MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: News Feed on October 21, 2009, 13:30
-
Operation Level Ground attracts Artists to Fotolia
NEW YORK, NY, October 21, 2009 – In an unprecedented industry first, Fotolia is offering all photographers, illustrators and videographers the recognition they deserve. For a limited time, visual artists have complete reputation and expertise portability with Fotolia. Traditionally, artists have had to work for years to earn their reputation and rankings, only to find that they these rankings are lost when joining new sites. Higher rankings on leading stock photography sites such as Fotolia often bring artists increased revenues and exposure. Artists can now use their existing online sales or lifetime earnings to gain instant recognition on Fotolia.
“Fotolia is the first image company to offer contributors this kind of freedom. We’re recognizing people’s passions and their life’s work,” says Oleg Tscheltzoff CEO and co-founder of Fotolia. “By having these talented artists join the Fotolia family, we are able to offer consumers from around the world high-quality and diverse images.”
The way it works is simple: if a photographer shows he or she has 12,000 online downloads, Fotolia credits him/her with 12,000 downloads on Fotolia’s site and provides a Gold Level status.
If the artist demonstrates 30,000 downloads from another site, Fotolia provides him/her with equivalent downloads and an Emerald status.
For those new to microstock: show a lifetime earnings statement of $15,000, for example, and receive Fotolia Gold status. Another with $65,000 receives Fotolia Emerald, and anyone over $100,000 in lifetime earnings automatically becomes Fotolia Sapphire. Downloads reflect the ranking assigned.
See www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors for more information on Fotolia’s ranking system.
To participate in Operation Level Ground:
1. Artists choose at least 1,000 actively selling images to upload to Fotolia.
2. Prospective contributors provide proof of downloads or earnings to date.
3. Fotolia reviews the application and upon approval assigns an equivalent ranking on www.fotolia.com.
Some conditions apply: images are subject to approval. The minimum 1,000 images uploaded to Fotolia must currently be for sale either online or in-studio.
Deadline to apply for Operation Level Ground is December 31, 2009.
For more information or to apply, visit www.fotolia.com/levelground.
-30-
Over 1.3 million people prefer Fotolia, LLC for affordable, royalty-free images, graphics, and HD videos. With the introduction of the Infinite Collection, Fotolia became the first worldwide microstock organization to offer both crowd-sourced and professional images on one site. Founded in New York City in 2005, Fotolia spans the globe with websites in 10 languages and offices in 12 countries. With over 7,000,000 images to choose from: Find it on Fotolia. www.fotolia.com
Media Contact:
Jennifer Laraway
Director of Communications, Fotolia
Direct: 1.403.708.9398
[email protected]
www.fotolia.com
FotoliaUSA on Twitter and FotoliaUS on Facebook
Technorati Tags :
Fotolia |
industry |
first |
attracts |
artists |
operation |
level |
ground |
photographers |
videographers |
illustrators |
|
http://blog.fotolia.com/us/news/fotolia/fotolia-_industry-_first-_attr.html
-
Hmmm, so current contributors are S.O.L?
I like what level I'd be at :)...
-
Hmmm, so current contributors are S.O.L?
I like what level I'd be at :)...
Hmm, so if am on FT now and also I sold 5000+ images on SS it will not make me silver :-)
-
Hmmm, so current contributors are S.O.L?
I like what level I'd be at :)...
Sorry what exactly is S.O.L?
-
Hmmm, so current contributors are S.O.L?
I like what level I'd be at :)...
Sorry what exactly is S.O.L?
S_ _ t Outta Luck
-
should we explain the meaning of F.U.B.A.R. as well? ;-)
-
I'm currently emerald at Fotolia. I have over 70000 sales at SS and over 30000 at IStock, so would anybody that wants to join now with the same sales as me go in as a sapphire. If that is the case then it is grossly unfair to people that have supported them for years.
-
Going from Istock where you get 8$ for a XL... to fotolia to get 0.30$ with subscriptions who are around 60% of the high resolution purchases.
The gold canister worth nothing if you get subs all day
-
I'm currently emerald at Fotolia. I have over 70000 sales at SS and over 30000 at IStock, so would anybody that wants to join now with the same sales as me go in as a sapphire. If that is the case then it is grossly unfair to people that have supported them for years.
I've just applied to their program on the basis of other portfolios, lets see if they'll give existing contributors a boost!
-
I'm currently emerald at Fotolia. I have over 70000 sales at SS and over 30000 at IStock, so would anybody that wants to join now with the same sales as me go in as a sapphire. If that is the case then it is grossly unfair to people that have supported them for years.
Tell me about it. Qualified for Sapphire on earnings according to the spiel but had Emerald snatched from my grasp when I was weeks away from it. Put me down on the SOL list!
-
Is this open to current members?
-
I like what level I'd be at :)...
You could probably write your own list of demands. Oleg would probably require a defibrillator if he bagged himself a Black Diamond with this stunt.
-
You could probably write your own list of demands. Oleg would probably require a defibrillator if he bagged himself a Black Diamond with this stunt.
Now, that's funny!
-
Another example of how the 'microstock' industry is being rapidly re-configured into a channel for big shops and established pros.
All you small players who've been dilligentaly chipping away, slowly building a portfolio and looking to the future - guess what, a whole bunch of big guys were just let in the side door and shoved in line in front of you.
-
God knows how long they brainstormed to get to this one:) Not fair for existing contributor. Applicants need also to give a lot of infos I would not trust Fotolia with this....
-
Just email them and ask if you can yank your current Port off of their site and get your Status when you re-apply...lmao. Imagine the review times if that happened.
-
God knows how long they brainstormed to get to this one:) Not fair for existing contributor. Applicants need also to give a lot of infos I would not trust Fotolia with this....
The trouble is FT have got quite a history of moving the goal posts without warning for their existing contributors (the ranking system, subscriptions, etc, etc). Anyone giving up exclusivity on IS for these incentives might well find that things quickly changed after they had done so.
-
Obviously they want to attract big guys from macro so they can jump into micro before their current ship will sink.
-
The microstock ship pulled up next to the macro ship and torpedoed it. While watching it sink, they invite its passengers to transfer to microstock. They're offered the best rooms and those of us already on the microstock ship get moved down into the cargo hold to make room.
-
The microstock ship pulled up next to the macro ship and torpedoed it. While watching it sink, they invite its passengers to transfer to microstock. They're offered the best rooms and those of us already on the microstock ship get moved down into the cargo hold to make room.
I think this is more about the the good ship FT vs IS.
I think if I were a Diamond Exclusive I'd be asking for some sort of sign-on bonus and someone to help manage the upload of files for me as well.
-
Obviously they want to attract big guys from macro so they can jump into micro before their current ship will sink.
I don't think so. How to prove you had X downloads in macro?
-
Will istock just sit back and watch FT tempt their exclusives? I doubt it, this could get nasty. I seem to lose out both ways. I don't want to go exclusive with istock but they keep adding on extras, like contributing to Getty and Vetta and it looks like they are going to stop me using photos.com. Now FT have annoyed me again, I am still sore from the commission cuts and the harsh ranking changes.
I just hope shutterstock will start an exclusive images collection, that might be good option.
-
I'm currently emerald at Fotolia. I have over 70000 sales at SS and over 30000 at IStock, so would anybody that wants to join now with the same sales as me go in as a sapphire. If that is the case then it is grossly unfair to people that have supported them for years.
Tell me about it. Qualified for Sapphire on earnings according to the spiel but had Emerald snatched from my grasp when I was weeks away from it. Put me down on the SOL list!
Same here.
Patrick H.
-
Will istock just sit back and watch FT tempt their exclusives? I doubt it, this could get nasty. I seem to lose out both ways. I don't want to go exclusive with istock but they keep adding on extras, like contributing to Getty and Vetta and it looks like they are going to stop me using photos.com. Now FT have annoyed me again, I am still sore from the commission cuts and the harsh ranking changes.
I just hope shutterstock will start an exclusive images collection, that might be good option.
Let them fight maybe something good for contributors will come out of this :-)
-
Will istock just sit back and watch FT tempt their exclusives? I doubt it, this could get nasty. I seem to lose out both ways. I don't want to go exclusive with istock but they keep adding on extras, like contributing to Getty and Vetta and it looks like they are going to stop me using photos.com. Now FT have annoyed me again, I am still sore from the commission cuts and the harsh ranking changes.
I just hope shutterstock will start an exclusive images collection, that might be good option.
Agree fully - FT needs to fix this pretty quickly before it backfires on them.... its one thing attracting new contributors, but doing so at the expense of people who have been with you for a number of years won't go down well.
-
Agree fully - FT needs to fix this pretty quickly before it backfires on them.... its one thing attracting new contributors, but doing so at the expense of people who have been with you for a number of years won't go down well.
Absolutely. The reason they gave for the harsh ranking changes was that too many people were attaining the upper echelons. Presumably what they meant by that is too many contributors were upping their image prices according to their ranking and they detected customer resistance or it didn't allow them to undercut IS by as much.
Now their policy is exactly the opposite of that but only for those who have not supported them from the start. If it wasn't for the contributors who remained independent they wouldn't have a business at all.
Quite frankly exclusivity with IS just got a whole lot more attractive. At least you know where you stand with IS and can have a reasonable expectation of being treated fairly.
-
Under the new offering I like others here qualify for sapphire, I've written to Fotolia asking them if it's a simple process to be 'upped' to my qualifying rank or whether I need to delete my portfolio and start again. Let's see what response I get, I think I know what they'll say!
-
I just hope shutterstock will start an exclusive images collection, that might be good option.
what do you think would be the incentive for them to do this? it would be of great benefit to contributors since they offer the highest earnings potential.
-
Will istock just sit back and watch FT tempt their exclusives? I doubt it, this could get nasty. I seem to lose out both ways. I don't want to go exclusive with istock but they keep adding on extras, like contributing to Getty and Vetta and it looks like they are going to stop me using photos.com. Now FT have annoyed me again, I am still sore from the commission cuts and the harsh ranking changes.
I just hope shutterstock will start an exclusive images collection, that might be good option.
Agree fully - FT needs to fix this pretty quickly before it backfires on them.... its one thing attracting new contributors, but doing so at the expense of people who have been with you for a number of years won't go down well.
It won't backfire on them. If there's one thing that Fotolia have proven time and time again, it's that a solid buyer base is more powerful than contributor goodwill.
-
It won't backfire on them. If there's one thing that Fotolia have proven time and time again, it's that a solid buyer base is more powerful than contributor goodwill.
Oh yes it could. IS's buyer base is far more powerful than FT's __ probably 3-4x more in terms of spending. If IS themselves took the gloves off, say by increasing exclusive commission to 50%, which of course they could easily afford to do, they could decimate FT and all the rest of the competition in a matter of months. As it happens IS most likely will need to do nothing as FT will do the damage to themselves.
There is only so many times that FT can treat their contributors with worthless disdain, forever moving the goalposts, continually reducing their benefits and unfairly favouring the few over the majority __ whilst all the time refusing to engage in or even allow any discussion of such issues on their forum.
-
There is only so many times that FT can treat their contributors with worthless disdain, forever moving the goalposts, continually reducing their benefits and unfairly favouring the few over the majority __ whilst all the time refusing to engage in or even allow any discussion of such issues on their forum.
That is very true and the reason I left and have never looked back. I just wonder what their really up to though. It seems they do these things and then turn the tables a couple months down the road. Like their video collection - started uploading because I liked their commission..then all of a sudden a new subscription comes out and the new commision is $3.60 for and HD - hmmm. Not to mention the video contest for who can upload and get the most approved videos to sweeten the deal before they brought down the hammer. Or when they decided to offer $.50 for images that hadn't sold in 2 years for the free section...that actually turned into another site (photoxpress) for them and gives NO link back to the photographers portfolio on Fotolia for a possible paid sale. Or do you remember when the CEO said that subsciptions were ruining microstock...then 6 months later they started subs. The list goes on....
-
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday (whoops!).
-
It won't backfire on them. If there's one thing that Fotolia have proven time and time again, it's that a solid buyer base is more powerful than contributor goodwill.
Oh yes it could. IS's buyer base is far more powerful than FT's __ probably 3-4x more in terms of spending. If IS themselves took the gloves off, say by increasing exclusive commission to 50%, which of course they could easily afford to do, they could decimate FT and all the rest of the competition in a matter of months. As it happens IS most likely will need to do nothing as FT will do the damage to themselves.
There is only so many times that FT can treat their contributors with worthless disdain, forever moving the goalposts, continually reducing their benefits and unfairly favouring the few over the majority __ whilst all the time refusing to engage in or even allow any discussion of such issues on their forum.
Only so many times until what? Why hasn't it happened yet?
-
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday (whoops!).
Fotolia PR say Jim did his press release by himself, but that they knew about it and when it was coming. So it seems it was all planned this way.
-
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday
That's exactly the same thought that came into my head. They didn't want it to look like they were unfairly favoring one person over all the other contributors so they've come up with this little scheme.
I bailed from FT a year or so ago because it seemed to me like they were always making reactive, knee-jerk decisions like this one. It doesn't seem like they think things through very well. It will be interesting to hear how they handle contributors already on the site that want to join in the program.
-
Quite frankly exclusivity with IS just got a whole lot more attractive. At least you know where you stand with IS and can have a reasonable expectation of being treated fairly.
I respectfully disagree. I think exclusivity would be the last thing I would consider now. With everything so volatile and companies being devoured by bigger companies, the last place I would want to be is exclusive with the last man standing. If there's no competition, there's bound to be a lot more abuse of the contributors. They won't have the choice of taking their toys to another sandbox if they're being bullied. Just my take. And hopefully we won't ever have to worry about that.
-
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday (whoops!).
Yep, I reckon so. It's known (but probably not that well) that they've been privately bumping contributors up to Emerald in return for having said contributors agree to donating images to their 'free' section. Hayward confirmed the rumours recently.
-
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday (whoops!).
Yep, I reckon so. It's known (but probably not that well) that they've been privately bumping contributors up to Emerald in return for having said contributors agree to donating images to their 'free' section. Hayward confirmed the rumours recently.
Maybe its time for a "tell all thread" about microstock's dirty little secrets... could make for some good reading...
-
I respectfully disagree. I think exclusivity would be the last thing I would consider now. With everything so volatile and companies being devoured by bigger companies, the last place I would want to be is exclusive with the last man standing. If there's no competition, there's bound to be a lot more abuse of the contributors. They won't have the choice of taking their toys to another sandbox if they're being bullied. Just my take. And hopefully we won't ever have to worry about that.
It seems to me that we independent contributors get bullied far more, more often and more severely than our exclusive counterparts __ and almost all of it comes from Fotolia.
-
It won't backfire on them. If there's one thing that Fotolia have proven time and time again, it's that a solid buyer base is more powerful than contributor goodwill.
I meant in the context of signing up Istock exclusives - it would be quite ironic if the result was a whole lot of independents did exactly the opposite. IS is actually growing quite strongly in terms of and is dangling a lot of quite attractive carrots like the Getty contracts.
Unlike 6-12 months ago I just don't get the sense that there is much of a push from many people to drop IS exclusivity - more the opposite, that the ship has steadied and is steaming ahead.
-
It won't backfire on them. If there's one thing that Fotolia have proven time and time again, it's that a solid buyer base is more powerful than contributor goodwill.
I meant in the context of signing up Istock exclusives - it would be quite ironic if the result was a whole lot of independents did exactly the opposite. IS is actually growing quite strongly in terms of and is dangling a lot of quite attractive carrots like the Getty contracts.
Unlike 6-12 months ago I just don't get the sense that there is much of a push from many people to drop IS exclusivity - more the opposite, that the ship has steadied and is steaming ahead.
I think what your really seeing here is something I wrote about a year ago - the "professionalization" of micro stock. Micro is now at a point where enough high volume PRO's who seriously invest in quality shoots (locations, models, makeup, post, etc.) are now in the game that they probably feel they can let go of the hobby shooters and FIGHT for the volume pro's. Seriously, with a few hundred volume pro's/companies you don't need zillions of hobby shooters to meet customer demand for the most popular subjects. Hobby shooters, at best, will become the mortar between the bricks - just filling in the gaps. Enough will come and go to keep the cracks filled.
Micro really is a "changing" of the guard for stock photography - I would expect more mergers and takeovers of collections, they won't necessarily close down, just become a sister company for example. Getty did that back in the 90's if I remember correctly.
-
I meant in the context of signing up Istock exclusives - it would be quite ironic if the result was a whole lot of independents did exactly the opposite. IS is actually growing quite strongly in terms of and is dangling a lot of quite attractive carrots like the Getty contracts.
Unlike 6-12 months ago I just don't get the sense that there is much of a push from many people to drop IS exclusivity - more the opposite, that the ship has steadied and is steaming ahead.
... is the right answer. IS are looking frighteningly secure and now, with the guarantee bit too, look poised to grab most of the important corporate accounts (if they haven't got them already). IS exclusivity has never looked more attractive or affordable and maybe FT have just delivered the final push we needed.
-
I left because of their shenangens and if I wasn't already exclusive and still submitting, i would be gone now.
istock is huge, and I absolutely hate how FT runs their business.
As for consolidation, its going to happen, and the small useless players will disappear while the mid-players get bought out. The writing is on the wall
-
I think I meet all the criteria to be bumped up to emerald. The only problem is my 1000+ images are already on Fotolia. Way to kick us below the belt Fotolia.
So should we hire a lawyer to find a loophole in this? Johnny Cochran give me strength. :D
-
I left because of their shenangens and if I wasn't already exclusive and still submitting, i would be gone now.
istock is huge, and I absolutely hate how FT runs their business.
As for consolidation, its going to happen, and the small useless players will disappear while the mid-players get bought out. The writing is on the wall
Hmm __ historically we don't agree on much but I think you're probably spot on here! My guess is that FT will buy DT. After that Corbis, if they want to stay in the game at all, will pretty much be forced to buy FT at a very high price. Within a couple of years there will be only 3 major players.
-
I meant in the context of signing up Istock exclusives - it would be quite ironic if the result was a whole lot of independents did exactly the opposite. IS is actually growing quite strongly in terms of and is dangling a lot of quite attractive carrots like the Getty contracts.
Unlike 6-12 months ago I just don't get the sense that there is much of a push from many people to drop IS exclusivity - more the opposite, that the ship has steadied and is steaming ahead.
... is the right answer. IS are looking frighteningly secure and now, with the guarantee bit too, look poised to grab most of the important corporate accounts (if they haven't got them already). IS exclusivity has never looked more attractive or affordable and maybe FT have just delivered the final push we needed.
Yeah, with *this* I agree. With both of you. I see it backfiring in terms of pushing more contributors away from Fotolia than it attracts, but the issue is - as Chris says - they'll attract the professional stock shooters and drive away the hobbyists. Not really much of a backfire in terms of their bottom line.
I also agree with the other comments that Fotolia has always been more 'business' than 'community'. That strategy has a LOT of advantages. But, don't forget to compare their commission rates to iStock. Fotolia's subscription sales pay poorly - there's no competition there - but non-exclusive commissions at Fotolia reach higher than the exclusive commissions at iStock, and for those just starting out, are much higher. Granted, iStock sells many times the volume of licenses and their subscription commissions are great, but it's not totally one-sided.
Edit to correct statements on commission comparisons that were completely wrong! Was looking at the wrong table.
-
Wow, lots of interesting discussion on this one.
See, _this_ is what this forum is good for :) .
-
Fotolia credits him/her with 12,000 downloads on Fotolia’s site and provides a Gold Level status.
Fools Gold?
-
I don't see anywhere where it says: current contributors will be excluded from the deal.
They would never do that to the hard working folks who have been supporting them, would they. ;)
-
I don't see anywhere where it says: current contributors will be excluded from the deal.
They would never do that to the hard working folks who have been supporting them, would they. ;)
I've put in my application already... still waiting for my canister level to change though ;)
-
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
Whoever posted about the professionalism of micro-stock hit the nail on the head in my opinion. It's not a market for amateurs anymore. So many of the big dogs have made the switch. The switchover from macro to micro reminds me of the reluctance to switch from film to digital. It took a while to get the ball rolling but once it did there was no stopping it.
-
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
Whoever posted about the professionalism of micro-stock hit the nail on the head in my opinion. It's not a market for amateurs anymore. So many of the big dogs have made the switch. The switchover from macro to micro reminds me of the reluctance to switch from film to digital. It took a while to get the ball rolling but once it did there was no stopping it.
So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?
-
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
It's not true. Fotolia doesn't pay 55% commission to non exclusive so why you compare it to non exclusive commission at IS?
And dont forget a footage. Fotolia's deal is the worst in this industry. 3,5$ for HD video!
An
My earnings (total and per download) are much, much higher at Istock. Talking about porcentage is useless. Only money in my pocket count.
And now most important point : I just don't trust Fotolia anymore. They can give something today and take it back tomorrow. They change rules (subscriptions, rankings, commissions...). They take back our money too. Recently they took 400$ from Jason Stitt' account.
There is no this kind of problems at Istock. IS is thieves free.
-
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
Whoever posted about the professionalism of micro-stock hit the nail on the head in my opinion. It's not a market for amateurs anymore. So many of the big dogs have made the switch. The switchover from macro to micro reminds me of the reluctance to switch from film to digital. It took a while to get the ball rolling but once it did there was no stopping it.
Ditto on what Traveler said. Is it open to existing contributors?
-
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
It's not true. Fotolia doesn't pay 55% commission to non exclusive so why you compare it to non exclusive commission at IS?
And dont forget a footage. Fotolia's deal is the worst in this industry. 3,5$ for HD video!
An
My earnings (total and per download) are much, much higher at Istock. Talking about porcentage is useless. Only money in my pocket count.
And now most important point : I just don't trust Fotolia anymore. They can give something today and take it back tomorrow. They change rules (subscriptions, rankings, commissions...). They take back our money too. Recently they took 400$ from Jason Stitt' account.
There is no this kind of problems at Istock. IS is thieves free.
I'm not sure what the commission rate is for exclusive or non at I-stock so I apologize if I misquoted. I was referring to the commission rate I personally receive at FT. What is the commission rate at I-stock? I remember a comparable debate about this last year and I remember being surprised at how much lower the commission rate was at I-stock with so many people vehemently defending them.
I agree with you about the money in pocket stat being the most important. For me, I've seen consistent and dramatic increases in activity at FT and I think many others have too. My money in pocket stat keeps going up so I keep on feeling pretty good about my decision to be an exclusive contributor there.
-
Fotolia have always had much lower sales than istock for me. I don't like the 20% I get with istock but when I earn around 300% more there a month than FT, I can put up with it. FT have lowered commissions and changed the rankings, costing me lots of money, what is to stop them doing that again? Now they are offering higher ranking and therefore higher commissions and more money to new contributors. I have been there over 3 years, don't they care about loyalty? If I wasn't committed to so many other sites, I would be seriously thinking about going exclusive with istock now. I can't see the advantage of going exclusive with FT, they need to do something to rebuild my confidence in them. Making this offer open to their old contributors might do that.
-
I wonder if we forced their hand with that post about Jim yesterday (whoops!).
I don't think so. If they are looking to attract istock exclusives, they needed to make the offering public, to let them now about it.
-
........ so I keep on feeling pretty good about my decision to be an exclusive contributor there.
But how do you feel about those with less sales than you being ranked higher and getting better search placement ... does that feel pretty good?
-
........ so I keep on feeling pretty good about my decision to be an exclusive contributor there.
But how do you feel about those with less sales than you being ranked higher and getting better search placement ... does that feel pretty good?
I think his profile picture might explain how he's feeling if thats the case.
-
Imagine the noise if this was happening at Istock.
Most of the things Istock does improves it for their exclusives, this is exactly the opposite.
Come and load your 1000's of photos with not only good search placement from new photos but also high canister levels.
Matt from you constant posts about how good fotolia is you must be some how connected to the site.
-
........ so I keep on feeling pretty good about my decision to be an exclusive contributor there.
But how do you feel about those with less sales than you being ranked higher and getting better search placement ... does that feel pretty good?
I think his profile picture might explain how he's feeling if thats the case.
Are you talking about Oleg's shoe?
-
Slightly OT.. but has anyone looked at FT on Alexa lately? The line I find interesting is: "Where people go on Fotolia.com: 63.4% - de.fotolia.com"
Is it just a coincidence that Istock has set up shop in Berlin recently... I know the rent is cheap there but I'm thinking that they might have other intentions with the move.
@ MatHayward ... I notice that the one question you're not answering, and that FT is silent on so far is "So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?" I'm not wrong in thinking that you're better connected at FT than most of the rest of us here?
-
Slightly OT.. but has anyone looked at FT on Alexa lately? The line I find interesting is: "Where people go on Fotolia.com: 63.4% - de.fotolia.com"
Is it just a coincidence that Istock has set up shop in Berlin recently... I know the rent is cheap there but I'm thinking that they might have other intentions with the move.
@ MatHayward ... I notice that the one question you're not answering, and that FT is silent on so far is "So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?" I'm not wrong in thinking that you're better connected at FT than most of the rest of us here?
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
Just my .02,
Mat
-
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
It's easy for you to see a positive side in this Mat because you yourself have benefitted from a similar artificial boost in your ranking and therefore your earnings. I suspect if that had not happened, and you were still a couple of years away from Emerald, then you might have thought differently.
-
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
Just my .02,
Mat
Are you sure that expanding the FT reputation is a good thing? :-\
-
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
It's easy for you to see a positive side in this Mat because you yourself have benefitted from a similar artificial boost in your ranking and therefore your earnings. I suspect if that had not happened, and you were still a couple of years away from Emerald, then you might have thought differently.
That is definitely a fair point and I can't deny your logic. Keep in mind however that when the criteria for Emerald was switched from 10,000 sales I had somewhere around 9,985 sales under my belt. In my very biased opinion I feel that I have earned the rank of Emerald but again, you make a fair point. I am grateful for the rank crank and appreciate my high commission rate and flexibility with pricing.
-
That is definitely a fair point and I can't deny your logic. Keep in mind however that when the criteria for Emerald was switched from 10,000 sales I had somewhere around 9,985 sales under my belt. In my very biased opinion I feel that I have earned the rank of Emerald but again, you make a fair point. I am grateful for the rank crank and appreciate my high commission rate and flexibility with pricing.
I appreciate your honesty and I think a lot of us hope for the best with any change as well. Although, we all have been burned before, so we plan for the worst too. If it is not for the existing contributors, it just doesn't make sense to a lot of us that we could delete our portfolios and get emerald status tomorrow instead of several years from now by keeping our portfolio on Fotolia. Personally, I'd endure the pain of reuploading my entire portfolio to have a shortcut to emerald.
-
My earnings (total and per download) are much, much higher at Istock. Talking about porcentage is useless. Only money in my pocket count.
While that my be true for you, it is not true for all of us. My FT income consistently top IS.
If my IS commission was the same percentage as FT, that wouldn't be true, but it's not.
And, to be a complete spoilsport, each one of us can play by the rules of an agency or not contribute. That's really all there is.
-
Well, I applied and filled out the form. I figured there was nothing to lose.
To anyone that filled out the form, did you see the "Add More" button that they were referring to on the form?
-
Well, I applied and filled out the form. I figured there was nothing to lose.
To anyone that filled out the form, did you see the "Add More" button that they were referring to on the form?
Nope that button was missing when I filled out the form as well.
-
I couldn't see the button either.
-
I like what level I'd be at :)...
You could probably write your own list of demands. Oleg would probably require a defibrillator if he bagged himself a Black Diamond with this stunt.
ROFL! Absolutely.
I am thinking Sean's incentive package would look something like a top athlete gets for signing on with a pro team. Maybe a lamborghini for starters? ;D
-
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
Just my .02,
Mat
Thanks for your response Matt - I didn't mean that you work for them, just that you know more of what's going on there.
The reason it would be a good business decision is that it would put back a bit of goodwill amongst contributors, particularly those that feel burned by the change in the rankings system. It would be an extra reason NOT to go exclusive to IS, and that it wouldn't actually affect that many contributors.
Financially FT benefits by having more files at higher prices - while the % commission drops, the total $ will actually increase.
-
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
Just my .02,
Mat
Thanks for your response Matt - I didn't mean that you work for them, just that you know more of what's going on there.
The reason it would be a good business decision is that it would put back a bit of goodwill amongst contributors, particularly those that feel burned by the change in the rankings system. It would be an extra reason NOT to go exclusive to IS, and that it wouldn't actually affect that many contributors.
Financially FT benefits by having more files at higher prices - while the % commission drops, the total $ will actually increase.
I think holgs is right, I was planning to go exclusive on IS in January it looks like but maybe bumping up my rank a few levels would stop me from doing this and maybe I would start uploading there again to see how the change affects me.
-
So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?
I talked to Jennifer from Fotolia at Photoplus today and she told me that current Fotolia contributors would not qualify for 'Operation Level Ground'
-
So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?
I talked to Jennifer from Fotolia at Photoplus today and she told me that current Fotolia contributors would not qualify for 'Operation Level Ground'
Well I will continue to plan to be exclusive on IS in the next couple months then. Operation Level Ground is a pretty funny name for this program though, thanks for the info Leaf.
-
So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?
I talked to Jennifer from Fotolia at Photoplus today and she told me that current Fotolia contributors would not qualify for 'Operation Level Ground'
How ironic, they are trying to level the playing field by giving new contributors favoritism.
-
I applied. Let's see what they say. With the number of downloads they require I should be Sapphire or more while I am 'only' emerald now. With 8k images online and with years of work behind me I'll be very angry if they place newcomers above me. Especially if I could have the same level according to the same standards.
Well, I do not have a problem with the new method how they try to attract new volume contributors. But they should place the limits much higher if the option is closed for existing contributors. Earning 65k overall USDs is far far far FAR more easy then reaching emerald level on FTL. Just an example: to reach the next level (sapphire) it would take 4 years!!! for me. So anyone who is on my level would get sapphire instantly why I should have to wait 4 more years for it. Just because I am already a FTL contributor. This is VERY UNFAIR!
If this is the case, I'll remove my portfolio, apply and reupload it. Reuploadning would need about one or two months... not four years!
-
It is crazy that I'm bronze but someone who never contributed to FT and had my stats would be emerald, I think even if I wasn't considering going exclusive elsewhere I would probably quit FT now on principle alone if this policy isn't open to everyone.
-
they won't open it up to everyone that would be too fair
-
Has anyone asked if we can delete our portfolios and re-apply? I wouldn't want to do that only to find that I still wasn't eligible for this offer.
-
Hmmm. I wonder why would they risk alienating a lot of their existing contributors to go after what appears to be a fairly small group of new contributors?
And the fact that maybe only a small percentage of that small group will bite.
-
Has anyone asked if we can delete our portfolios and re-apply? I wouldn't want to do that only to find that I still wasn't eligible for this offer.
I wrote and asked if the new ranking system would apply to existing contributors or do I need to delete and reapply, FT UK wrote back and told me they are going to check with the senior management regarding this issue and get back to me, I'll let you know when they do.
It would be interesting to see what the OFT say about it if Fotolia don't honor this ranking system for all contributors new or old, it might fall foul under the Competitions act.
If I were a member of their targeted audience for this announcement one thing I'd being doing for sure is checking up on the site which no doubt would bring up a whole load of information about the way Fotolia treat their contributors!
-
Hmmm. I wonder why would they risk alienating a lot of their existing contributors to go after what appears to be a fairly small group of new contributors?
And the fact that maybe only a small percentage of that small group will bite.
Why the would risk alienating ther existing contributors?
That's simple.
Because they have done time and time again in the past without any noticeable impact on their bottom line. Sure, there will be some ranting and complains in the forums, maybe even a few contributors may leave, but after a few weeks it's back to business as usual...
That's why they'll do it.
-
Fotolia PR say Jim did his press release by himself, but that they knew about it and when it was coming. So it seems it was all planned this way.
Don't you have to give 30 days notice to drop exclusivity? If so this deal was presumably agreed at least a month ago. FT would therefore have had plenty of time to produce their own press release extending the offer to others. The way it came out only after it was discussed on this forum does suggests that the deal with Jim was originally a one-off arrangement and possibly intended to be private. A plausible reason for the delay would be if they wanted to use Jim's example as publicity to launch the scheme but they haven't done that.
-
Fotolia PR say Jim did his press release by himself, but that they knew about it and when it was coming. So it seems it was all planned this way.
Don't you have to give 30 days notice to drop exclusivity? ...
That's correct.
It also seems odd to say he did it by himself - did he then make up the quote attributed to a FT executive? I'm assuming not and they gave him the quote.
I would guess that they had hoped to be able to target this program only to the people not currently at FT that they wanted to attract - folks at traditional agencies only and exclusives at other micros. Quietly publicizing it in selected arenas. Once it was made known to the pool of existing contributors they needed to do damage control.
If they had really planned it, I think the FT release about operation whatever-it-is would have come out at the same time as or before Jim DeLillo's...
-
FT dropped the ball...again...
Maybe IS will come back with something better to say :)
-
It's funny because I read the Level Ground post on Fotolia's blog the day this thread started, but now it appears to be gone.
edit: My mistake. It is still there, but not on the front page anymore.
-
Has anyone asked if we can delete our portfolios and re-apply? I wouldn't want to do that only to find that I still wasn't eligible for this offer.
I saw Garth today at PhotoPlus and asked him this question for you.
And no - they are not going to entertain this type of thing. The program is only for NEW contributors who have not submitted to Fotolia before.
-
Here's the reply I've just got:
"Dear Richard,
Level Ground is open to accomplished photographers and artists looking to enter or expand in the microstock industry.
It has been designed to bring on board leading artists, with strong portfolios that will compliment Fotolias collection. Any online contributor looking to transfer images, can only do so from one site of their choice, as opposed to accumulating content from various sites. Enhancing our collection drives more consumers to our family of photographers, and as a result everyone benefits.
Level Ground is a limited time offer, requires interested contributors to apply, and is subject to Fotolia's discretion and approval.
Kind regards,
Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84"
Which didn't answer my question and is more a 'statement' that has been made up as a blanket reply, it also doesn't fit in with their application form or the announcement whereby they specifically ask for all the sites potential contributors are on.
I'll await an official refusal from my application before contacting the OFT, there's been a huge issue in the UK about unequal treatment of suppliers by supermarkets and a brief look into the Competition act leads me to believe this might have similar undertones.
I don't want to leave Fotolia because I actually like the site but there is no way I am going to be paid less and be put further back in the search results than somebody new who's sold less than me, the last ranking fiasco was bad enough.
-
^^^ Richard __ understand your frustration mate but leave it out, for your own good. You'll get nowhere and all you to stand to 'gain' is to get kicked out of FT. Potentially very expensive in the long run unless you are going ex with IS.
-
I don't want to leave Fotolia because I actually like the site but there is no way I am going to be paid less and be put further back in the search results than somebody new who's sold less than me, the last ranking fiasco was bad enough.
ditto.
-
I don't want to leave Fotolia because I actually like the site but there is no way I am going to be paid less and be put further back in the search results than somebody new who's sold less than me, the last ranking fiasco was bad enough.
And there's your conundrum. It's no good saying "there's no way" unless you're prepared to do something to force a change. About the only thing that gets a site's attention (I don't think the regulatory angle will pan out and if it does it'll take years) is halting the flow of uploads. For a site that depends on subscriptions that matters.
In the past contributors were able to get changes from a number of sites, including FT when that happened. You'll never get all contributors and generally won't get the top folks as they don't get involved, but you can get a big chunk of the middle tier to halt uploads - if enough people aren't happy.
In the absence of something that FT wants from contributors going away, why would they change what they're doing? No one did over the ranking changes; DT and FT managed to pull off a commission cut. They figure contributors will put up with pretty much anything.
The only FT-specific issue to consider is that they play hardball - they have threatened to, and have, removed contributor accounts for actions they see as anti FT, even on independent forums. So you need to understand that there's a possibility if you stand up to them you may end up leaving involuntarily.
-
If we just let the sites do whatever they want, we will end up in a big mess anyway. Sometimes we are going to have to do something. Several sites have changed their minds when enough of us have complained and stopped uploads in the past. Quite often it is in their best interests to listen to us and make changes. Just look at how SS handled the withholding tax situation recently. The online form they have now is much better than the proposition they first came up with.
-
If this is the case I wouldt have qualified for a higher ranking anyway as I dont have 100,000 dls on any one site.
Here's the reply I've just got:
Any online contributor looking to transfer images, can only do so from one site of their choice, as opposed to accumulating content from various sites.
-
If this is the case I wouldt have qualified for a higher ranking anyway as I dont have 100,000 dls on any one site.
Here's the reply I've just got:
Any online contributor looking to transfer images, can only do so from one site of their choice, as opposed to accumulating content from various sites.
But I would guess you would be closer to your next level? I would still qualify for 2 levels higher if only using one site.
-
understand your frustration mate but leave it out, for your own good. You'll get nowhere and all you to stand to 'gain' is to get kicked out of FT. Potentially very expensive in the long run unless you are going ex with IS.
I'm not a contributor to FT, but on a matter related to this whole thing...
My last employer did not pay me for the last 5-1/2 days I worked. This was done to several other people also. Once we left their employ, they said that the pay periods that were written on our checks were wrong. They verbally changed the pay periods so that, conveniently, they contend they didn't have to pay us because we'd already been paid. The amount is too little to sue over. The state will only collect minimum wage. In essence, they can get away with it. The only recourse would be for all the employees to walk out and halt any production but you can be sure that isn't going to happen now. Everyone is quaking in their boots about a job and is willing to take the abuse just to keep bringing home their paycheck.
The similarities are that these companies know exactly what they can get away with. Big business today is all about making sure the people at the top can keep their 5 vacations to Europe a year (or wherever) and their 3 homes and their Rolls Royces. Screw the people at the bottom who actually do the work. They know what they can get away with and they do everything they can to swing the advantage their way. They have planned for the collateral damage and consider it an acceptable risk.
OK, rant over. But the point is, I'm pretty sure FT has thought about all the consequences to what they are doing and have determined that the monetary gain far outweighs any number of small potatoes they might lose.
If enough contributors get together on this, you can make a difference. I watched it happen once before here on microstock. I think it's pretty wrong that they are stomping on current contributors to swing some big fish their way, but frankly, it doesn't surprise me. Look for a lot more of this to happen as the economy stays in the toilet.
I hope I'm wrong about FT and I would be happy to see them change their heart...
-
I'm not sure if anyone else here has ever studied contract law, but some of the things FT has been up to, particularly with changing the rankings systems and commission rates is on pretty shaky ground legally. You can't just unilaterally change conditions of a contract to the detriment of existing suppliers in most jurisdictions without gaining some sort of agreement - and often not even then. This is particularly so when you set up a ranking and progression system giving people a reasonable expectation when they sign up to provide you with services that they'll be able to meet targets. I know I'm still talking about the drop in commissions and change which is in some ways old news, but its probably only now that people have been able to calculate the amount of revenue they've lost through the change.
I'd suggest for the contributors where this amounts to a big $ figure, that you consider your position, and if necessary seek advice on it.
The contract terms state that the laws of New York govern the contract, and any legal action be taken there (not that it precludes things from happening at home), and my area of practice is really Australia, where different rules tend to apply, but they're not fundamentally different.
While this post is surely not going to make me popular at FT, I'm really not one to be bullied or cowered by the suggestion that I'll be disadvantaged because I speak my mind.
-
I'm not sure if anyone else here has ever studied contract law, but some of the things FT has been up to, particularly with changing the rankings systems and commission rates is on pretty shaky ground legally. You can't just unilaterally change conditions of a contract to the detriment of existing suppliers in most jurisdictions without gaining some sort of agreement - and often not even then. This is particularly so when you set up a ranking and progression system giving people a reasonable expectation when they sign up to provide you with services that they'll be able to meet targets. I know I'm still talking about the drop in commissions and change which is in some ways old news, but its probably only now that people have been able to calculate the amount of revenue they've lost through the change.
I'd suggest for the contributors where this amounts to a big $ figure, that you consider your position, and if necessary seek advice on it.
The contract terms state that the laws of New York govern the contract, and any legal action be taken there (not that it precludes things from happening at home), and my area of practice is really Australia, where different rules tend to apply, but they're not fundamentally different.
While this post is surely not going to make me popular at FT, I'm really not one to be bullied or cowered by the suggestion that I'll be disadvantaged because I speak my mind.
Many of these sites use the 'faceless internet company' to try to gain an advantage. There is a lot of legislation going on around the world to prevent these ridiculous management teams from getting away with it, and I'm sure that some attorney somewhere would love to be the guy to set the precedent. I'm not one of those crazy iStock fanboys, but if I remember correctly, iStock has made changes but has also re-issued the agreement so that they have a new agreement between contributors and the company. Given, I don't think what iStock has done has been out to screw the contributors in any way, and their aim is to increase exposure and generate income, but the way they handle their business is much cleaner and less controversial than the other sites.
-
Hi CClapper,
you are never wrong. Not ever.
It's almost funny how I always agree with you :)
In this case (Fotolia's Ground Level) your always being right is unfortunate, but still spot on.
Such is life, unfair, and there's probably nothing little people like me can do about it.
-
Thanks for your support, Eireann, but...
you are never wrong. Not ever.
That just isn't true! Right now, it seems like I have been wrong a lot. :) But I also agree with holgs...
While this post is surely not going to make me popular at FT, I'm really not one to be bullied or cowered by the suggestion that I'll be disadvantaged because I speak my mind.
I never want to burn any bridges anywhere, but I am also not a person who would let this sort of abuse go.
Regarding my ex-employer, I took action the only place I could and that was on the internet, in public. Of course they threatened legal action, but that would mean they would have to prove their side of the matter, which means their bookkeeping practices would be scrutinized. So far, no legal action. Their idea is to rule with fear. Read up on dictators and you get the idea. Seems like big business is.
Eireann, if you are a contributor to FT and a call goes out for support, you could help by supporting but you must also be ready to suffer any consequences.
edit: by the way, I resigned from my former job. The other employees affected resigned or were laid off. Just so you understand none of us were fired because we did something wrong.
-
Hi CC,
I know you resigned. I read your post that very day and I thought you were brave. I admired you for doing it.
Have you seen 'Revolutionary Road'?
'It takes courage to live the life you want' - they said and I agreed. You did just that.
And I'm going to stand my ground. You are always right :)
If there's anything we (little people) can do, count me in.
And just so you know, I resigned as well. Couldn't stand them anymore.
Best of luck,
Andrea
-
I'm not sure if anyone else here has ever studied contract law, but some of the things FT has been up to, particularly with changing the rankings systems and commission rates is on pretty shaky ground legally. You can't just unilaterally change conditions of a contract to the detriment of existing suppliers in most jurisdictions without gaining some sort of agreement - and often not even then.
I think the problem is that the contract we signed says they can change site policies at any time. It's not ethical, but I believe it's legal.
It's like my cable TV company, they recently "upgraded at no cost" my plan (no cost meaning they won't charge more for one year), and at the same time they removed from my plan several channels that I like (international and news) - without telliing me that, of course. I complained and the attendand gave me the international channels back, but for the news I would have to pay - mere US$2, but it's an absurd. There is still one news channel in my plan, but it is a mixed channel with news every hour, whereas the other two I wanted are 24h news.
-
Eireann,
Andrea...good for you. Misery loves company! For me, it just seemed the right thing to do. I try to stay positive and use the time to further my photography and website building skills.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the topic, though my point was kind of relevant.
Hope the FT thing all gets sorted out.
-
Hi
I joined Fotolia but hadn't submitted any photos. After this post I think I will hold of sending any photos
Smiling Jack
-
We are in dire need of an Union. (i think thats what its called in English? Where employees come together to fight for their rights together). Seriously!
If everyone interested would join, and we could have a decently sized group that all works towards the same goals it would be a big step forward in maintaining our rights and fight this sort of absolutely enraging Kafka'ing situations!
If we dont bundle our forces agencies can and will get away with literally everything they want.
(strange thing is; we're all aware that if we dont form a 'fist' together we're completely powerless....still, nothing happens)
I definitely wouldnt mind stop uploading there and block my port; but right now i know it's useless since it would be never enough to make a difference.
-
Looking at FT's track record (based on anecdotal evidence) on how they treat their contributors, I don't see how they could catch any big fish in this market. I wouldn't trust FT.
-
Edit I found it...
-
We are in dire need of an Union. (i think thats what its called in English? Where employees come together to fight for their rights together). Seriously!
If everyone interested would join, and we could have a decently sized group that all works towards the same goals it would be a big step forward in maintaining our rights and fight this sort of absolutely enraging Kafka'ing situations!
If we dont bundle our forces agencies can and will get away with literally everything they want.
(strange thing is; we're all aware that if we dont form a 'fist' together we're completely powerless....still, nothing happens)
I definitely wouldnt mind stop uploading there and block my port; but right now i know it's useless since it would be never enough to make a difference.
Artemis, you are right and this has been discussed before. The main obstacles to forming a union, or trade association seem to be:
1. Too much diversity of interests and levels of involvement among contributors (everyone out for himself).
2. Complications and difficulty in actually doing the work to start one. Nobody has stepped forward to shoulder that burden.
3. Seemingly limitless supply of contributors clamoring to get in.
The third obstacle is, to me, the greatest. Unions are only effective if there is a finite labor pool and you can get a majority of those workers on board. With new photographers and pros from the trads all trying to get into the micros by the thousands it seems unlikely we can collect enough people to affect change.
-
Seems to me the smart thing for (independent) contributors to do is massively support every new site so they become viable. The more sites there are, the easier to dump one when they don't behave themselves.
-
Lisafx, you're right, i know...
but it's so frustrating! 1 is pretty tough; people have so many different motives to do microstock... peeps doing it purely as hobby vs the ones living from it; and in some countries one subscription is almost enough to buy a meal, while it's peanutes in others... so * difficult to get that all bundled in one 'union' or group...
But really, the main issue is point 2 i think... it would require a lot of dedication and time; if there was someone who really wanted to devote to this, brainstormed on how to get it work i think it wouldn't be tough to find loads of peeps who would join...
Indeed unlikely it will happen soon :(
i feel like we're a bunch of lemmings now happily throwing ourselves of a cliff, purely because we go all for ourselves only and won't group... while it's so obvious we need to do so!
-
Any update on this issue?
-
Interesting, they threw me off the site a year ago when I objected to their moving the carrot 3 times further down the road when they changed their ranking requirements just days to weeks before about 200 of the original members (myself included) would have reached a sales level that would have elevated us to Emerald. Now they make it so anyone who has not joined them before this who has lifetime sales equal to mine would be able to come in at the top ranking level?
Such a fickle company and yet again it seems they are forgetting those who helped them become successful.
-
Hmmm. I wonder why would they risk alienating a lot of their existing contributors to go after what appears to be a fairly small group of new contributors?
And the fact that maybe only a small percentage of that small group will bite.
Why the would risk alienating ther existing contributors?
That's simple.
Because they have done time and time again in the past without any noticeable impact on their bottom line. Sure, there will be some ranting and complains in the forums, maybe even a few contributors may leave, but after a few weeks it's back to business as usual...
That's why they'll do it.
SOP for Fotolia is if you complain loudly about the way they treat you as a contributor they delete your account and deny you any further referral earnings even when you still have 2 years of referral earnings left from referring top contributors to them. Fair and honest treatment of the contributor base has never been part of the company credo. I spent many hours consulting (for free) back and forth with Oleg when he was first launching FT and in my personal opinion in the end as in the beginning he never showed any true concern for anything other then his own profit position in the operation. The contributors are simply a means to an end for him and that end is personal profit. Of course we all get into business with profit as the goal but in the case of FT it would seem to be the only true aspiration of the company. I expect that were I to sit down and extrapolate my potential earnings at FT over the past year had I not been railroaded off the site for standing up for contributor rights that I have lost out on $12,000 or more in royalty and referral earnings that would have come as the result of the elevated ranking which I was denied in the last ranking fiasco. Fotolia has a long and well documented track history of mistreating their contributor base yet the staus quo is maintained there. This change will no doubt go forward as has every other change in the history of the agency. In the end a handful will suffer the closing of their accounts and involuntary deleting of their portfolios and after a short time the roar will quiet and it will be business as usual at Fotolia until they announce their next scheme meant to further trample the rights of their contributor base.
-
I had to read the article twice. What a supreme *^#&*%@(.
admin edit: name calling removed
-
Judging by the Ranking listings 'Operation Ground Level' does not appear to have been particularly successful in attracting high-level exclusives to give up their crowns.
I can only see 2 'Newly Awarded' Gold level contributors (with very few actual sales) and none on any of the higher levels.
-
Yeah, kinda tough to attract IS exclusives with cannister parity while also cutting commissions for the second time in 13 months.
Many IS exclusives may be non-US based and have difficulties with Fotolia's new tax policy.
Although sales at Fotolia continue to be good some of the newer policies are not very contributor-friendly...
-
Even if you were tempted to give up IS exclusivity - and those for whom the current best match hasn't been kind may well be tempted - giving you a higher starting royalty at FT is only a mild sweetener. It won't get your files good placement in search results - unlike SS where newness is a huge boost.
I would guess it just isn't a big enough incentive to tip the scales one way or another and thus for FT, is effectively just giving away money to folks who'd have made the switch anyway.
Of course, if not many people take them up on the offer, they haven't given away all that much :)
-
Of course, if not many people take them up on the offer, they haven't given away all that much :)
Except the good will of those who've been with them since the beginning and were shunted aside in favor of the few iStock exclusives they might have attracted. My feelings about Fotolia continue to sour.
-
Regarding my ex-employer, I took action the only place I could and that was on the internet, in public. Of course they threatened legal action, but that would mean they would have to prove their side of the matter, ...>
Not quite true, in the case of libel it is up to the person making the statement to prove that what they have written is true, so you would have to prove without doubt your statement in court, most actions are satisfied with a removal after a cease and desist, the fact that no action is taken in a libel case does not mean the libel statement is true, as often actions are not taken up for financial reasons!
David
-
Regarding my ex-employer, I took action the only place I could and that was on the internet, in public. Of course they threatened legal action, but that would mean they would have to prove their side of the matter, ...>
Not quite true, in the case of libel it is up to the person making the statement to prove that what they have written is true, so you would have to prove without doubt your statement in court, most actions are satisfied with a removal after a cease and desist, the fact that no action is taken in a libel case does not mean the libel statement is true, as often actions are not taken up for financial reasons!
David
Nothing is easy. Consider this: Whether libel or slander, the defamation must be published communicated to someone other than the subject of the defamation. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation: if what you say is true, it cannot be defamatory. Another defense to defamation is proving that the statement was an opinion, not an assertion of a fact.
The plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false.
The full burden does not fall upon the defense to prove that the statements were true, but also on the plaintiff to show they were false.
-
Hi All,
You ever been fishing. Start thinking like a very old smart fish that hasn't ever nibbled at something that is to good to be true. He is still swimming. Exclusivity for any self employed person leaves them in a tough place once the competition is hurting. The more companies in Micro that can stay strong in the game the better for everyone, even Istock exclusives will benefit more if the money is distributed by more than one big player.
Perfect world for photographers, 10 agencies all making the same returns. Only the photographers can make that happen. Everyone jumps ship to one agency and I can guarantee you that agency will take advantage of their dominance in the business every time.
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
Linda B
Hi All,
You ever been fishing. Start thinking like a very old smart fish that hasn't ever nibbled at something that is to good to be true. He is still swimming. Exclusivity for any self employed person leaves them in a tough place once the competition is hurting. The more companies in Micro that can stay strong in the game the better for everyone, even Istock exclusives will benefit more if the money is distributed by more than one big player.
Perfect world for photographers, 10 agencies all making the same returns. Only the photographers can make that happen. Everyone jumps ship to one agency and I can guarantee you that agency will take advantage of their dominance in the business every time.
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Anyone that gave up their crown for this must be feeling pretty sick by now.
Just in the time since this was announced Fotolia have reduced commissions substantially TWICE, once without even telling us.
Meanwhile, over on Istock, all exclusives are enjoying an increase in their commissions of about 50%.
-
It is not an increase of comissions, but of revenue. Prices ara higher, comission is the same.
-
It is not an increase of comissions, but of revenue. Prices ara higher, comission is the same.
Understood, but I believe Gostwyck's point is that when Istock raises it's prices contributors get their share, where at Fotolia there has been an increase in revenue, but contributors aren't getting their cut.
Although I am upset about this, I am not entirely ready to write Fotolia off just yet. Chad's post seems to hint that they are reworking commission structure along with their pricing. Maybe something positive is in the works. I certainly hope so....
-
It is not an increase of comissions, but of revenue. Prices ara higher, comission is the same.
Understood, but I believe Gostwyck's point is that when Istock raises it's prices contributors get their share, where at Fotolia there has been an increase in revenue, but contributors aren't getting their cut.
ok, that's true.
-
It is not an increase of comissions, but of revenue. Prices ara higher, comission is the same.
Yes OK __ that is true. Basically Istock exclusives are now enjoying lots more money per sale whilst Fotolia contributors have had one direct cut in commissions (less money per sale) and a hefty price rise to customers that they will see nothing of.
Compare and contrast the two agencies. Discuss.
-
It is not an increase of comissions, but of revenue. Prices ara higher, comission is the same.
Understood, but I believe Gostwyck's point is that when Istock raises it's prices contributors get their share, where at Fotolia there has been an increase in revenue, but contributors aren't getting their cut.
Although I am upset about this, I am not entirely ready to write Fotolia off just yet. Chad's post seems to hint that they are reworking commission structure along with their pricing. Maybe something positive is in the works. I certainly hope so....
I don't know about that...this is what they posted on the forum this morning...
Good evening everyone,
On behalf of the Fotolia team, I want to thank each of you for your patience and support while we roll-out new purchase incentives and commission structures. Rest assured, our payout averages continue to be amongst the highest in the industry. Fotolia understands and appreciates the investment contributors make in creating their material. We welcome and value your feedback. Should you have questions about Fotolias new program, please contact Customer Service directly and we would be happy to chat with you.
Fotolia Management
Why in the world would they want thousands of contributors to contact customer support and not just post what they are planning to do on the forum...it would be far less stress on the customer service department....I don't know if the buyers are able to read the forum threads or not but I suspect they are doing it this way so the buyers haven't a clue what is going on!!
-
Although I am upset about this, I am not entirely ready to write Fotolia off just yet. Chad's post seems to hint that they are reworking commission structure along with their pricing. Maybe something positive is in the works. I certainly hope so....
I don't know about that...this is what they posted on the forum this morning...
Good evening everyone,
On behalf of the Fotolia team, I want to thank each of you for your patience and support while we roll-out new purchase incentives and commission structures. Rest assured, our payout averages continue to be amongst the highest in the industry. Fotolia understands and appreciates the investment contributors make in creating their material. We welcome and value your feedback. Should you have questions about Fotolias new program, please contact Customer Service directly and we would be happy to chat with you.
Fotolia Management
Why in the world would they want thousands of contributors to contact customer support and not just post what they are planning to do on the forum...it would be far less stress on the customer service department....I don't know if the buyers are able to read the forum threads or not but I suspect they are doing it this way so the buyers haven't a clue what is going on!!
I highlighted the part of that statement I had been referring to - the part about reworking commission structures. Maybe more bad news, but there's a chance that the final rollout could include a more favorable commission structure for us. Too soon to know for sure right now.
You are probably right that they would rather deal with this through the support dept instead of on their forums to keep customers from reading about it.
-
Lisafx...do you think they would even be doing this "restructuring" of commision's if they hadn't made the mistake of posting the credits in error on the contributors pages? I really doubt they would...they don't really have a choice but to do this now if they want to keep their contributors. I feel sorry for the person that posted that mistake...maybe they didn't agree with it so they posted it knowing they would get "whipped" and thrown out the door.
-
Lisafx...do you think they would even be doing this "restructuring" of commision's if they hadn't made the mistake of posting the credits in error on the contributors pages? I really doubt they would...they don't really have a choice but to do this now if they want to keep their contributors. I feel sorry for the person that posted that mistake...maybe they didn't agree with it so they posted it knowing they would get "whipped" and thrown out the door.
Whether or not it was posted the other day by accident, it would have come out eventually. Some micro contributors pay attention to what's happening on these sites, and MSG is a great place for the rest to find out about it.
We can speculate all day about what they would or would not have done in an alternate universe. Surely the outcome of whether or not they make good on the commissions owed us would make that speculation moot?
-
...
Meanwhile, over on Istock, all exclusives are enjoying an increase in their commissions of about 50%.
Yep, we're laughing all the way to the bank!
-
...
Meanwhile, over on Istock, all exclusives are enjoying an increase in their commissions of about 50%.
Yep, we're laughing all the way to the bank!
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case you are...
As artists, we shouldn't be heckling other artists when something bad happens to them. This shouldn't be an issue that divides artists, but rather one that unites artists.
Because I am sure that there will be a day when IS will do something that won't be for the benefit of the artist.
But if you were saying that in jest, then forget what I just said. Party on :)
-
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case you are...
...
Partially in jest, partially not - rest assured I'm not the only iStock exclusive with a bit of Schadenfreude.
I wasn't always exclusive at iStock you know - one of the reasons I made the switch was because of FT and their not-completely-above-board ways. Instead of lobbying for change and/or complaining about it, I put my money where my mouth is and got out of there. Maybe you, along with those who read this, should do the same - you need to face the facts: FT is not going to change the way they conduct business. Sure, you might get some concessions from them, but it'll only be a matter of time until the next contributor crisis.
-
...Surely the outcome of whether or not they make good on the commissions owed us would make that speculation moot?
The reason it matters (assuming you ever could get accurate information, which is doubtful) is that the best indicator of future performance is past performance.
I don't walk in the dark alleys of crime-ridden cities for a reason and getting home unscathed one particular evening doesn't make the city alleys a safe place to hang out.
-
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case you are...
...
Partially in jest, partially not - rest assured I'm not the only iStock exclusive with a bit of Schadenfreude.
I wasn't always exclusive at iStock you know - one of the reasons I made the switch was because of FT and their not-completely-above-board ways. Instead of lobbying for change and/or complaining about it, I put my money where my mouth is and got out of there. Maybe you, along with those who read this, should do the same - you need to face the facts: FT is not going to change the way they conduct business. Sure, you might get some concessions from them, but it'll only be a matter of time until the next contributor crisis.
But I don't like the way Getty/istock are conducting their business at the moment, so I am not jumping out of the frying pan and in to the fire. I hope it works for you but RF exclusivity has never appealed to me.
-
Not many people seem to have followed Fotolia's call, as expected. You can see on the "Ranking" page everyone who has recently reached a new canister level (from gold upwards). There are only two or three photographer's names that are new on that page, and I've been visiting that page quite frequently. Fotolia's "generous" gift of gold, emerald, or saphir icons to people who are successful but new to Fotolia couldn't ever be the main reason for anyone to give up their exclusivity at istock. People who are that successful know the business well enough to be aware of Fotolia's reputation in changing the rules over and over again.
-
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case you are...
...
Partially in jest, partially not - rest assured I'm not the only iStock exclusive with a bit of Schadenfreude.
I wasn't always exclusive at iStock you know - one of the reasons I made the switch was because of FT and their not-completely-above-board ways. Instead of lobbying for change and/or complaining about it, I put my money where my mouth is and got out of there. Maybe you, along with those who read this, should do the same - you need to face the facts: FT is not going to change the way they conduct business. Sure, you might get some concessions from them, but it'll only be a matter of time until the next contributor crisis.
To be honest Sharply when I read your comment I prayed that you weren't speaking in jest.
I hope you exclusives genuinely are getting your just reward because I'll be joining you guys just as soon as I can. FT have gone too far this time __ much, much too far __ and they are going to lose a lot of their contributors as a result.
-
The reason it matters (assuming you ever could get accurate information, which is doubtful) is that the best indicator of future performance is past performance.
^^ Agreed (emphasis mine). But based on past performance, all the indicators have been there for awhile, however this turns out.
I don't think anyone believes any of the micros are acting from a sense of altruism at this point. Do they?
Although we all have opinions about what "might or might not" have happened, and speculating is part of the fun of the forums, lets not let it distract us from the main goal of getting a fairer deal for contributors.
-
...
I hope you exclusives genuinely are getting your just reward because I'll be joining you guys just as soon as I can. FT have gone too far this time __ much, much too far __ and they are going to lose a lot of their contributors as a result.
Good for you, gostwyck, good for you.
When all is said and done I'm sure you'll find yourself wondering why you waited so long.
-
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case you are...
...
Partially in jest, partially not - rest assured I'm not the only iStock exclusive with a bit of Schadenfreude.
I wasn't always exclusive at iStock you know - one of the reasons I made the switch was because of FT and their not-completely-above-board ways. Instead of lobbying for change and/or complaining about it, I put my money where my mouth is and got out of there. Maybe you, along with those who read this, should do the same - you need to face the facts: FT is not going to change the way they conduct business. Sure, you might get some concessions from them, but it'll only be a matter of time until the next contributor crisis.
But I don't like the way Getty/istock are conducting their business at the moment, so I am not jumping out of the frying pan and in to the fire. I hope it works for you but RF exclusivity has never appealed to me.
It works for me with amazing results. And a tonne less work. Not speaking for him, but I think it works for Sharply too.
I'm glad you don't think it works for you. It means that you see an opportunity elsewhere. I don't want everyone to go exclusive because that would just throw off the entire dynamic of the system in place.
But at least now some of the points I was saying way back when are justified. And shady business practices by FT is a huge reason I did it.
-
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case you are...
...
Partially in jest, partially not - rest assured I'm not the only iStock exclusive with a bit of Schadenfreude.
I wasn't always exclusive at iStock you know - one of the reasons I made the switch was because of FT and their not-completely-above-board ways. Instead of lobbying for change and/or complaining about it, I put my money where my mouth is and got out of there. Maybe you, along with those who read this, should do the same - you need to face the facts: FT is not going to change the way they conduct business. Sure, you might get some concessions from them, but it'll only be a matter of time until the next contributor crisis.
To be honest Sharply when I read your comment I prayed that you weren't speaking in jest.
I hope you exclusives genuinely are getting your just reward because I'll be joining you guys just as soon as I can. FT have gone too far this time __ much, much too far __ and they are going to lose a lot of their contributors as a result.
Gostwyk, Glad to see you are coming over to the "dark side" after all the bickering we had going on way back when.
-
Partially in jest, partially not - rest assured I'm not the only iStock exclusive with a bit of Schadenfreude.
Oh the irony....the poor irony