pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 79521 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

RT


« Reply #350 on: September 29, 2011, 03:56 »
0
I applaud the ethics behind this move because I strongly believe that uploading to sites that sell our images at a fraction of the cost the 'big' agencies do can only damage our future and make worse this 'price war' we've got into. And I have no respect for anybody that uploads to every single site going 'because they're new and we should support them', sorry I do this as a business, I'll upload to a site that shows me they're working to market my images and pay me what I consider to be a decent share of the commission based on that.  

Having said that I'm equally disgusted by Fotolia's attempt to disguise this as anything other than a way for them to make more money, if Fotolia genuinely believed in what they are saying then they should give the contributors notice that they're removing their images from the Fotolia site - of course we know that won't happen because it's just a money making exercise for them.

@Chad - Please don't follow in Kelly Thompsons footsteps, please treat your contributors with some modicum of intelligence.


« Reply #351 on: September 29, 2011, 05:47 »
0

Deposit photo isn't that different in % return for the contributor to FT.
Some sizes FT is slightly more, other sizes DP is more.
DP subs royalities are higher.

DP subscription rate 1 month 25 images per day is $180 versus FT @ $249. Maybe that's the issue.

Its bad form if FT is trying to say you shouldn't support other sites who are pay more or less the same royalities to the contributor.


FT

XS/S/M/L/XL/XXL   

1/3/5/7/8/10   (credits)

Commission (base 20%)
0.20/0.60/1.00/1.40/1.60/2.00

Subs base = 0.25

Deposit Photo

XS/S/M/L/XL/XXL
0.5/1/2/3/4/6/9
Commission (base 44%)
0.22/0.44/0.88/1.32/1.76/2.64/3.96
subs base = 0.30

rubyroo

« Reply #352 on: September 29, 2011, 05:54 »
0
I know very little about law, but something in the distant recesses of my brainbox remembered something about anti-competitive law.

Doesn't the paragraph on 'Principle' in the link below cover the area FT is concerned about, and wouldn't this be a more appropriate avenue to take rather than taking such a dictatorial stance towards contributors?

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of such things could enlighten me.

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

RT


« Reply #353 on: September 29, 2011, 06:31 »
0
I know very little about law, but something in the distant recesses of my brainbox remembered something about anti-competitive law.

Doesn't the paragraph on 'Principle' in the link below cover the area FT is concerned about, and wouldn't this be a more appropriate avenue to take rather than taking such a dictatorial stance towards contributors?

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of such things could enlighten me.

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


I wouldn't have thought so because:

1.  They're not stopping you from selling on those sites
2.  As far as I can see they're not doing anything directly to target any particular sites to put them out of business
3.  Fotolia are not the dominant market leader, and this particular move isn't going to make any difference in that.

In short they'd just argue that by your own freewill you've decided to upload to a site that sells less and pays less, and all they're doing is saying "fine you can sell on those sites at a lower commission than we pay, but if you do we'll pay you the same amount in commission"

You'd have a better case if you could prove that they have imposed this condition on some but not all of their contributors that fall under this new clause, because then they are directly restricting you in competing with others within their same organisation, if that happens of course!

rubyroo

« Reply #354 on: September 29, 2011, 06:38 »
0
Thanks RT.  Good of you to respond, and that was interesting to read.

I think I've been unclear though - I meant that perhaps FT's compulsion to put the onus on contributors would be better spent looking at whether they could make a case on the basis of 'predatory pricing'  against other agencies.

(Not that I'm trying to help FT... I'm just wondering if this might provide a useful tool in preventing the race to the absolute 'bottom')
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 06:39 by rubyroo »

RT


« Reply #355 on: September 29, 2011, 07:09 »
0
Well maybe, although I'm not an economist my view of things is that FT seem to be doing their best in order to lead the race to the bottom. I think they'll be in for a shock if they carry on the way they have been, they may find themselves leader of the wrong bottom part of the industry.

rubyroo

« Reply #356 on: September 29, 2011, 07:26 »
0
Yes true.  I'm just tired of agencies that put pressure on our commissions to solve all their problems.  I wish they'd look elsewhere for the solution instead of always hitting the easiest target.

Ultimately, we'll just remove ourselves as a target.  But I'm sure we could all do without the stress (and the insult).

« Reply #357 on: September 29, 2011, 10:05 »
0
+ What Gostwick said.  I don't supply Deposit Photos, but now I feel like I should.

Maybe we should point DP to this conversation and broker a deal with them.  Better rates GUARANTEED for 5 years and we will ALL supply them with content and promote the heck out of it.

This whole Fotolia thing sounds personal to me.  It feels like a regrettable decision that someone made in anger.  "Oooo I hate that guy at Deposit Photos so I'm gonna kick him where it hurts!!!!!"  Except of course they kick the dog instead of having a fist fight with DP, and in this case the dog is the supplier.

« Reply #358 on: September 29, 2011, 12:08 »
0
Now that the Fotolia website is more confusing than ever, WHERE do I find what my ranking currently is?  I can't seem to find it anywhere...

« Reply #359 on: September 29, 2011, 12:14 »
0
Now that the Fotolia website is more confusing than ever, WHERE do I find what my ranking currently is?  I can't seem to find it anywhere...


www.fotolia.com/Contributor

on the left, you are bronze

« Reply #360 on: September 29, 2011, 12:35 »
0

« Reply #361 on: September 29, 2011, 13:02 »
0
Thank you so much!


« Reply #363 on: September 29, 2011, 14:51 »
0
the selling price as nothing to do with contributor %...

what willl change if everybody go to 20%? is FT going to be more competitive? are you going to make images cheaper? if not there is just one thing, more profit to FT and less for contributors

I gotta be very dumb or I am not understanding the logic in it

CD123

« Reply #364 on: September 29, 2011, 15:17 »
0
Wow, nothing from the 100 replies above seem to have sunk in....???

So screw the contributors as much as you like agencies, just do not touch our retail price. As mentioned about 50 times here already by other contributors, I will join any site who will give me 50% of $2, rather than one offering me less than 20% on $3. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it, as that is simple common maths on our side. Lining your pockets at our expense and then threatening us if we try to look after our own income and interest will not get you any points here mate.  

« Reply #365 on: September 29, 2011, 15:20 »
0
The sites really need to be named.  What if we only have a small part of our portfolio on these sites?  What if we only upload low commercial value images that would end up in the free section of FT?  What if we only give them low resolution images?

I really think we should be free to upload wherever we want.  There are many sites that have prices higher than FT but they don't lower my prices or commission because I use FT.

« Reply #366 on: September 29, 2011, 15:23 »
0
I always thought, that is why there is EXCLUSIVE and NON-EXCLUSIVE.

« Reply #367 on: September 29, 2011, 15:30 »
0
Folks,

I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency. And Fotolia is not telling you to stop submitting images
to these lower priced agencies. Just do not expect us to sell their
same images at a higher price. We will no longer allow this to happen.
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.

Now if a photographer wants to remove their images or negotiate a
higher retail price with these agencies then everything remains the
same.  Just beware that a few of these sites require that members keep
their images online for 1 year. We're not listing the agencies, but
some have been named here already. If you are selling images at prices
much lower than the top 4 microstock sites then you might want to
review your options.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

Soooo ... are you going to apply your new rules to Yuri or Andres or Monkey Business for example ... any time soon? It's the image factories who have their vast portfolios everywhere that are doing the most to undermine your pricing architecture. Why hammer the smaller contributor whilst turning a blind eye to the image factories?

« Reply #368 on: September 29, 2011, 15:34 »
0
Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

« Reply #369 on: September 29, 2011, 15:37 »
0
What about the partner programs of the top 4?  Can we still opt in without a penalty?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 15:44 by rimglow »

« Reply #370 on: September 29, 2011, 15:37 »
0
Folks,

I am not looking to argue the merits or downfalls of Fotolia or any
other agency.

Very arrogant post.

If you touch my hard earned ranking and/or try to steer my image submissions to other sites in any other way I will close my account. I'm sure many will do the same thing. You can have as much as you want, even 100% of NOTHING.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 15:42 by Perry »

« Reply #371 on: September 29, 2011, 15:45 »
0
If Fotlia says they have no problem with the Big 4, do they have a problem with the partner programs of the big 4?

I took it to mean that the offending agencies aren't in the top 4. Since ThinkStock is an offshoot of IS, and participation is mandatory for independents, I'm thinking they don't expect anyone to drop IS to preserve their ranking. I could be wrong about that, though.

« Reply #372 on: September 29, 2011, 15:47 »
0
It sounds like you were arguing the merits of Fotolia over some other unnamed site undercutting prices.

In the original notice you didn't make any distinctions about the images. Perhaps you should let people sell older smaller and crappier images that aren't on Fotolia on other sites for whatever price they can get for them. It seems once a site rejects an image you should be able to sell it somewhere else or even give it away if you want to.

What really doesn't seem to sink in is that the return the artists get is important to the artists. I'd rather get 50% of $2 than 15% of $4 even if the $4 agency thinks that the $2 agency is engaging in "destructive retail pricing".  I am sure there are a few macro agencies that would consider anything under a few hundred bucks to be destructive.

Continually cutting things for the contributors sends the message that their contributions are not worth much and then you are surprised when they send them to every site they can.

« Reply #373 on: September 29, 2011, 15:52 »
0
I am sure there are a few macro agencies that would consider anything under a few hundred bucks to be destructive.


Yes. And that's one piece of evidence why the "Fotolia logic" is faulty. They don't seem to know the old phrase "The pot calling the kettle black". Here's a reminder for Chad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

This nothing more than blackmail for squeezing some extra bucks from the backs of poor contributors. Do they really think we wouldn't see their real motives?

If FT is having financial trouble (could be because their current low sales volumes), they are doing a major mistake trying to make us pay for their bad business decisions.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 16:00 by Perry »

« Reply #374 on: September 29, 2011, 15:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 22:15 by Sadstock »


 

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