pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 76695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 23, 2011, 13:47 »
0
From an email just sent from Fotolia (emphasis added)

We hope you're enjoying Fotolia.com's new look and features. Customer
feedback has been amazing, and we will continue to release new
features for contributors, as well as improve search and interface
functionality for customers.

The release of this latest site isn't just cosmetic. It's just one of
the many things we're implementing to keep Fotolia competitive for
customers and contributors alike.

Over the last few months, we've seen new competitors offering pricing
and commission rates that are lower than our white ranking levels.
This is a threat to our business, for the market as whole, and for
you, our contributors. This is an issue that must be addressed for us
to remain competitive.

We have been obliged to modify our pricing and payment policies to
allow Fotolia to adjust prices/commissions on a case by case basis.
When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and
commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for
competition.


Together, we'll work towards building a stronger stock photography
market, and continue to enhance Fotolia's reputation and
competitiveness as a leading microstock agency.


« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2011, 13:53 »
0
This is a threat to our business

Most important part.

This sounds like extortion.

« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 13:57 »
0
Seeing how Ft is one of the lowest, I would think the other sites would want to have the same option -

imagine if SS said - oh, we see you are on Ft, so we'll keep you at .25 subs.

Now there is a reason to keep your username different at all sites and to be anonymous on the forums.

In many ways I'd say Ft has been leading the "screw the contributor" race that many sites seem to be in.

Every time I was about to join Ft they'd do something to screw their contributors (and I've been at this business as long about as long as they have). Other than their continuous downward pressure on the whole system I am ok to see them pull stunts like this. Maybe when they drop people down to white that is the perfect time to pull your port...

« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2011, 14:02 »
0
It doesn't affect me personally as FT banned me, but does this mean that if someone sells through CanStock that FT will make them white? Even an Emerald or up contributor?

Are they serious?

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2011, 14:06 »
0
Looks like if an independent sells through iStock, therefore forced into the PP, you'll be white at Fotolia.

« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2011, 14:07 »
0
Maybe when they drop people down to white that is the perfect time to pull your port...

Maybe? I don't think you'd have any choice would you? After all the money they'd have made from you over the years, the numerous cuts in commissions and then they pull a stunt like that?

Does anyone have any idea which agencies they are referring to?

« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2011, 14:07 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:50 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2011, 14:18 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:50 by stockmarketer »

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2011, 14:18 »
0
This is a threat to our business
Most important part.
This sounds like extortion.

Yeah, just like reneging on the grandfathering promise because it wasn't 'sustainable'.

« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2011, 14:26 »
0
I would add to the letter something about being paid your full outstanding balance in the part about them removing your entire portfolio.

Also add something about them taking the actions to ensure prompt removal from partner sites.

If their contract has a clause about the language with which you the artist terminate the agreement, include that. Following those steps should make it easier to make the case they're violating the agreement and selling your work without your permission if they drag their feet on removing your portfolio (as it's virtually free money for them to sell your stuff and pay you the minimum royalty).

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2011, 14:27 »
0
The other sickening part... they're doing it on a "case by case" basis.  So Yuri is safe?  
I think you could bet your bottom dollar on that.

« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2011, 14:29 »
0
Can someone send it to all agencies with less prices?

« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2011, 14:34 »
0
is this going to take place? if so it is incredible, they dont even waited another full year to cut again

« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2011, 14:34 »
0
Has anyone been dropped in rank yet?  This is complete and utter bullsheet!  Independants are not exclusive and therefore are allowed to sell their stuff on any site that they wish without fear or obligation.  Extortion is probably just the tip of it.  It took me over 2 years to reach bronze and I'm not going to lose that time and rank.  Who the flipping hell do they think they are to drop your rank and commissions based on who you also upload to?

« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2011, 14:35 »
0
Finally something good has come out of the fact that my Fotolia sales are down about 70...80% from the best levels: If they are pulling this "white ranking" stunt on me, I will quit at Fotolia. This is the last straw. I have been very patient and tolerant, this will be the first time I quit an agency and pull all my images. Fotolia has become a middle-tier agency for me, I won't shed a tear if I pull my images and close my account.

Come on, Fotolia, you stinky greedy *insult removed*. Try me.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 14:39 by Perry »

ikostudio

  • IKOstudio
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2011, 14:40 »
0
Yah I receive the same email from Fotolia.

But one of you already noticed that Yuri Arcurs images retain the same comissions, and he have the images on every agency I know and even more.
Sorry Yury, but I dont think that this is fair, its nothing personal.

Please Fotolia reconsider this measure.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 14:42 by iko »

« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2011, 14:40 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:50 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2011, 14:41 »
0
This is a threat to our business
Most important part.
This sounds like extortion.

Yeah, just like reneging on the grandfathering promise because it wasn't 'sustainable'.

Not really.

« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2011, 14:43 »
0
The big earners with think I'm out of line for saying this, but instead of punishing everyone - why if they think they are losing market share shouldn't they be working on their pricing structure, not their commission schedule?  Why let certain levels triple their prices?

FYI - I just had to look this up so I thought I'd post for others what the current payout/ranking means

.25  White     <99
.27  Bronze   <999
.29  Silver      <9,999
.31  Gold       <24,999
.33  Emerald  <99,999
.35  Saphire    <249,999
.37  Rubis       <999,999
.38  Diamond  >1,000,000

« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2011, 14:43 »
0
Must be they feel threatened by Getty's plan for forcing contributors to Thinkstock, and this is their 'preemptive strike'. I don't think they have the earning power to threaten contributors like this, I wouldn't hesitate to pull my account if they shoved me back to white.

« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2011, 14:43 »
0
So, what are these sites with significantly lower prices and comissions? I can't think of any... the only alterntive I can think of is FREE.

« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2011, 14:47 »
0
Hmmm.. just saw this on their image sale and royalties paragraph

Please note that after 6 months without a sale, content prices are automatically set at the minimum price (XS = 1 credit). If a file has sold 5 times or more, the contributor has the ability to change the price back to the maximum price.


Doesn't affect me I guess because I don't have the ranking to increase my prices - EXCEPT FOR EL's.  Is this new language?

EDIT  when I click on a photo with 1 sale, it is still at 100 credits for el, but I get a red box that states:  Due to low sales, you cannot modify the price until it sells at least 5 more times
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 15:17 by Pixart »

« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2011, 14:49 »
0
Hmmm.. just saw this on their image sale and royalties paragraph

Please note that after 6 months without a sale, content prices are automatically set at the minimum price (XS = 1 credit). If a file has sold 5 times or more, the contributor has the ability to change the price back to the maximum price.


Doesn't affect me I guess because I don't have the ranking to increase my prices - EXCEPT FOR EL's.  Is this new language?

and between 2 and 4 sales?

p.s: that isnt happening I have a lot of files with over 6 month and no sales and I have EL at 50

« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2011, 15:07 »
0
Quote
Over the last few months, we've seen new competitors offering pricing
and commission rates that are lower than our white ranking levels.

What about all the sites that offer higher pricing and commissions?  I'm really sick of this now, my enthusiasm for microstock has gone.  This makes me even more motivated to work harder to diversify and not have to rely on microstock income.

« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2011, 15:11 »
0
My first thought when I read the email from Fotolia this morning was that I had time travelled, and it's actually April 1.  


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7483 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
3682 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
2227 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
18329 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
1746 Views
Last post April 08, 2016, 07:47
by Amaviael

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results