pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 94228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

XPTO

« Reply #150 on: September 24, 2011, 08:42 »
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...

Exactly.

Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.

The only way photographers can make a stance is to create a collective agency with fair commissions, and with time leave the agencies that continue to undercut the business.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #151 on: September 24, 2011, 08:45 »
0

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.
If your employer said it was going to cut your pay from $30,000 a year to $10,000 a year and you had to maintain the same quality and quantity of work, would you nod your head and say "I can't afford to leave."  That's foolish.
It may be foolish and it may not.
Some people choose to stay on at reduced prices because of loyalty to the company for all sorts of good reasons. Then when the company has bad times, they may choose to take a salary hit to try to keep the company afloat through difficult economic times. That would only work if they had enough trust in them management to restore or even raise their salaries when times got better.
Also, if the person didn't think they'd be likely to get a job, they may hold on, but that would depend on their family circumstances, i.e. whether they would get more on benefits.
May not have any direct benefit to the Fotolia thing, but you can't make such a sweeping statement about salaries in the real world.

Microbius

« Reply #152 on: September 24, 2011, 08:50 »
0
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.

Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?

« Reply #153 on: September 24, 2011, 08:52 »
0
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.

Then why did only the high-selling contributors get the threatening email?   From the responses in this thread, it appears that no one Silver or below received this.

Wouldn't you NOT send the email to those you're NOT targeting, and instead send it to the people you ARE targeting?

We don't really know. FT haven't actually specified the agencies they are referring to. What I do know is that they are not going to be applying it to their top sellers (many of whom are undoubtedly the biggest 'offenders') because it would be commercial suicide to do so. Do you really believe that Yuri, Andres, MBI, etc are all going to be reduced to 'White' status? Yeah, right.

XPTO

« Reply #154 on: September 24, 2011, 08:52 »
0

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.
If your employer said it was going to cut your pay from $30,000 a year to $10,000 a year and you had to maintain the same quality and quantity of work, would you nod your head and say "I can't afford to leave."  That's foolish.
It may be foolish and it may not.
(...)
Also, if the person didn't think they'd be likely to get a job, they may hold on, but that would depend on their family circumstances, i.e. whether they would get more on benefits.
May not have any direct benefit to the Fotolia thing, but you can't make such a sweeping statement about salaries in the real world.

Exactly. At this moment I'm not in a position where I can give up any income. As I said, a roof or food would have to be gone...

But this is not about myself. I already fight the drop of prices by not submitting to every and each agency that's created and uses "the lowest pricing" as a selling argument. I'm stunned to see 40+ agencies in the right pane. 15 would already be too much unless they were niche agencies.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:57 by XPTO »

XPTO

« Reply #155 on: September 24, 2011, 08:54 »
0
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.

Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?

Unfortunately I don't know which are the "offending" agencies. Just knew this from an affected friend.

« Reply #156 on: September 24, 2011, 08:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:42 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #157 on: September 24, 2011, 08:58 »
0
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.

Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?

Unfortunately I don't know which are the "offending" agencies. Just knew this from an affected friend.

Of course you did. BS.

XPTO

« Reply #158 on: September 24, 2011, 09:03 »
0
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.

When did this happen?  Did anyone already get reduced to White?  I don't think so.

A friend of mine said it to me. I haven't seen his/her account so cannot confirm this, just believed in what he/she said.

The only way photographers can make a stance is to create a collective agency with fair commissions, and with time leave the agencies that continue to undercut the business.

Wrong.  This will never happen.  Any movement that requires a majority of contributors to form an organization and speak with one voice will NEVER get off the ground.  

But what COULD happen is a dozen or so of FT's top contributors (ok, maybe not Yuri as he is probably safe... I'm talking the small amount of people on the rungs right below him) to say No.  That's a realistic possibility.  Just a small amount of these people standing firm could change FT's mind.   I'm willing to be one of this small group.  Anyone else at Emerald or above willing to do this?  I'm convinced we only need a small number of us to make a change.  Please speak up.

Why lose all that energy of deleting portfolios, and not try to organize a collective agency? It's seems to me more powerful to create a strong competitor that impacts the market, than simply deleting a portfolio hoping that in the next week another agency won't do the same and you're back in square one...

eggshell

« Reply #159 on: September 24, 2011, 09:03 »
0
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.

As Emerald, I get $.33 per subscription sale.  I get 37% of credit sales.  But the big advantage of this level (or higher) is doubling (or more) the prices of my images at any size.  This is all pretty clear.

So for Emeralds being reduced to White, credit prices get cut in half and our take of that reduced amount gets cut by about half (we go from 37% to 20%).  The pain is worse for those above Emerald.  My subscription earnings would fall by about one fourth (33% to 25%).

I can't imagine anyone at Emerald or above standing for a reduction to White.  I usually laugh at petitions and talk of unions, but if enough Emeralds and above spoke up over this, FT would have to think twice before docking us.  I would bet 90% of their revenue comes from Emeralds and above (probably their top 150 or so contributors according to their ranking system).  If a number of these resisted the change, that could NOT be ignored.


It's not only the prices and the royalty percentage that would go down . At FT rank is a big part of the search placement . So it'll be more like - smaller part from a smaller price on less sales .

« Reply #160 on: September 24, 2011, 09:07 »
0
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.

Then why did only the high-selling contributors get the threatening email?   From the responses in this thread, it appears that no one Silver or below received this.

Wouldn't you NOT send the email to those you're NOT targeting, and instead send it to the people you ARE targeting?

I am a silver and I also did not receive the email...just another datapoint >: ;)

XPTO

« Reply #161 on: September 24, 2011, 09:07 »
0
Some contributors already got axed, while others were given time to delete their portfolios from the "offending" agencies.

Have they? have they already started applying the new "rule". Which agencies did they specify?

Unfortunately I don't know which are the "offending" agencies. Just knew this from an affected friend.

Of course you did. BS.

I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.

« Reply #162 on: September 24, 2011, 09:14 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:41 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #163 on: September 24, 2011, 09:18 »
0
I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.

You said some contributors, i.e. more than one. Get them to come and post here to prove your point. How long is this 'transition period' anyway, what agencies were considered questionable, etc, etc, etc?

Not for the first time you are making absurd, hysterical statements that you can't possibly back up with any facts.

ayzek

« Reply #164 on: September 24, 2011, 09:19 »
0
After fotolia behavior, i just checked RPD's and earning in last two month.
Fotolia is in the position of 9th. from 10 Agency both on earnings and RPD.

They need to be more clear about the which site or prices and rates they dont like.

Microbius

« Reply #165 on: September 24, 2011, 09:25 »
0

I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.

I am also getting very confused here. It would be very helpful if your friend could let us know which offending sites they have been asked to remove their work from. Or if you could ask them and pass on the info. But you have now said they were dropped to white already, so who was told to remove images from offending sites, another friend? And where does the transition period come in? 

Maybe you could just start from scratch and spell out what you know as it sounds like you have been privy to some very useful info., or could be if you get back yo your friend with a question? Thanks.

« Reply #166 on: September 24, 2011, 09:25 »
0
Incredible.
So glad to have made the decision to phase out my involvement with microstock.

XPTO

« Reply #167 on: September 24, 2011, 09:34 »
0
I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.

You said some contributors, i.e. more than one. Get them to come and post here to prove your point. How long is this 'transition period' anyway, what agencies were considered questionable, etc, etc, etc?

Not for the first time you are making absurd, hysterical statements that you can't possibly back up with any facts.

If previously I mentioned contributors (plural) I haven't expressed myself correctly. I know one contributor/friend who told me that the rank was immediately dropped to white. As for your other questions, an answer is still pendant so I cannot help more.

If he/she wants to come here and identify himself/herself there's nothing stopping it, but to be true, even if that happened your attitude clearly indicates that your next step would be to question if that person was who it said it was, and so on, and so on...

As for your petty insult, that says more about you than me considering that what you write isn't more credible or verifiable than what I, or almost anyone, in this forum writes. Just as me, you're an anonymous contributor who claims things that no one can verify or take seriously. You need a big slice of humble-pie, after getting of your high horse and all other applicable expressions.

« Reply #168 on: September 24, 2011, 09:37 »
0
I'm emerald and haven't recieved a letter as yet.  I wonder if Lisa has had one!!

« Reply #169 on: September 24, 2011, 09:42 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 15:40 by stockmarketer »

XPTO

« Reply #170 on: September 24, 2011, 09:48 »
0

I don't quite understand what you mean in your statement. This is what he/she told me. That there will be a transition period but his/her account was automatically dropped to white.

I am also getting very confused here. It would be very helpful if your friend could let us know which offending sites they have been asked to remove their work from. Or if you could ask them and pass on the info. But you have now said they were dropped to white already, so who was told to remove images from offending sites, another friend? And where does the transition period come in? 

Maybe you could just start from scratch and spell out what you know as it sounds like you have been privy to some very useful info., or could be if you get back yo your friend with a question? Thanks.

At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.

And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.

Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request.  ;)

« Reply #171 on: September 24, 2011, 10:03 »
0
At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.

And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.

Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request.  ;)

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you? No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.

XPTO

« Reply #172 on: September 24, 2011, 10:10 »
0
At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.

And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.

Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request.  ;)

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you? No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.

This is what has been told to me by an emerald member. If this is not true it's because my friend lied to me. It's as simple as that.

As for your quote:
No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.

Now who's making "absurd, hysterical statements that you can't possibly back up with any facts." See? You're just like anyone else around here. Stop being arrogant, and try to discuss the issue instead of trying to get into a mud fight with others.

velocicarpo

« Reply #173 on: September 24, 2011, 10:13 »
0
IMHO they are putting themselves into a situation vulnerable to legal actions. I am not a lawyer but working in big media companies for some years gives you some insight. Putting pressure upon suppliers in order to fight competition without stating so in the original contract and without further agreement might well get them into legal trouble if any contributor starts a lawsuit. I am no lawyer, so I am NOT sure, but I saw things in similar situations happen. If you are from the states you should probably consult a lawyer and see what the options are if you are affected.

I do not go to the Microstockexpo. But I start to regret to not have the possibility to say those imbeciles right into the face what I think of them.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 10:15 by velocicarpo »

« Reply #174 on: September 24, 2011, 10:26 »
0
At this moment he/she is waiting from an answer from FL regarding whose are the sites. If I know I'll tell it. Don't know if he/she wants to participate in these forums that's why I don't mention names.

And yes it was told to me that the drop from emerald to white was immediate in his/her case. Yet, a first answer from FL stated that some members were in the process of removing their images from those sites. So the treatment is not equal to all those affected.

Of course you'll have to trust my word, since I'll not mention names, or supply logins and passwords for the whole world to verify what I'm stating like some people here seem to request.  ;)

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you? No Emeralds or above will be reduced to White. It hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because they are FT's most valuable asset.

this might happen or not but one thing is for SURE Tyler and other received this email so


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
9038 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
4462 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
3398 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
19608 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
3020 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