MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia: New Subscription Commissions  (Read 49223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fujiko

« Reply #75 on: August 17, 2011, 03:50 »
0
Completely unacceptable for vectors.

They can continue on their way to a slow death alone.


« Reply #76 on: August 17, 2011, 05:00 »
0

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

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

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

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2011, 06:06 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 23:29 by hasleftthebuilding »

Slovenian

« Reply #78 on: August 17, 2011, 07:21 »
0
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

helix7

« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2011, 08:16 »
0
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.

velocicarpo

« Reply #80 on: August 17, 2011, 09:25 »
0
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!

« Reply #81 on: August 17, 2011, 10:29 »
0
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.   ::)

velocicarpo

« Reply #82 on: August 17, 2011, 10:39 »
0
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...

« Reply #83 on: August 17, 2011, 11:42 »
0
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?

velocicarpo

« Reply #84 on: August 17, 2011, 11:55 »
0
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...

« Reply #85 on: August 17, 2011, 12:26 »
0
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.

velocicarpo

« Reply #86 on: August 17, 2011, 12:29 »
0
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 :-)

velocicarpo

« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2011, 12:33 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:35 by velocicarpo »

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: August 17, 2011, 13:34 »
0

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! 

« Reply #89 on: August 17, 2011, 14:05 »
0
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.

« Reply #90 on: August 17, 2011, 14:07 »
0
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?

velocicarpo

« Reply #91 on: August 17, 2011, 14:13 »
0
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.

« Reply #92 on: August 17, 2011, 14:57 »
0
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.

« Reply #93 on: August 17, 2011, 15:50 »
0
If I hadn't already quit those sorry [email protected]@rds I'd quit. Maybe I'll re-commission my account just so I can quit again.

« Reply #94 on: August 17, 2011, 16:38 »
0
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 :)

« Reply #95 on: August 17, 2011, 17:28 »
0
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!

« Reply #96 on: August 17, 2011, 17:45 »
0
Quote
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!!


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!
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 17:56 by Smithore »

helix7

« Reply #97 on: August 17, 2011, 17:46 »
0
@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.

« Reply #98 on: August 17, 2011, 17:54 »
0
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.

« Reply #99 on: August 17, 2011, 18:26 »
0
Quote
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!!


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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4360 Views
Last post June 07, 2008, 06:30
by sharpshot
35 Replies
15327 Views
Last post February 03, 2010, 10:31
by leaf
197 Replies
56234 Views
Last post February 03, 2011, 07:19
by OM
170 Replies
26015 Views
Last post May 18, 2014, 09:31
by Jo Ann Snover
39 Replies
13294 Views
Last post September 04, 2015, 09:33
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle