Author Topic: Fotolia: Worth starting a port there? (Read 19027 times)

fotografer · « **Reply #25 on:** October 18, 2009, 00:08 »

Just had a look at my last 100.
38% of them are subs but
32% are 8 credit or more sales which compensates for the subs.

sgcallaway1994 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 18, 2009, 23:55 »

Fotolia is a site where if you can get a portfolio established there, eventually the sales will start to slowly come in. My sales are somewhat consistent there. I love how quickly they review images, though its disappointing how many they reject I have the lowest Acceptance Ratio there compared to all my other sites. I don't really enjoy the way keywording works there. I wish I could add and delete keywords. Overall my recommendation would be its worth trying to get established on Fotolia. Its not an easy though, excercise patience.

chasmcn · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2009, 04:12 »

Fotolia are probably the fastest reviewers i just upload 5 files while key wording and before i had finished 2 had been accepted , i don't bother if they reject i have learned its personal its not what they looking for most of the time .

ibogdan · « **Reply #28 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:10 »

It bothers me that almost every month some credits are missing again and again due to fraud incidents and so on. I don't care about how they protect themselves from image thievery but once I've sold an image, I need to be paid.
This incident never happened to other agencies I upload, none but FT. It's annoying..

stockastic · « **Reply #29 on:** October 19, 2009, 10:40 »

Yes that line about "desired level of aesthetic quality" still burns me up every time I get it. Particularly because it usually happens when I submit a shot that I know is good but probably too artsy for stock. Why they use such a patronizing, insulting tone in a routine rejection notice just totally escapes me.

eppic · « **Reply #30 on:** October 19, 2009, 19:46 »

Quote

Yes that line about "desired level of aesthetic quality" still burns me up every time I get it.

That's a favorite one with my submissions it seems. I'll just try slipping a few at a time back into future submissions and see what happens. Well I've got 33 images now active since I began submitting on Friday and got 2 sub sales today. Woohoo 65 cents total.

KB · « **Reply #31 on:** October 19, 2009, 21:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 19, 2009, 10:40

Yes that line about "desired level of aesthetic quality" still burns me up every time I get it.

I agree it's bad. But it doesn't compete with BigStock's worst:
Snapshot composition: This image is more of a snapshot than a marketable stock image.

Gee, why don't you say what you really mean?

I can't complain too much, though. I've received it only 3 times out of around 600 submissions. Whereas I must have received Fotolia's "desired level of aesthetic quality" 200 times at least.

ap · « **Reply #32 on:** October 21, 2009, 19:09 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 19, 2009, 10:40

Yes that line about "desired level of aesthetic quality" still burns me up every time I get it. Particularly because it usually happens when I submit a shot that I know is good but probably too artsy for stock. Why they use such a patronizing, insulting tone in a routine rejection notice just totally escapes me.

it's a true orwellian perversion of the word 'aesthetic' as we know it. funny though, the shots they reject tend to do well elsewhere. so they don't seem either commercially nor aesthetically savvy.

it will be hard to do well at ft for the high rejection rates and the high # of subs. but, you may have a portfolio they like. hint: they truly hate landscapes and anything aesthetically inclined.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #33 on:** October 21, 2009, 23:25 »

Jason Stitt (an Emerald contributor) posted on their forum a couple of days ago that he just had over $400 removed from his account due to credit card fraud. This has grown to be an alarming recurring theme over there. I know it happens on other sites, but I never hear about it happening nearly so much anywhere else.
Why?

eppic · « **Reply #34 on:** October 21, 2009, 23:27 »

Quote

hint: they truly hate landscapes and anything aesthetically inclined.

Oh I may be in trouble then! I've noticed that so far they have accepted some of my landscapes; even one involving tulips (tulip shots are hard to get accepted anywhere these days). I'll keep plugging along and see what happens

ap · « **Reply #35 on:** October 21, 2009, 23:33 »

they must love you then, for i know they also hate flowers. but veggies, food, isolations are almost 100% foolproof. i just ruined my acceptance rate by sending in some landscapes. but i like playing with fire.

FD · « **Reply #36 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:42 »

Last 100: 28 subs, 3 EL. Much less subs than DT.
Almost no dl of my landscapes, but many overwhite models.

ap · « **Reply #37 on:** October 22, 2009, 02:16 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on October 22, 2009, 01:42

Almost no dl of my landscapes, but many overwhite models.

disambiguation required for overwhite:

did you mean caucasian or isolation?

FD · « **Reply #38 on:** October 22, 2009, 02:26 »

Quote from: ap on October 22, 2009, 02:16

disambiguation required for overwhite: did you mean caucasian or isolation?

cut out, isolated, overwhite, silo

Peiling · « **Reply #39 on:** October 24, 2009, 00:30 »

Nike: Just Do IT

eppic · « **Reply #40 on:** October 24, 2009, 00:43 »

Got 5 sales so far (all subs). So far I'm around a 40% acceptance rate.

travelstock · « **Reply #41 on:** October 24, 2009, 02:00 »

The number of credit card fraud related transactions there is a cause for concern. It looks like they really don't have any effective security measure. I've had 4 transactions reversed in the last month for refused cards.

What really bothers me is that the transactions seem to correlate with Subscription sales - so someone signs up with a subscription, steals a lot of out photos then we get amounts subtracted from our balance.

one was on 15 October: (Image purchased with subscription, 07-21-2009 02:15:12 am) - so basically the fraud happened and they don't pick it up for 3 months?!?

qwerty · « **Reply #42 on:** October 24, 2009, 03:10 »

as far as I'm concerned (although this makes no change to the reality of it) if Fotolia sell your photo and then find out it's a fraud then they should only be able to retrieve the money back from the contributor if they're able to return the goods sold to the contributor. Which they can't.

The "agent" gets 70% of the money for each sale for doing the marketing, providing the platform and the transactions. This commission should include the risk of bad transactions and the contributor has no control over this component.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** October 24, 2009, 12:30 »

Has anyone ever purchased in the sites using a credit card and noticed anything in Fotolia that would explaing this behaviour?

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #44 on:** October 24, 2009, 16:30 »

Quote from: holgs on October 24, 2009, 02:00

The number of credit card fraud related transactions there is a cause for concern. It looks like they really don't have any effective security measure. I've had 4 transactions reversed in the last month for refused cards.

What really bothers me is that the transactions seem to correlate with Subscription sales - so someone signs up with a subscription, steals a lot of out photos then we get amounts subtracted from our balance.

one was on 15 October: (Image purchased with subscription, 07-21-2009 02:15:12 am) - so basically the fraud happened and they don't pick it up for 3 months?!?

Some contributors have had money deducted from transactions that happened over a year earlier. I agree the risk should be taken by the one who gets the lion's share of the commission. But apparently FT contributors are out of luck and had better just live with it. That's par for their course.

lisafx · « **Reply #45 on:** October 24, 2009, 17:15 »

If these boards are any indication, Fotolia has lost a lot of its goodwill among contributors. Eventually that is bound to hurt their collection as more and more small to midsize contributors stop uploading there, or close their accounts altogether.

You can't build a varied and comprehensive collection just with the superstars of micro, who mostly produce the same subjects and styles over and over again. The smaller players are what brings interest and variety. If Fotolia manages to alienate these people, the other sites that treat them well are bound to gain a competitive advantage.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 25, 2009, 03:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 24, 2009, 17:15

If these boards are any indication, Fotolia has lost a lot of its goodwill among contributors. Eventually that is bound to hurt their collection as more and more small to midsize contributors stop uploading there, or close their accounts altogether.

You can't build a varied and comprehensive collection just with the superstars of micro, who mostly produce the same subjects and styles over and over again. The smaller players are what brings interest and variety. If Fotolia manages to alienate these people, the other sites that treat them well are bound to gain a competitive advantage.

I think that's true, at least in my case. I am going around the world, many times to place where 0 or very few images show up in the search and I would like to think that buyers will have to follow me for some images. With all these changes that are hurting current contributors (DT pay cut from 50 to 30% and FT allowing new contributors with less sales than me to come in at 2 levels higher) I can't bring myself to continue working with them and feel forced to go to IS and Alamy. I'm not sure how this will play out but I think I will be happy with the decision even if I lose some money.

Digital66 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:31 »

I closed my Fotolia account last August. Had I known what now I know, I would have never uploaded anything there.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia: Worth starting a port there? (Read 19027 times)

fotografer

sgcallaway1994

chasmcn

ibogdan

stockastic

eppic

KB

ap

HughStoneIan

eppic

ap

FD

ap

FD

Peiling

eppic

travelstock

qwerty

madelaide

HughStoneIan

lisafx

traveler1116

Digital66

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors