $200/month or more would be tough for me. thats monthly cable and phone bill. it would make an interesting poll.
-
So what can we do?
Ok. We should start a thread here comparing all the royalty percentages of the known agencies. People have to get conscious about what they are getting paid and agencies have to be aware that this is a matter of public discussion.
This is just a first step and many other small ones have to follow. I am quite sure that some of our arguments DID already change some behaviour of some agencies in the past. They are reading, otherwise people like Serban or Collis would not post here. Pessimism isn`t going to help.
Maybe we should go one step further then starting a thread. Once we have collected the information and somehow normalized it (won't be easy, as mayn sites don't have one fixed percentage, as with levels and such, and for subs we won't know exact percentages), what would be cool would be a list of all agencies - just like the poll results on the right side of the forum - that is visible at all time. Sorted top down starting with the highest commissions. That would give everyone an easy way to identify those agencies and would give them some attention.
Leaf, any chance of implementing such thing?
-
So what can we do?
Ok. We should start a thread here comparing all the royalty percentages of the known agencies. People have to get conscious about what they are getting paid and agencies have to be aware that this is a matter of public discussion.
This is just a first step and many other small ones have to follow. I am quite sure that some of our arguments DID already change some behaviour of some agencies in the past. They are reading, otherwise people like Serban or Collis would not post here. Pessimism isn`t going to help.
Maybe we should go one step further then starting a thread. Once we have collected the information and somehow normalized it (won't be easy, as mayn sites don't have one fixed percentage, as with levels and such, and for subs we won't know exact percentages), what would be cool would be a list of all agencies - just like the poll results on the right side of the forum - that is visible at all time. Sorted top down starting with the highest commissions. That would give everyone an easy way to identify those agencies and would give them some attention.
Leaf, any chance of implementing such thing?
Agreed. But lets start here collecting the data...I`ll start a new thread for that.
-
The thing is that subs on FT are now paying the same as they are on SS (more or less) - the only difference is the volumes :'(
In a situation where ever increasing supply vastly outstrips demand commissions are only going to go in one direction and no matter how many delete accounts there's plenty to replace them. A fair agency could work but only if it has the buyer traffic to make it worth while for critical mass of contributors to place content exclusively which means that contributors would have place content exclusively before it's worth while and that could take some time. I don't honestly see that happening because the vast majority of small timers don't know / don't care and the pros probably can't afford to.
-
If I hadn't already quit those sorry bast@@rds I'd quit. Maybe I'll re-commission my account just so I can quit again.
-
Im a videographer and the subscription removal for HD videos is a welcome change - i think. I was earning a whopping 3.7 dollars for videos that took more than a week to create. But now im unsure how this will affect buyers habits. I kinda imaged that the habit of subscription video buyers was to sift through HD videos on fotolia like they were apples on a tree, kinda like...hmm, i like that one, that one, that one, this one and oooh that one as well - adding them all to their cart. And now that they wont have that facility anymore, will they still purchase as frequently? will they only go for web sized?
Not sure if i will re-coup this revenue stream, only time will tell.
Anyway, back to all you photographers :)
-
Well, last year in September I stopped uploading to IStock.
Come January of this year I deleted my port.
Meanwhile, the big names, photographers with real power, kept on uploading.
I made absolutely no difference and nobody at IStock cared about my protest and my images.
In the end I felt like a fool.
Should I now delete my port at Fotolia?
Yes, I should.
But this time I will not do it unless powerful ports of Emeralds and Golds do it first.
They have the power, they have to decide.
I will follow in their steps.
Velocicarpo and Dirkr,
Great ideas both, let's put them in practice!
-
Im a videographer and the subscription removal for HD videos is a welcome change - i think. I was earning a whopping 3.7 dollars for videos that took more than a week to create
No, no!!! That's the opposite too!! Because actually you can uncheck " sell video in subscription" in your profile, i've done that some months ago and i've never sold a video by subscription!!
(http://s144573887.onlinehome.fr/images%20forums/fotolia%20option.JPG)
But now, they going to sell small size video for nothing, next time, they will probably erase the possibility of subscription choice etc. Each time contributors lose royalties and choice, and the trap is closing slowly until they have to sell photos, vectors and video for 10cents, maybe less in the future!
-
@Eireann, it's not so much about making a difference or getting noticed by the companies. Even if someone like Yuri quit, it probably wouldn't make a difference. It would get someone's attention, for sure, but in the end Fotolia, istock, and any other company can get by without Yuri's portfolio. He still represents a very small percentage of the whole collection.
I'm struggling more with how much I can personally take from these companies. If I quit any of them, they wouldn't notice. But that doesn't really matter. It's getting harder and harder for me to talk to people about this stuff and not feel like an idiot. With istock it got a little ridiculous to explain to people that istock keeps 83% of every sale of my work. With Fotolia, it's a little different but still I get that same feeling, like I'm a dope for putting up with it. Mostly because, like istock, they think they're fooling me with the B.S. excuses and explanations. "It's what's going on in the market." "The current business is unsustainable." Please.
I guess I can tolerate pay cuts, to a point, but the patronizing is getting harder and harder to bear.
-
I did remove all my videos from FT a long time ago. It really isn't worth uploading them for their commission when Pond5 give 50% and you can set your own prices. But I don't rely on my video income, so that was easy for me.
-
Im a videographer and the subscription removal for HD videos is a welcome change - i think. I was earning a whopping 3.7 dollars for videos that took more than a week to create
No, no!!! That's the opposite too!! Because actually you can uncheck " sell video in subscription" in your profile, i've done that some months ago and i've never sold a video by subscription!!
([url]http://s144573887.onlinehome.fr/images%20forums/fotolia%20option.JPG[/url])
But now, they going to sell small size video for nothing, next time, they will probably erase the possibility of subscription choice etc. Each time contributors lose royalties and choice, and the trap is closing slowly until they have to sell photos, vectors and video for 10cents, maybe less in the future!
Thanks for the heads up, i didnt realise i could do that, but to be honest even if i did know im not sure if i would opt out because with all the subscription downloads i get it does add up at the end of the month albeit small change but change none the less.
So what im trying to find out is if i will earn less because the cheapo subscription buyers may just decided to no longer purchase video. Or maybe they will just buy small web video in which case i will gain an even smaller commision, at least thats what i understood from the thread starter.
-
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%
-
.
-
...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.
-
.
-
.
-
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
-
.
-
Edit:- Not relevant now that the previous post is deleted.
-
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 (http://www.photoshelter.com/referral/CL5DY6W42W) (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.
-
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. ::)
-
.
-
^^^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 ;)
-
^^^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.
-
.
-
.
-
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.
-
Don't give them your new photos!
Promote everyday sites with better deal for us...
"Change the river flow"
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!!
-
Something has changed. Or broken. I have vector subscription sale for 0.81 today.
-
I've just sold a photo xxl for 0.27c of € today :-\
-
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.
-
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.
-
I saw a comment from sjlocke on another thread to Mat saying "So, you're fine with putting professional band photographers out of work?" I just laughed to myself and thought... "Is he kidding? Is he happy ruining it for professional photographers in general?" We've all ruined it for them by selling microstock, especially at todays rates.
My comment was a little bit sarcastic, because I found it funny that he was essentially giving the band free content. He didn't mention at first that he was there on a paid assignment (I think), and the giveaway was just a requirement for that.
-
I reckon the 'last straw' has come for me. This is the 2nd commission drop within 6 months at FT.
I've been reading several previous years threads on here about all the commission cuts that have happened over the years at FT, and I find it very disturbing. If you were employed in a company that did nothing but cut your wages year after year, and even twice in one year I think you'd be looking for a different job.
Over the years prices have increased in just about everything, from electricity, petrol (gas) clothing right down to the food you eat. How can anyone survive with pay cuts year on year. It is no different with contributors such as us. We still need to eat, clothe our kids and ourselves etc etc etc.
The way things are going with FT, we will be paying them soon to sell our images, not the other way round!!!
So on that note, I have personally had enough now, and will take my stand by closing my account.
Edit: And would you believe it, as I was typing the above a sale came in from FT hahaha
-
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.
Exactly Lisa,
I wish I could give up micro, or at least some of the most revolting agencies like FL, but I live from stock alone and until I create viable alternatives I cannot give up in an heart beat any agency that displeases me, for later to be choosing whether I want a place to live, or to eat that month...
And if the worse things that happen in FL were the decreasing commissions I would be "happy". I seriously suspect much worse things occur there that we cannot see.
-
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.
Are you kidding? Where's stockxpert now? They were sold to Getty...
So they were sold. So what? They could have slashed rates and jacked up prices to sweeten the deal, but they didn't. StockXpert was run pretty much like every agency should be, with simple pricing models and fair royalty rates.
I'm not saying let's not support SF. I do support them now, but why settle for 50% if we have the tools to set up something that suits us, where we can get more for it. Wy don't we do it? I'm not saying let's drive the fair agencies out. I'm saying let's put something in place that will drive the agencies to look after us as well as their buyers...
Do you have any idea what it would cost to set up an independent agency that could ever stand a chance of grabbing the attention of the other agencies or their buyers? Microstock isn't a shoestring startup game anymore. Think about what you'd need just to get up and running. The IT infrastructure, the support staff, reviewers, hardware, office space, web developers, designers, programmers, search experts, marketing, advertising, etc. It would take some serious startup money to get any microstock company off the ground, let alone a good one that would stand a chance against the likes of istock or fotolia.
We don't have the tools to set up something that would do what you're describing. The only thing that would make the big agencies bat an eyelid is another agency, not a contributor-based collective or unfunded mini-agency started by photographers. And to get a real agency like that going, you'd need an investor with deep pockets to fund the millions of dollars of expenses required to do the job.
-
.
-
.
-
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.
Exactly Lisa,
I wish I could give up micro, or at least some of the most revolting agencies like FL, but I live from stock alone and until I create viable alternatives I cannot give up in an heart beat any agency that displeases me, for later to be choosing whether I want a place to live, or to eat that month...
And if the worse things that happen in FL were the decreasing commissions I would be "happy". I seriously suspect much worse things occur there that we cannot see.
The only thing keeping me afloat with FT were my Premium vector sub sales which have now gone from 1.08 to 0.27 per sale. So, it is a much easier decision for me to close my account with FT as I now feel that I will not be making payouts on a regular basis with such a 'drastic cut' to my commissions.
-
pseu.. or suynnymars..
why do u say "you suckers" like your not one of them? You clearly have it in your head that your somewhat better than some people on this forum. Who are your really referring to as suckers? I just wished you would be less angry and not so happy to attack others. im being sarcastic too. i hope i can use that excuse whenever i feel like hating on people.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
Side note! I just got another email from Zazzle telling me I've sold another bunches of business cards.
SUCKERS! ;D
Actually I do get your solution point. all own shops and selling through one gigantic search. Only, we have no pull, you know how expensive advertising, PR, is. From where do we get the clout to lure buyers away and come to us?
Just look how many middle and low tier agencies there are, trying everything to gain customers and they all seem to be on the breadline. I mean its one thing setting up shop but its a whole differant story getting buyers, buyers that are willing to move over. Its been tried and failed all the time.
best.
-
.
-
We are pleased to announce that one of your files has just been sold for 10% less than it was yesterday.
-
Reading through this thread is painful. I think the best approach for a few people here would be to take a deep breath, sit down, and create a business plan. I'm willing to bet there are only 1 or 2 folks (if that) who have commented on this thread that have a written business plan.
I for one will continue to contribute to Fotolia. Do I like that they cut commissions? No. Are they taking advantage of me? Nope. Not in the least. Why? Because the images I'm submitting to these places would not make the cut at other places where my work sells for more. I'm not willing to sell a Ferrari at a Ford dealership at the price of an average Ford and you shouldn't either.
Some folks that are commenting on this thread sell images through Getty or Alamy or other "non-micro" type outlets and they do well at it. One thing I found years ago, between 2005 and 2008 when I started doing this the first time, is that there's a market for EVERY image. Your responsibility, as a business owner, is to find that market and be honest with yourself as to what that image is really worth. You need to look at this from the value of an image perspective, not the value of a license or value of a royalty perspective. Getty and Corbis and all the major players do this as well - they will move images from one collection to another because the value of an image will decrease based on the current market. Why can't you do the same?
...and in my personal opinion, those that are giving away free images on the micro sites as part of their business strategy have absolutely NO room to comment on this thread - those images are worth something on a site somewhere...why give away the roost? Ask yourself this, on sites where you set your own price on images, have you set the image to the maximum price or to the lowest price? Why did you choose to price the image in that fashion? Same concept.
Stop playing the role of a victim and run your business like a business.
-
Helix,
you're right, of course.
But why only Yuri?
What would happen if Yuri, plus 20-30 big names Emeralds and 30 successful Golds would threaten to suddenly pull out their ports in protest?
That's a lot of wonderful images and a big loss.
I'm almost sure any agency would then back up and reconsider.
Those are the photographers with the power, they can do it.
But I'm just wasting time.
Such a thing will never happen. I have never seen Yuri protesting or trying to change the industry for the better, (he could, if he wanted to), and I highly doubt big names will ever unite and act in unison.
Lisa Young is our only voice and the only independent BD who is aware of her power and tries to use it for the good of all of us. She needs back up from the others though, and she's probably never going to get it.
I already deleted my port at IStock.
I won't do it again unless I'm following in the steps of powerful artists who can make a difference.
PS
What's 'Warmpicture'?
If it's a fair agency and one that we should support, I want to go there too :)
-
Ed, is in fact right in many of his staements. Nobody has twisted our arms to join up. For those of us whos been in the game prior to digital agencies. Surely you remember the good old trad-agencies, well then you also remember the gigantic fees we used to get? many times way past a grand, right? then you will also remember the slow decline of prices, it went on for years. A pic that say fetched 1K, in 1990, didnt fetch more then 500 bucks three years later and with identical rights.
This is nothing new! been there before, a slow boat to China. In those days many photographers were irreplacable, today you get replaced within 1 minute flat.
-
.
-
Just keeps on going downhill :(
I have 1100 pics and HD video ready to pull anyone up for it, gathering a few/lot could be interesting to see the amount files we could end up with.
B
-
I think I'm probably going to close my account too but right now on the fence. Definitely not uploading anything else to them that's for sure. I'll have to talk it over with my man to see if he can give me some help with it. Since micro is my only income right now I have to figure out what is best for me. And yeah I already know this slightly contradicts what I said the other day but I also don't want to make this decision lightly.
If it weren't for this place I'd not known about this going on because I never got the * email from that site and I am on the mailing list.
-
pseu.. or suynnymars..
why do u say "you suckers" like your not one of them? You clearly have it in your head that your somewhat better than some people on this forum. Who are your really referring to as suckers? I just wished you would be less angry and not so happy to attack others. im being sarcastic too. i hope i can use that excuse whenever i feel like hating on people.
Sorry to disappoint you VB, but you're not that important to me to actually make me angry. I shake my head in frustration, but there's no anger. As for "suckers" I'm saying that's how the microstock view us. Can you really argue that they don't view us that way? Can you argue that anyone doesn't view us that way? We're selling our images for $0.27 *, are we not suckers? How much time, effort (and money) does it take to create these images and we're selling them for $0.27 and they can use them their entire life. Sorry, but we're SUCKERS. lol we are!
As for 'hating on people', calm down, jesus. It's constructive criticism. If you can't take it, you're not just a sucker but a *(cat) as well.
im sure most ppl that read your posts think its angry. dont try to hide it by saying your being sarcastic. Im sure your frustrated, without much talent, its hard to make it in life.
haha... im not sure if your aware that i am exlcusive vector artist at istock that is averaging around $7 a dl with my regular files. i dont concentrate on photography since i think its too little money for the return in my case. I come on this forum to guage the market because for some time last year i was actually thinking about committing more of my time on it. I have to wade through angry posts to get any good deal of info around here. Someone else said the most vocal people here are the ones making the least amount of money. I kind of see what they were talking about.
Zazzle? gimme a break... get some real clients. oh wait, zazzle is where you upload anything and everything you want with no restrictions on how many crappy products you put in your store that you have to advertise yourself and compete with millions of other crappy stuff? thats a better business model right there for the owners. talk about suckers
-
this forum is starting to sound like shutterstock's.
See ya
-
@Pseudo,
Ah! Thank you for the info!
I think I know who Dan is ... I remember something going on a few months ago, but at the time I was too ill to even turn on the computer.
OK.
'Warmpictures' sounds like a nice project, I know and respect Dan, and I would love to be allowed to participate.
Let's find out more about it and try to join :)
-
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.
Ouch! How'd I get tossed into this catfight? Nevermind - injected myself like always ;)
Let's be fair, at Istock I give them 81% of my in come, not 85%. But your point is well taken. It's still more than I like. And as I have mentioned here before, Istock was consistently 40% of my income through 2010. That is running more like a third this year, but still WAY too much to just toss out the window.
Anyone here who is willing to toss away a third of their total income, please raise your hand...!
That doesn't mean I am going to passively quietly accept any BS they throw my way. But, like most of us, I have worked for bosses or companies I didn't like in the past and still had to keep the job until I was able to get something better.
Not a whole lot better out there, sadly. But that doesn't mean we should give up.
FWIW, Pseudo, I think you are a lovely girl too :)
ETA: Whew - this thread is fast moving. I finally caught up.
On the griping thing, I am all for griping, as Pseudo has pointed out. My personal motto is "I complain, therefore I am". ;D I just think it's important to point out the things that are happening over and above the griping.
Pseudo, I like your idea about a bunch of people with their own sites, but with a common search. It was discussed here awhile back, and that was one of the main reasons I invested in my own site. I lack the technical skill to implement something like that, but I would be happy to step up and support the efforts of anyone who wants to put something like that together. As I am supporting Warmpicture, which is the closest effort to do that.
There are a lot of ways to do something and not sit passively by, short of instantly dropping the top three sites that have cut commissions, and losing essential income. For those who can afford to drop them, by all means, you have my respect, and even envy. I am not in that position ATM.
-
It would be hard to lose the earnings from istock but not so hard to leave FT. If enough of us left, it might make the other sites think about cutting commissions. The problem is, I don't see enough people leaving to make the buyers look elsewhere. If buyers left, I bet a lot of them would go to istock or thinkstock, that's not going to help.
Something we could do is buy an advert in a design magazine with a list of sites that we back and would like buyers to have a look at. We could coordinate it with sites giving special offers to entice buyers. If that's too expensive, I'm sure there's other positive things we could do.
-
I actually don't like this idea about setting up another agent. But it's better than going to another existing agent for 50%. My solution isn't another agent. My solution is everyone selling direct with their own stores yet pulled together in one search engine. My solution wouldn't cost much and it would pretty much run itself. My solution would earn you 100%. My solution gives you full control of your own images. My solution would allow us to still upload to agents but agents would be kept in check. My solution wouldn't ... ahh I can't give too much away :)
My solution probably wouldn't hurt the existing micros so much... maybe the really greedy ones. Overall it could save the industry.
You say that your idea isn't setting up another agent. But you describe an idea, where everyone is his own agent. Everyone makes his own prices and everyone will be in competition with everyone. And because you are in competition worldwide, you are in competition with people in US, Europe, China, India, Africa. There are countries, where living is not so expensive like in US or Germany.
What will one do if he can't sell his images? My experience in other industries is: He will lower the price. What will you have to do then? You will lower your prices too!!! Or you will have to change your business, because you can't earn your living. Remember - that's business as usual.
You say that agents would be kept in check. By what? By higher prices? My experience in other industries is: Buyers will not pay higher prices. By lower prices? When you lower your prices you do just the same like FT and the result is just the same. But you have done it on your own. Is this your solution of full control of your own images?
You say that your solution would earn me 100%. Remember: At last 100% of nothing is nothing.
Don't be angry, pseudoanonymous, but your ideas are not realistic. Dream on.
I don't say "do nothing". My suggestion is something like "agent hopping". I posted it yesterday.
-
I must of not understood the changes correctly because i just earned $2.7 for subscription based HD purchase. It used to be a painful 3.5 but now this....I thought that HD files were no longer available under the subscription plan.
If this is indeed true i am opting out. This is becoming rediculous.
-
...
Such a thing will never happen. I have never seen Yuri protesting or trying to change the industry for the better, (he could, if he wanted to), and I highly doubt big names will ever unite and act in unison.
...
@Eireann:
Look at Yuri's website. There you can read, that he has been working on a selling platform for the direct selling of the YA collection of images, videos, vectors, etc. since some years. Maybe he doesn't want to change the industry for the better, but it seems that he wants to change his business for the better.
-
Sorry that I do not elaborate on who is insulting who above, just want to interrupt the academic discussion to mention that it seems like V3 of the website went active today.....
-
the back and forth insulting, portfolio bashing and criticizing posts have been removed.
-
alright... new start for everyone ;)
-
alright... new start for everyone ;)
Translation: "Welcome to the IS forum. Knock yourselves out ;)"
;D
-
Man, this thread has taken some strange turns.
I know the post deletions were necessary to keep order around here, but anyone who read those posts before they were gone will know what I'm talking about. It's disappointing, to say the least, to see a major microstock event organizer bashing contributors for being upset by pay cuts.
-
Man, this thread has taken some strange turns.
Yeah, it seems to have died now though!!!
Anybody know if you close your account with FT that they pay you out on earnings up to date, even if you haven't got to the payout level? I was just about to fire off an email to FT to close my account when I suddenly thought 'what happens to my earnings'. If they don't pay out then I will probably wait till I get to another payout before closing the account.
-
i should apologize to all who had to wade through that. i really should have just used the ignore button but i have very little tolerance to people that think they are better than others and feel the need to belittle them while at the same time think that they are actually helping anyone out. There will be newbies reading this forum that have no idea whats going on and would take whatever she said to be the truth.
-
It's disappointing, to say the least, to see a major microstock event organizer bashing contributors for being upset by pay cuts.
+1
but I think he is disappointed because of the little interest in his expo and so he saw a chance to bash microstockers, but nobody asked him to make an expo If he would asked me in advance I would have said to him that it is not a good idea and most people are not willing to spend so much money on a expo let alone travel-cost.....
-
fotolia has officially become the 2nd site I will tell my customers to stay away from when purchasing stock..
spread the word, you will see, it is effective in the long run! tell everyone that these sites are awful and they don't respect their suppliers..
-
Yeah, it seems to have died now though!!!
...
Yes, and that's allright. The name of this topic is: "Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions". In the meantime most of the contributers at FT have noticed this. And the discussion here turned in "What to do against lowering the commissions by FT".
But that's not only a problem at FT. It's the problem at other agents too. And there we have another topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions)!/.
So let's go on there.
-
...
Such a thing will never happen. I have never seen Yuri protesting or trying to change the industry for the better, (he could, if he wanted to), and I highly doubt big names will ever unite and act in unison.
...
@Eireann:
Look at Yuri's website. There you can read, that he has been working on a selling platform for the direct selling of the YA collection of images, videos, vectors, etc. since some years. Maybe he doesn't want to change the industry for the better, but it seems that he wants to change his business for the better.
Yuri is the only one who actually gets and increase in subscription royalties from this. He hasn't suffered cuts in any of the previous ones either - mostly just increases. Obviously he's communicating in a way that his interests are looked after. Its naive to think that anyone but Yuri benefits from his efforts in this industry. He's smart, but his motives aren't altruistic. You can bet that he has sweetheart deals in every one of the agencies that are cutting contributors commissions, with the possible exceptions of iStock and Shutterstock that ensure he gets a higher commission, search placement preference and frequently profile links ont he front page of a site.
If people here are looking for a knight in shining white armour, they're going to have to look elsewhere.
-
...
Such a thing will never happen. I have never seen Yuri protesting or trying to change the industry for the better, (he could, if he wanted to), and I highly doubt big names will ever unite and act in unison.
...
@Eireann:
Look at Yuri's website. There you can read, that he has been working on a selling platform for the direct selling of the YA collection of images, videos, vectors, etc. since some years. Maybe he doesn't want to change the industry for the better, but it seems that he wants to change his business for the better.
If people here are looking for a knight in shining white armour, they're going to have to look elsewhere.
@holgs:
Nobody here looks for a white knight, especially no white knight, who wants to change his business for the better (in the meaning of "his better"). Have a look at the other topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions)!/ and try to follow the discussion there.
-
Noticed this link below........'Fotolia raised subscription prices'.......2008.
http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2008/06/fotolia.html (http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2008/06/fotolia.html)
Backt o the future. ;)
-
@holgs:
Nobody here looks for a white knight, especially no white knight, who wants to change his business for the better (in the meaning of "his better"). Have a look at the other topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions[/url])!/ and try to follow the discussion there.
@Ralf you've probably missed about 3 years of discussions on this exact same topic. I don't think its inappropriate to respond to comments on the thread that they're made. Every time one of the agencies - and lets face it Fotolia has cut commissions more often than anyone - cuts their commissions one of these threads starts that doesn't go anywhere. Given that this is manly a non-istock-exclusive forum, the thread inevitably turns into an anti-istock sentiment, which at the moment I don't have energy for. Yes the commission is as low as 15% for non-exclusives (which for the record I don't agree with) but for many exclusives its still the best way of maximising their income.
I've already taken about the only step that was available to me to increase my % commission, my total income and my revenue per Download. For me that was going exclusive on iStock. Obviously that's not a popular option around here at the moment. Minimum subscription prices on the partner program are 0.40 which is higher than on any of the other agencies. A bad month on iStock is currently higher than my previous BME as an independent, and my total portfolio size is still about 30% smaller than it was on sites like SS. Nevertheless I'm not oblivious to what else is going on in the industry - what happens on one site often has a flow-on effect elsewhere. Perversely contributors leaving iStock exclusivity probably gives Fotolia more room to move in further cutting commissions.
If I was still on Fotolia, my percentage as a silver level contributor would now be between 14-23% for credit downloads made in Euros (which are the overwhelming majority of sales), and back down to 29c for subscriptions (I shudder to think what percentage that is). An entry level non-exclusive there would be getting as little as 11% on some Euro credit sales.
Probably the best thing about becoming exclusive was being able to delete my portfolio on FT - in hindsight I wish I'd done it when they announced their first round of cuts.
-
Question for those who dropped fotolia in the past (not recently): did you see an increase in sales at the other agencies? I would think it should be a visible gain, because of not spreading your images on fotolia and all its countless affiliates throughout the world.
-
Question for those who dropped fotolia in the past (not recently): did you see an increase in sales at the other agencies? I would think it should be a visible gain, because of not spreading your images on fotolia and all its countless affiliates throughout the world.
I ditched them almost 2 years ago and still am very happy i did. Dont recall really if my sales on other sites went up dramatically (probably didnt otherwise i'd remember ;)) but i find it very relieving to see my pics are away from all those sketchy 'partnersites' which made me feel MY pics were only 1 step away from being public domain and totally out of my control.
-
@holgs:
Nobody here looks for a white knight, especially no white knight, who wants to change his business for the better (in the meaning of "his better"). Have a look at the other topic: "How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?" at [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions[/url])!/ and try to follow the discussion there.
@Ralf you've probably missed about 3 years of discussions on this exact same topic. I don't think its inappropriate to respond to comments on the thread that they're made. Every time one of the agencies - and lets face it Fotolia has cut commissions more often than anyone - cuts their commissions one of these threads starts that doesn't go anywhere. Given that this is manly a non-istock-exclusive forum, the thread inevitably turns into an anti-istock sentiment, which at the moment I don't have energy for. Yes the commission is as low as 15% for non-exclusives (which for the record I don't agree with) but for many exclusives its still the best way of maximising their income.
I've already taken about the only step that was available to me to increase my % commission, my total income and my revenue per Download. For me that was going exclusive on iStock. Obviously that's not a popular option around here at the moment. Minimum subscription prices on the partner program are 0.40 which is higher than on any of the other agencies. A bad month on iStock is currently higher than my previous BME as an independent, and my total portfolio size is still about 30% smaller than it was on sites like SS. Nevertheless I'm not oblivious to what else is going on in the industry - what happens on one site often has a flow-on effect elsewhere. Perversely contributors leaving iStock exclusivity probably gives Fotolia more room to move in further cutting commissions.
If I was still on Fotolia, my percentage as a silver level contributor would now be between 14-23% for credit downloads made in Euros (which are the overwhelming majority of sales), and back down to 29c for subscriptions (I shudder to think what percentage that is). An entry level non-exclusive there would be getting as little as 11% on some Euro credit sales.
Probably the best thing about becoming exclusive was being able to delete my portfolio on FT - in hindsight I wish I'd done it when they announced their first round of cuts.
well said!
-
Just keeps on going downhill :(
I have 1100 pics and HD video ready to pull anyone up for it, gathering a few/lot could be interesting to see the amount files we could end up with.
B
And I have 1,728 files ready to pull. Let's Count!
-
Just got Fotolia's newsletter with the following quote:
This subscription, the cheapest on the market, will allow you to download images in the best definition available (1 download), vectors (now 1 download instead of previously 3) and videos in Big Web size (now 5 downloads instead of previously 10).
Yeah, and at who's expense!!!
Problem now is, are the other agencies going to compete with FT's new "lowest in the market" subscription rates by putting theirs down, and will we see our commissions being cut elsewhere because of it. :(
-
Problem now is, are the other agencies going to compete with FT's new "lowest in the market" subscription rates by putting theirs down, and will we see our commissions being cut elsewhere because of it. :(
+1 but maybe it is good thing that the subscription model will become unsustainable for all contributors because the subscription model itself sucks deeply.
-
I have no problem with subscriptions but I don't like the low commissions and not knowing what percentage we receive.
I hope this doesn't work for FT, they seem to be losing ground. I'm sure most buyers find microstock cheap enough already and are more interested in finding the right images. They will have much more success with shutterstock.
-
Does anybody have an avalanche of maximum size sub sales since they started this v3? I can hardly spot a regular sale these days and they're mostly small size.
-
I have very few sales now, just one regular and 5 or 6 ridiculous sales, i decide to stop uploading, for sure.
-
Does anybody have an avalanche of maximum size sub sales since they started this v3? I can hardly spot a regular sale these days and they're mostly small size.
Yup,
98 % is subs sales at L, XL, XXL
Very disappointing :(
Patrick.
-
these are my latest 20:
(http://www.catalinpetolea.com/potn/fstats.jpg)
-
This is an extras from their newsletter:
"Take up to one month to download the images of your choice with no daily limits. Any unused downloads will carry over into the next month when you renew."
To me it appears to be a direct hit at SS model. Now, why would I want to get payed $0.29 instead of $0.38? Why would anyone want this, in fact? If this strategy works as intended, and buyers will rush in masses over ft's "cheapest subscription on the market", where is our gain?
-
Maybe it's not worth to close our accounts immediately, but we must stop uploading new pictures now, stop feeding the thief.
-
here are my stats on my fotolia accounts:
3 regulars sales and 18 subs >:(
fotolia Fr:
(http://s144573887.onlinehome.fr/images%20forums/fotolia%20f.JPG)
fotolia US:
(http://s144573887.onlinehome.fr/images%20forums/fotolia%20us.JPG)
-
I am not having an avalanche of sales, but all are subs however. Wonderful 29c each. Ooooh, I love FT, yeah!
-
Maybe it's not worth to close our accounts immediately, but we must stop uploading new pictures now, stop feeding the thief.
Yes, I am definitely stopping uploads to them. I will monitor what's happening during this month before I take other measures. Anyway, at this rate even if I stay there I will hit gold level in a few years perhaps, with the vast majority of sales being subs.
-
2828 files so far :)
-
Yes, I am definitely stopping uploads to them. I will monitor what's happening during this month before I take other measures. Anyway, at this rate even if I stay there I will hit gold level in a few years perhaps, with the vast majority of sales being subs.
In my US account, I've not uploaded new files since 2 years and the sales stay at the same level. Keeping account open without sending new files, is a good alternative, in return, fotolia going to lack of new images and be surpassed by the others sites in few months...but only if many of us are acting like that...
If the sales drop deeply next months, no regrets to close the account...
-
I'm getting $0.87 per vector subscription sale. I could swear the charts I looked at put vector sub sales at the same $0.29 as photos.
It's still not great, and no where near as good as the $1.11 premium vector sub sales I used to get. But I don't remember seeing $0.87 in the charts.
-
I'm getting $0.87 per vector subscription sale. I could swear the charts I looked at put vector sub sales at the same $0.29 as photos.
It's still not great, and no where near as good as the $1.11 premium vector sub sales I used to get. But I don't remember seeing $0.87 in the charts.
Probably from existing subscription plans purchased before the new subscriptions came into effect. Not sure if they lowered the overall percentage which would account for the sales being 0.87 instead of 1.11. Although that seems like quite a drop anyways.
-
Not here! Im having big and small sales, even some ELs. I can actually see a very positive improvement from earlier. Just hopes it stays that way.
-
Been discussing this ad nauseum with the boyfriend for the last week. I told him what was going on and said that I'm thinking of closing my account there. With our discussions (and taking into account what we're financially going through right now) I've decided not to close my account there. I do get payouts there 2-3 months but will monitor how long it will take to reach the next one. I am, however, stopping uploads for the time being. New stuff really isn't selling there for me at all and until that changes no new content from me is going up there.
Now if I had my other sites sustain me with regular payouts then yeah I'd be outta there in a heartbeat. Or if I made a target amount each month then I would be outta there. But right now I can't quit until we get our financial things under control. So yeah no feeding the theif for me either.
-
Not here! Im having big and small sales, even some ELs. I can actually see a very positive improvement from earlier. Just hopes it stays that way.
Good for you, are you the niece of fotolia boss?
-
Not here! Im having big and small sales, even some ELs. I can actually see a very positive improvement from earlier. Just hopes it stays that way.
Good for you, are you the niece of fotolia boss?
No, I don't think HE'S the niece of anyone at Fotolia. Or anyone else for that matter ;)
-
Well, seein' as how I'm still totally exclusive at FT (out of pure laziness), I have the option of withdrawing from subs entirely. Tried that once before but went back in, due to an increasingly poor position in the search. New work wasn't being seen and I believed at the time that appearing in subs also did bring in some buyers of dl's.
My ratio of dl's to subs has now crept up to 7:4 but those dl's bring in 9X the amount of money that the subs do. A couple of years ago, I had looked at stock as a method of subsidising my State pension in 5 years time. Haven't got many images and I'm not a big uploader but I was considering putting in more effort to more uploads as my monthly income was increasing steadily and was around €80/month in February 2011 when FT messed with the search engine and reduced commissions in March. Now I'm lucky if I earn half that and the income trend is down, not up.
Fortunately for me FT is just pocket money compared to paid commissions so I'm going to say 'eff'em'......if they want my stock material, they can pay for a dl They're cheap enough anyway as the majority are rated at one basis credit, although I'm allowed to charge 2. If buyers won't pay for a dl, well, too bad for me. The amounts involved are so small that it's really not worth worrying about.
As an aside, there's little point in getting above bronze or silver at FT now because although the commission percentage rises, the basic credit multiple is now is maximised at 3 (same as Silver). It also strikes me that some potential buyers are OK with a 2 basic credit but when it's 3 and you need an XL size........24 credits is a lot to fork out! (Thinks to self, maybe that's why FT encourages subs by making them so cheap........get 750 XL's for less than it costs to buy 10......download only the 10 you need for $200.........FT gives the contributor their $3+ and kachingo......$197 earned. Everyone is delirious.........'cept the creator)!
-
...
-
Big companies get used to the fact that the photography in these days is FOR FREE. Another words Photographers have been cheated and they have been humiliated by big business and by Microstock companies who flooded the market with the free images and the problem is now that we are now surrounded by images that we dont appreciate anymore (and it doeas not work anymore)... and the next goal will be to transofrm the static picture into the moving picture (footage) and thats why about 3 months ago Shutterstock was calling all its contributors to change their activities into shooting movies. The age of static picture is going to the end and its price is going to drop drasticly in the following years since it has smaller and smaller value in commercial activities. Corporate marketing requires another form of imagery (particualrly in internet) to chase their commercial goals.
Two facts of business at work here: 1) natural evolution of business and technology, and 2) supply and demand. We can complain until we're blue in the face, but it's pointless. You adapt, and you make yourself unique instead of a commodity, or you die.
Those who are quick to embrace point 1 and on the cutting edge of figuring out what customers want before they want it will always prosper. That's because there are very few of them at the beginning of any movement and the supply and demand ratio works in their favor.
Yes, video will be more and more in demand as everything you pick up will have moving images on it. But we're not quite there yet.
The answer won't be to simply shoot video of the things you're currently shooting photos of. If your photos aren't selling today, chances are your videos won't sell well tomorrow. Those with a true understanding of what customers demand, and what needs aren't already being met (probably people with skills better than your own), will prosper no matter what the format. I've said it over and over here... there are niches that are undercovered and in great demand, and if you are one of the few artists creating photos or illustrations covering these areas, you will do well, even when the agencies each have a billion images. Get out there and figure it out.
-
It is clear that sooner or later each of those big-micro-stocks will cut royalties for contributors unless contributors are going to find a way to defend against it...
Well let's be fair here to the companies that don't cut rates. This isn't a microstock industry-wide epidemic. We're talking about a few companies out of many. To my knowledge, Fotolia and istock are the only ones to cut royalty rates. On the other end of the spectrum, SS has been the only company (as far as I know) to raise rates. Although they haven't done it in a while.
In between, there are 11 other companies I work with, none of whom have cut rates. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong and another well-known company has indeed cut rates).
These are a few bad apples out of the large bunch, and the larger part of the group haven't crossed over to the dark side yet. Will they? Maybe. But I doubt it in most cases.
-
It does appear to me however that when an agency gets too greedy ... it can blow up fairly spectacularly in their face. Istock being a prime example and FT losing ground too.
-
To my knowledge, Fotolia and istock are the only ones to cut royalty rates. On the other end of the spectrum, SS has been the only company (as far as I know) to raise rates. Although they haven't done it in a while.
In between, there are 11 other companies I work with, none of whom have cut rates. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong and another well-known company has indeed cut rates).
I agree with your larger point, but DT has cut rates too. They did throw in some sweeteners to cushion the blow though.
-
In between, there are 11 other companies I work with, none of whom have cut rates. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong and another well-known company has indeed cut rates).
These are a few bad apples out of the large bunch, and the larger part of the group haven't crossed over to the dark side yet. Will they? Maybe. But I doubt it in most cases.
Eventually they will have to in order to survive. FT is not IS. IS is expensive so it's a bit easier to get buyers to switch to another site. FT is one of the cheapest out there so not only will buyers stay, but more will flock there. Not many contributors will leave.... most, as shown in this thread will only stop uploading but that won't slow FT down. Other contributors will see it as an opportunity to move up the ranks and will upload more. The other companies will lose buyers and will be forced to reduce prices and commissions to stay in the game.
It's a become a virus and we just have to let it run it's course now. It'll kill off a lot of talent and the only ones who'll remain in the industry are the ones who are immune... the ones that are in it as a hobby and the ones who live in third world countries who can still live off low commissions.
It's unfortunate but that's just the way it is.
-
To my knowledge, Fotolia and istock are the only ones to cut royalty rates. On the other end of the spectrum, SS has been the only company (as far as I know) to raise rates. Although they haven't done it in a while.
In between, there are 11 other companies I work with, none of whom have cut rates. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong and another well-known company has indeed cut rates).
I agree with your larger point, but DT has cut rates too. They did throw in some sweeteners to cushion the blow though.
And Canstock too they had 70% or 75% commission (can't remember exactly) for the photographer at the time I started with them a long time ago!
-
The "stop uploading new images" drive seems like a great way to suffocate a greedy website slowly but surely. Their customers will pick the lack of new content up and move to other sites. BUT, how many contributors are represented on this website who will actively participate in such a drive, compare to the total number of contributors. If the drive is only from us here, it might not even dent their new uploads that much. How to get a large proportion of their contributors to participate, I think, is the challenge......
-
The "stop uploading new images" drive seems like a great way to suffocate a greedy website slowly but surely. Their customers will pick the lack of new content up and move to other sites. BUT, how many contributors are represented on this website who will actively participate in such a drive, compare to the total number of contributors. If the drive is only from us here, it might not even dent their new uploads that much. How to get a large proportion of their contributors to participate, I think, is the challenge......
It will be a slow process as many FT contributors have complained for months of lack of views/sale of their newly uploaded work!
-
The "stop uploading new images" drive seems like a great way to suffocate a greedy website slowly but surely. Their customers will pick the lack of new content up and move to other sites. BUT, how many contributors are represented on this website who will actively participate in such a drive, compare to the total number of contributors. If the drive is only from us here, it might not even dent their new uploads that much. How to get a large proportion of their contributors to participate, I think, is the challenge......
You're not wrong! They seem to have almost as many images as SS, possibly a similar number of contributors numbering 100s of thousands. Using the DT rank here as a guide to possible number of independents on this site we're talking in the region of 600. Of those only 40 have 10,000+ (lifetime) sales and 200+ have no sales. All of the top 40 "going on strike" may have a minor impact, as for the rest of us, they wouldn't even notice...
-
They have enough contributors that that can absorb "dead loss" in the millions. I know of several significant MS contributors who are permanently banned from FT. And FT could care less. I mean CARE * LESS. If you stop uploading, they skmply don't care.
-
Stop uploading might not influence them fast, but it is a d*mn side better than doing nothing.......(at least it will start sending them a small message about their future if there might be a significant drop in new material due to their pricing and payment policy.......perhaps just a seed of doubt might have a decision influence).
Any other ideas or are they just so big and bad that the "little" fish can not bite them at all? :-\
-
Mind you, considering the mentality of some new contributors to FT, you have to wonder whether their supply of newbie hopefuls will ever dry up. Recently, I saw one complaint on the FT forum of a newbie who had submitted an image which was promptly rejected for sale. Their complaint was not that it had been rejected but that after 2 days it wasn't even visible in the 'FREE' section despite their having ticked the box 'Place in free section in the event of rejection.' ;D
-
I think cutting commissions hits sties more than they anticipate. They get less traffic, as more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere. I presume that hits them with google search? Their competitors get more new images and that should make their collections more appealing to buyers.
For a site that has already seen a decline in sales for lots of us, if the poll here is accurate, they are taking a big gamble. They might make more money short term but that seems like a bad decision if it lets their competitors overtake them.
So perhaps we don't have to take any action? Shutterstock is getting better for sales all the time and all the sites that have cut my commissions are in decline.
-
I think cutting commissions hits sties more than they anticipate. They get less traffic, as more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere. I presume that hits them with google search? Their competitors get more new images and that should make their collections more appealing to buyers.
For a site that has already seen a decline in sales for lots of us, if the poll here is accurate, they are taking a big gamble. They might make more money short term but that seems like a bad decision if it lets their competitors overtake them.
So perhaps we don't have to take any action? Shutterstock is getting better for sales all the time and all the sites that have cut my commissions are in decline.
Sorry, but I am struggling to get your point. On the one hand you say the infringing sites will get less tragic because "more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere" and "their competitors get more new images" (I assume both those situations will be created due to actions by us), yet you state "So perhaps we don't have to take action"?
-
...
-
...