MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 92900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: September 24, 2011, 06:00 »
0
^^^I can't agree.  Some of the smaller sites pay better commissions and have higher prices.  They have made me thousands of dollars over the years.  There are lots that should be avoided but don't tar them all with the same brush.

The big problem is istock and Photodune.  FT have seen istock get away with commissions as low as 15% and now forcing non-exclusives in to TS.  Photodune have very low EL prices, undercutting the market.  They also have the lowest commission for a new site but that hasn't stopped most of the big contributors joining them.

To blame this on the smaller sites when some pay 40-50% commission and have higher prices is wrong.


« Reply #126 on: September 24, 2011, 06:19 »
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can opt out from ELs at PhotoDune?

« Reply #127 on: September 24, 2011, 06:36 »
0
On the other hand...

This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that  Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.

« Reply #128 on: September 24, 2011, 06:39 »
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can opt out from ELs at PhotoDune?
Yep!

« Reply #129 on: September 24, 2011, 06:48 »
0
This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that  Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.


I don't think 'real life' works like that. In the UK we had the Net Book Agreement for 95 years which prevented retailers from discounting the cover price. I'm sure it was good for the publishers and certainly small retailers but I doubt if any authors (i.e. "us") benefited at all. They probably lost out because fewer books were bought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement

« Reply #130 on: September 24, 2011, 06:59 »
0
This has nothing to do with the sale price. FT isn't planning to sell subcriptions or credits for less, it is simply planning to cut commissions and pocket the difference.

Wasn't Fotolia's commission rate already down at 15%? They cut it to something like that as soon as iStock's cut took force. It may even be lower than 15%, they make it almost impossible to find out what it is.

XPTO, if you seriously doubt the honesty of Fotolia (which is what doubting the legality of what they do means) how can you continue to work with them in a relationship which is completely opaque and relies on you trusting them to be completely honest in recording and reporting sales?

« Reply #131 on: September 24, 2011, 07:15 »
0
This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that  Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.


I don't think 'real life' works like that. In the UK we had the Net Book Agreement for 95 years which prevented retailers from discounting the cover price. I'm sure it was good for the publishers and certainly small retailers but I doubt if any authors (i.e. "us") benefited at all. They probably lost out because fewer books were bought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement


It's a matter of opinion.

I think that maybe sales would increase, but revenue would go down. In a commercial war of prices the producer of the product always lose. I'm sure that needing the shops and editors more fuel for this war, even author's comission woul have ended being lowered.

« Reply #132 on: September 24, 2011, 07:18 »
0
do you guys think it would help if major news channels in the world told audiences that istockphoto and fotolia is not treating photographers well and graphic designers were doing wrong by buying from these agencies?

« Reply #133 on: September 24, 2011, 07:20 »
0
I'm not going to MicrostockExpo.  I intend to show my displeasure if and when they change me from emerald to white.  I'll instruct them to close my account.  That's reacting with action not just words.
Who else is with me?  I think we need a poll...

This is right in line with all the disgusting behavior istock pulled. Even if you could rally support from a few contributors, there are plenty more who are too fearful to give up their income and will still stay and take whatever is dished out. After all, 5 cents per image is better than no money at all, right? As long as contributors allow the abuse, it is going to keep happening...and getting even worse.

Anyone who walks, if they change you to white, is the proper response, but you will be doing it for YOU. It isn't going to teach them a thing.

« Reply #134 on: September 24, 2011, 07:20 »
0
Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much.  People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.

« Reply #135 on: September 24, 2011, 07:24 »
0
Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much.  People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.

but cutting commissions and reducing what is gained is news! I have a friend in one of those channels and just sent him a message if this can be turned into news..

« Reply #136 on: September 24, 2011, 07:27 »
0
Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much.  People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.

Also, the news is gonna be something like this..

photo agencies like istockphoto and fotolia are constantly reducing photographer commissions and violating artists rights.. Graphic designers should instead shop at agencies with fair commissions..

« Reply #137 on: September 24, 2011, 07:32 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:43 by stockmarketer »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #138 on: September 24, 2011, 07:37 »
0
Sorry, but "major news channels" would probably not care too much.  People are underpaid/undervalued all over the world.
Also, the news is gonna be something like this..
photo agencies like istockphoto and fotolia are constantly reducing photographer commissions and violating artists rights.. Graphic designers should instead shop at agencies with fair commissions..
Yeah, like telling 'togs not to buy their IP-free props at pound/euro/dollar shops where many items are produced  sweatshops.
Point one finger, point three fingers at yourself. (not necessarily 'you' cidepix).
Added: I just opened a set of photocards bought from Traidcraft and was gratified to see that the images were credited, and to Alamy.  :)
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:10 by ShadySue »

« Reply #139 on: September 24, 2011, 07:46 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:43 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #140 on: September 24, 2011, 07:58 »
0
Even if you could rally support from a few contributors, there are plenty more who are too fearful to give up their income and will still stay and take whatever is dished out. After all, 5 cents per image is better than no money at all, right?


Let's just say that an Emerald is getting $2,000 a month.  The math could suggest that this same person going to White could now be getting less than $750 a month.  

If you're Emerald at Fotolia, you're almost certainly doing well at all the other sites you're on, so $750 relatively speaking is not a large amount to these contributors.

The ONLY hope of retaining $2,000 a month is telling Fotolia you are willing to quit and give up $750 a month.

Giving up $2,000 a month is painful.  $750 not so much, and it's the cost of standing up for yourself, retaining your pride, and possibly reversing unfair business practices.

A call to everyone Emerald and higher:  do the math on your figures.  You'll see that your White revenue becomes a small proportion of your overall microstock earnings and you can easily live without it and cause Fotolia some serious pain in the process.  We HAVE to do this.

I used to be like you, and during the first commission cuts I was telling everyone that we should stand together and if necessary remove our ports from fotolia altogether.. that would send the message to fotolia.. but as expected no one really stood against it and I thought removing my portfolio alone would do no harm to fotolia.. so I stayed..

speaking from experience stockmarketer I think most stock contributors are losers who do not have principles :)

« Reply #141 on: September 24, 2011, 08:03 »
0

« Reply #142 on: September 24, 2011, 08:05 »
0
Let's just say that an Emerald is getting $2,000 a month.  The math could suggest that this same person going to White could now be getting less than $750 a month.  

If you're Emerald at Fotolia, you're almost certainly doing well at all the other sites you're on, so $750 relatively speaking is not a large amount to these contributors.

The ONLY hope of retaining $2,000 a month is telling Fotolia you are willing to quit and give up $750 a month.

Giving up $2,000 a month is painful.  $750 not so much, and it's the cost of standing up for yourself, retaining your pride, and possibly reversing unfair business practices.

A call to everyone Emerald and higher:  do the math on your figures.  You'll see that your White revenue becomes a small proportion of your overall microstock earnings and you can easily live without it and cause Fotolia some serious pain in the process.  We HAVE to do this.

Forget it. It is not going to happen to Emeralds and above. FT is already making too much from them. This is designed for the low-selling contributor.

« Reply #143 on: September 24, 2011, 08:10 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:44 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #144 on: September 24, 2011, 08:12 »
0
The "Return to Start" threat impacts the very top contributors at a very severe level.

You're assuming the policy will be applied equally...

« Reply #145 on: September 24, 2011, 08:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:44 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #146 on: September 24, 2011, 08:19 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:44 by stockmarketer »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #147 on: September 24, 2011, 08:21 »
0
But today the story is completely different.  The "Return to Start" threat impacts the very top contributors at a very severe level.  By definition, there are very few top contributors, but this small pool of people are Fotolia's superstars, bringing in the VAST MAJORITY of its revenue.  It cannot afford to lose even 10 of these people.   If a small number of Emeralds and above take a stand, it WILL hurt Fotolia.  
Didn't they say it was going to be applied on a 'case by case' basis?
I'm guessing that just like iStock made sure Yuri kept his 20%, they also made sure that even if not all the exclusive BDs didn't rise to "as much as 45%", enough of them retained 40% to make sure they wouldn't rattle their cages.
Why wouldn't Fotolia be equally sneaky savvy?

XPTO

« Reply #148 on: September 24, 2011, 08:30 »
0
XPTO, if you seriously doubt the honesty of Fotolia (which is what doubting the legality of what they do means) how can you continue to work with them in a relationship which is completely opaque and relies on you trusting them to be completely honest in recording and reporting sales?

I live solely from stock and cannot choose between a roof or food on the table. As simple as that. If I could afford it, FL would be long gone, as IS would too.

« Reply #149 on: September 24, 2011, 08:38 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:45 by stockmarketer »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
8934 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
4421 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
3361 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
19505 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
2911 Views
Last post April 08, 2016, 07:47
by Amaviael

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle