pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 79517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #300 on: September 28, 2011, 02:47 »
0
This is absolutely bizarre, Fotolia is at the vanguard of low paying agencies that compel contributors to upload to these low price upstarts. I wont repeat the "h" word for fear that my post will also be deleted, but I do feel like I've slipped into an episode of the twilight zone.
I would have no problem with the policy if Fotolia was one of the highest paying, some of the non micro sites have similar policies and no-one bats an eyelid.


« Reply #301 on: September 28, 2011, 03:41 »
0

2. Contributors start contributing to smaller agencies to make up for their losses.

Exactly,  Fotolia is entirely responsible for the fact that I have started to upload to the smaller agencies.  I was always perfectly happy to upload to 6 agencies until virtually overnight my fotolia earnings were cut  to about a third and I had to start looking for ways to make up the lost earnings. I have now doubled the amount of agencies that I upload to. 

« Reply #302 on: September 28, 2011, 03:44 »
0
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad

To show how ridiculous your logic is, a site could be selling credits at 50c each and paying me 40c, or 80%. No way would that fall into your "photographers accepting low commissions" punishment bracket, so there would be no penalty for uploading there, but the pricing would be more destructive than anything I am aware of.

Secondly, Veer (unless they change it) are proposing a scheme that would pay a minimum 10c per subscription download, which would be a low percentage and might easily fall within the "punishment" band, yet they are not going to be pricing the package at "destructive" levels.

Therefore, there is little connection between photographers commission rates and "destructive pricing", so your policy is either fundamentally flawed or you are being "economical with the truth".

Finally, the only people supporting what you are doing appeared to believe it was an effort to protect artists' commissions.  Thank you for making it clear to them that this is about profits, not about looking after artists. Perhaps they will understand, now.

« Reply #303 on: September 28, 2011, 03:54 »
0
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad
I believe that lower commissions make microstock much less appealing to contributors.  That will eventually hit sales for FT.  Just look at Shutterstock.  Significantly higher commissions than FT now, sales have gone up and up and buyers seem to be moving there.

My portfolio is much bigger with Shutterstock, there's more motivation to use them.   I would recommend them to buyers ahead of FT.  Continual cuts in commissions and changing the canister levels has harmed FT far more than the competition.  Is it too late to reverse this now?  Perhaps not but it would take a monumental change and I really see no sign of that happening.

Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions.  Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock.  Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites.  So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.

« Reply #304 on: September 28, 2011, 05:09 »
0
If FT is truly worried about the pricing/royalties on the "cheap" sites but would like to do the right thing, it would be: Make a tick box "I hereby promise that my images are not for sale in the following low-price agencies: ThoughtStock, PhotoSahara etc. etc." and give those contributors that have ticked the box MORE royalties/better canister lever. Punishing without a good reason is just bad business. As someone said earlier, "Honey catches more flies than vinegar."

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #305 on: September 28, 2011, 05:17 »
0
Folks,

It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

Thanks for bravely coming in here. ...


Let's give him knighthood! 8 )

« Reply #306 on: September 28, 2011, 06:18 »
0
Why not "It has come to our attention that Fotolia offers some of the lowest commissions in the business. In an effort to improve the quality of our contributor-ship we will be raising the commissions of anyone who does not participate in a site that offers lower commissions."?

Oh yeah, because it's about Fotolia milking more money from us, it's not about destructive pricing.

« Reply #307 on: September 28, 2011, 06:41 »
0
Fotolia's 13 % (calculated) and Istock's 16% are main reasons why I am uploading to every smaller agencies with lower prices, even it's mean more effort...
Lower prices don't mean less money to us, because almost every smaller agencies than your have better deal for us...
There, my commission is bigger for the same resolution and license like on your agency
So Gentlemen from FT and IS, I am not in microstock to protect your commission, I am here because I want to earn money with my work and effort for myself...

Our part of deal is our concern, you take care for your...
Probably soon, we will take strike back...
You first throw a stone on us, in our common work...
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 12:20 by borg »

« Reply #308 on: September 28, 2011, 08:56 »
0
Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions.  Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock.  Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites.  So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.

You know I think there is a huge amount of truth in this. When (almost) everyone was happy with both Istock and Fotolia they were both doing well and growing strongly. Ever since each of them started pissing off their contributors they stalled almost immediately and now appear to be heading downwards in a tailspin. Meanwhile, both SS and DT continue to sail serenely onwards, presumably benefiting from their competitors' demise.

Funny thing is I think both FT and IS are owned by people who have no long term interest in their businesses. They just want to sell them on at a vast profit as quickly as possible. Unfortunately their impatience and their greed is destroying their ambition.

Microbius

« Reply #309 on: September 28, 2011, 10:07 »
0
Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions.  Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock.  Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites.  So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.

You know I think there is a huge amount of truth in this. When (almost) everyone was happy with both Istock and Fotolia they were both doing well and growing strongly. Ever since each of them started pissing off their contributors they stalled almost immediately and now appear to be heading downwards in a tailspin. Meanwhile, both SS and DT continue to sail serenely onwards, presumably benefiting from their competitors' demise.

Funny thing is I think both FT and IS are owned by people who have no long term interest in their businesses. They just want to sell them on at a vast profit as quickly as possible. Unfortunately their impatience and their greed is destroying their ambition.

As I have said before, these sites don't seem to realize that when you use crowd sourcing you need to come to grips with the fact that a lot of your suppliers my also be buyers, so they are acutely aware of your business practices. Especially in this market where a lot of the illustrators selling on the sites are designers also buying on them.  Of course IS and FL saw a huge dip in sales when they started screwing contributors, because these contributors, and their network of friends, stopped buying there. I know I did.

« Reply #310 on: September 28, 2011, 10:13 »
0
Chad, just so you know how poorly your agency pays, my 2011 stats tell the truth.  

My 2011 return per download averages so far:
  $U.S.00.60 at Fotolia
  $U.S.00.61 at Shutterstock
  $U.S.01.73 at Dreamstime
  $U.S.02.02 at Istock

So, its not me - it's you who is pushing me into the arms of someone new and promising.

lagereek

« Reply #311 on: September 28, 2011, 10:21 »
0
Sometimes business people miss the obvious, it isn't just FT that appears to be suffering after cutting commissions.  Just look at all the complaints about falling sales with istock.  Portfolios get deleted, people stop uploading, they remove all their referral links and they recommend any buyer they know switches sites.  So I think this should be all about commissions, not looking for other excuses.

You know I think there is a huge amount of truth in this. When (almost) everyone was happy with both Istock and Fotolia they were both doing well and growing strongly. Ever since each of them started pissing off their contributors they stalled almost immediately and now appear to be heading downwards in a tailspin. Meanwhile, both SS and DT continue to sail serenely onwards, presumably benefiting from their competitors' demise.

Funny thing is I think both FT and IS are owned by people who have no long term interest in their businesses. They just want to sell them on at a vast profit as quickly as possible. Unfortunately their impatience and their greed is destroying their ambition.

"not owned by people with long term interests" !  you really, really NAILED! it, right there. Bleed it dry and then sell off,  almost like real estates.

RacePhoto

« Reply #312 on: September 28, 2011, 12:06 »
0

When I started with Fotolia years ago, I received a commission of 33% as a complete Newbie, and was upgraded to 35% when I became bronze.
Now I receive 23% as bronze, close to silver.

If you really want to ... encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. then start thinking about your own commission schedule first.

Fotolia has been leading commission cuts across the microstock industry. You should not be the one talking about "fair commissions" before implementing changes (upwards) on your own site.


And your point is? You mean we shouldn't all be happy with a 65% cut in pay, breaking promises, one after another, and now further cuts?  >:(



That's how I feel about the latest changes at FT and for the last few years. I really resent the way FT has threatened us over posting on forums and now over which agencies individuals choose to upload to. Chad may be a nice guy stuck in the middle (and I see it as that) but FT as an agency is hostile towards contributors and acts like some nasty little bully, shoving people around because their own self esteem is so low.

If there's a FT hit list, black list or whatever, I know I'm a marked man. But the truth is, FT has brought this on themselves. All we are doing is pointing out the flawed logic and abusive demeanor that they present to the public. Talk about a company making their own image as a bunch of jackasses.

« Reply #313 on: September 28, 2011, 12:25 »
0
Well, I just signed a contract with a specialist trad-type agency for a supply of exclusive images. That should easily replace what I get from Fotolia. Thanks for the push towards fairer pricing, Chad.

helix7

« Reply #314 on: September 28, 2011, 12:49 »
0
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad

If commissions aren't a big issue, then reinstate commissions to pre-cut levels and I'll be happy to stop doing business with any site that you deem to have "destructive retail pricing."

« Reply #315 on: September 28, 2011, 13:31 »
0
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?

He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...

« Reply #316 on: September 28, 2011, 13:44 »
0
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?

He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...

fixed

« Reply #317 on: September 28, 2011, 13:56 »
0
Folks,

It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com


Sorry but wan't Fotolia the site that championed having a free photos section and website dedicated to giving them all away?

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/photoxpress-and-free-photo-strategies.html

I notice that the previously *free* site that Fotolia was running is now a subscription service that guarantees buyers (So now the only free thing about the site is the images that you don't pay contributors commissions for that were previously naively donated):

Quote
BEST PRICES GUARANTEED*

The packages that fit your needs, the prices that fit your wallet. PhotoXpress offers the best packages you won't get anywhere else. Guaranteed! If you find a lower price package, we will match it!* Packages start at just $10 dollars. Now that makes better sense!


Obviously you don't want any other site undercutting you because you want to be the lowest in the business GUARANTEED!

For all those asking Chad to name names, don't expect a real answer - this whole policy is already on the wrong side of trade practices legislation in too many jurisdictions to name.

« Reply #318 on: September 28, 2011, 13:56 »
0
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?

He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...

fixed

I see Leaf isn't 'verified' either. How do we know this is the REAL Leaf?

Who's actually able to verify Leaf, assuming that it really is him, come to think of it. Hmmm?

« Reply #319 on: September 28, 2011, 14:02 »
0
Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?

He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...

fixed

I see Leaf isn't 'verified' either. How do we know this is the REAL Leaf?

Who's actually able to verify Leaf, assuming that it really is him, come to think of it. Hmmm?

'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D

« Reply #320 on: September 28, 2011, 14:21 »
0
'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D

But we were hacked! Who knows who's running the place now? 'Admin', as you call him, might be some Bangladeshi geek controlling us all from his bedroom.

« Reply #321 on: September 28, 2011, 15:00 »
0
'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D

But we were hacked! Who knows who's running the place now? 'Admin', as you call him, might be some Bangladeshi geek controlling us all from his bedroom.

Lets get back to poor little fotolia, a microstock agency which is well known for screwing treating contributors in a less than pleasant way, finding itself being screwed by competitors.

Increase commissions and contributors will spend less time searching elsewhere in order to compensate. FT have a cheek beyond belief, I mean seriously who the hel do they think they are!!!
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 15:31 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #322 on: September 28, 2011, 15:41 »
0
Chad, just so you know how poorly your agency pays, my 2011 stats tell the truth.  

My 2011 return per download averages so far:
  $U.S.00.60 at Fotolia
  $U.S.00.61 at Shutterstock
  $U.S.01.73 at Dreamstime
  $U.S.02.02 at Istock

So, its not me - it's you who is pushing me into the arms of someone new and promising.

I have uploaded only a part of my portfolio to PhotoDune (I had to start uploading there to compensate for my FT ranking change :)), and so far my revenue per download has been $0.73.
Fotolia's revenue per download this month has been $0.72.
It definitely can't be PhotoDune Fotolia is talking about.


(SS last month $0.66   IS (inclusive ThinkStock etc.) last month $0.87   DT last month $1.44)
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 15:43 by Perry »

« Reply #323 on: September 28, 2011, 16:30 »
0


I have uploaded only a part of my portfolio to PhotoDune (I had to start uploading there to compensate for my FT ranking change :)), and so far my revenue per download has been $0.73.
Fotolia's revenue per download this month has been $0.72.
It definitely can't be PhotoDune Fotolia is talking about.


(SS last month $0.66   IS (inclusive ThinkStock etc.) last month $0.87   DT last month $1.44)

Antonio S says that it is Deposit photos in this thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/did-you-receive-ft%27s-email-and-do-you-have-images-at-ts-or-pd/msg220854/#new

OM

« Reply #324 on: September 28, 2011, 18:48 »
0
'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends. :D

But we were hacked! Who knows who's running the place now? 'Admin', as you call him, might be some Bangladeshi geek controlling us all from his bedroom.

The mind boggles. ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7899 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
3817 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
2516 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
18586 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
2081 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