pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 81911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fujiko

« Reply #375 on: September 29, 2011, 16:02 »
0
In a market where there is a good supply of high quality content,
Fotolia is trying to avoid reducing our retail prices.

While reducing contributor's %

That's the whole point, those cheaper agencies are willing to lower their % and offer contributors the same net $ that you offer.
You don't want to lower your cut but are eager to lower contributor's share.

Reduce your cut and be more competitive or increase contributor's share and be more attractive to contributors.

The more you grab from contributors, the more eager they will be to ditch your agency and supply agencies that offer a better % for contributors and cheaper price to buyers reducing their share of the pie.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to reduce your slice? If the answer is no, then face the long term consequences of your actions.


« Reply #376 on: September 29, 2011, 16:11 »
0
I'm one of FT's top contributors.  I was targeted with the email.

And you know what?  I see FT's point.  

FT has sold extremely well for me over the years, but I jumped on board new agencies to get downloads wherever I could.  I have to admit I didn't scrutinize the pricing these new agencies would be offering.  Now that I've been doing the comparisons, I'm pretty shocked.  At my pricing level at FT, I see that other sites are selling at a small fraction of the prices that FT has on my images.

As for commissions, I'm getting a good rate at FT that is pretty competitive with the others.

So I see the problem that FT is describing, and I admit that I've been part of the problem.

I'm even willing to correct it in order to preserve the market demand for the prices that FT has on my photos.  This is in MY best interest.  (Does no one else see this???)

If and when FT reaches out to me again to open discussions on adjusting my pricing at the offending agency(ies) or removing my photos from those places entirely, it's entirely likely that I'll decide to do so.  Again, I now believe that this is in MY best interest not to have a photo selling for 50 cents in one place and 10 dollars in another.  We can all acknowledge that this is just bad business, right?

But... and this is a big BUT... if FT shows impatience in working with me through this process and knocks me down to White level before we have a chance to work through this, I WILL CLOSE MY FT ACCOUNT.  That is a promise.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 16:21 by stockmarketer »

CD123

« Reply #377 on: September 29, 2011, 16:13 »
0
Maybe it is time to say here "Chad, touch one you touch all". If this is how you deal with contributors in general, we have no guarantee that a) you will reduce our cut even further in future (while maintaining the retail price it seems) and b) you will add further demands on where an how we submit to other sites, limiting our freedom to practice our business.

Fotolia is now proving itself to be a very dangerous, uncompromising and self centered business partner.  If you continue down this road we will have no option but to terminate our relationships with you. We are man enough to bear the consequences of our actions in doing so, are you prepared for the consequences of yours.......

Sorry to put all on the spot here, but let us see now how many of the complainants above are prepared to put their feet down for their principles!

PS stockmarketer, understand you have a big vested interest with your income, but hold on tightly to what you are still getting, it might not be there for much longer.....
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 16:18 by CD123 »

« Reply #378 on: September 29, 2011, 16:18 »
0
Well, well, if it is DP the big guys like Yuri are under the threat as well. And I see Fotolia putting them back to white as funny... Ha ha, this could be the last thing Fotolia might do before falling under the level of those small sites they are challanging now.

« Reply #379 on: September 29, 2011, 16:18 »
0
And it's really, REALLY annoying that FT can't write a list of the "bad" agencies but still they keep blackmailing us. It's almost Kafkaesque.

I think FT is miscalculating just how valuable they are to the average contributor.   IS forced us to go to Thinkstock or leave IS.  Most people earn so much money with IS, they cant afford to leave, so IS won.

FT seems to think they are in a similar enough position that they can do the same and win too.  A year or two ago, Im sure they would have, but now, based on what Ive seen in sales threads, FT is less and less important to many contributors. 

If FT actually starts busting contributors down to white, they are probably just about done as an agency and will be sold in the near future. 

+1
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 16:25 by Perry »

velocicarpo

« Reply #380 on: September 29, 2011, 16:29 »
0
Without knowing which agencies you are talking about all the threatening is useless. If you would communicate yourself clearly and friendly I am sure you would have more success. But I assume you cannot name any specific companies since it is legally muddy water....

« Reply #381 on: September 29, 2011, 16:30 »
0
BTW it's really interesting that FT thinks a low-earner like DP is their real enemy. Maybe they are preparing for sinking to the low-earner level (where they are clearly headed according to my data)?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 16:31 by Perry »

« Reply #382 on: September 29, 2011, 16:46 »
0
What Fotolia fails to appreciate is that I don't give a darn what they charge customers.  I'm only interested in how much money they make me.  By that measure Fotolia is only my fifth biggest earner over the past year, dropping to seventh over the past quarter and to ninth for this month.  

Put simply, they're doing an increasingly poor job of selling my work, and blaming me for working with agencies with lower prices and a higher royalty doesn't change that fact.  From my side, they're doing too little to justify their commission; either they find a way to increase their sales or they reduce their cut.  Otherwise, they're way too unimportant to my bottom line for me to put up with their threats and abuse.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 17:03 by disorderly »

« Reply #383 on: September 29, 2011, 16:51 »
0
I think that deleting files from agencies with lower-than-fotolia commission sounds reasonable and could be discussed. However, I am really concerned that immediately after removing files from these unnamed sites fotolia will drop down commission again without any excuses.

CD123

« Reply #384 on: September 29, 2011, 16:55 »
0
I think that deleting files from agencies with lower-than-fotolia commission sounds reasonable and could be discussed. However, I am really concerned that immediately after removing files from these unnamed sites fotolia will drop down commission again without any excuses.
You are missing the whole point here, it is according to them not about commission but about retail price. I doubt if there are many agencies left with much lower commission than Fotolia, seeing they are the big driver behind the contributor earnings demise.

« Reply #385 on: September 29, 2011, 17:31 »
0
You are missing the whole point here, it is according to them not about commission but about retail price. I doubt if there are many agencies left with much lower commission than Fotolia, seeing they are the big driver behind the contributor earnings demise.

Indeed, for me (as contributor) neither the retail price, nor % of commission doesn't matter. The only important thing is $$ per download of image of a certain size and license. From this point of view, fotolia is somewhere in the middle with average high-res commission and one of the lowest subs and web size commissions (in the case of my ranking). 
Nevertheless, I agree that the only reason to start with new agencies for me was the fotolia's (and IS) severe commissions cut.

« Reply #386 on: September 29, 2011, 17:39 »
0
I wonder how much policing this policy will cost Fotolia?  It looks like this applies to multiple sites, so do they have to go through all the contributors and see if they have portfolios on these multiple sites?  Then they have to have quite a lot of communication with each contributor.  The contributor is then expected to remove their portfolios from each of these sites.  I hope Yuri doesn't have to deactivate 1 image at a time :)  Just imagine how long all this is going to take.

I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites.  Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price.  That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.

velocicarpo

« Reply #387 on: September 29, 2011, 17:44 »
0
I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites.  Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price.  That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.

I totally agree. While I can understand Fotolias point of view (although  do NOT agree), they certainly have chosen the most destructive way to act. A simple checkbox while image submission would be a great option to have, even better if you would pay a little more for images not submitted to cheaper places.

« Reply #388 on: September 29, 2011, 18:36 »
0
Now I know why my sales suddenly down 30%, 7 days rank from 150 down to 500.

velocicarpo

« Reply #389 on: September 29, 2011, 19:32 »
0
Now I know why my sales suddenly down 30%, 7 days rank from 150 down to 500.

Did you get downgraded?

OM

« Reply #390 on: September 29, 2011, 19:33 »
0
Well, well, if it is DP the big guys like Yuri are under the threat as well. And I see Fotolia putting them back to white as funny... Ha ha, this could be the last thing Fotolia might do before falling under the level of those small sites they are challanging now.

Last post from Chad on FT................no Murphy even on the big boyz! Still no sites mentioned.

Quote
Warren Millar
29/09/2011 21:57

be very interesting to know if some of the very top sellers here also sell images with the so called "Cheap sites" ....... are they also under the same restictions then CHAD ?
    

THE CHAD
30/09/2011 00:47


Warren it applies to all members even the top sellers.

Rimglow not sure what you mean by partner programs?

Chad Bridwell

traveler1116

« Reply #391 on: September 29, 2011, 19:33 »
0
Folks,

 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.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
I want to ask about this but I can't really figure out how to put it.  There is a threat to lower people's rank and therefore money because they are contributing to some sites that can't be named, which you say they are locked into for a year while this policy is imminent so they couldn't change even if they wanted to?  I saw someone say Kafkaesque earlier, it seems to fit pretty well.

« Reply #392 on: September 29, 2011, 19:35 »
0
I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites.  Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price.  That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.

This is just nuts.  What's next.  Tick here if you [insert std or colour of skin] so we can turn your rank to white.  Exclusive or not exclusive, that's all they need to know.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 19:37 by Pixart »

« Reply #393 on: September 29, 2011, 20:47 »
0

I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites.  Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price.  That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.

Look at the terminology used in the first line of their terms (below in bold).  It really doesn't matter if it's the same image or not.  You could be selling Business images with models on one site, and uploading Food shots to the "Site That Must Not Be Named" and they would still bust you down to white because you're willing to distribute any image you create at another site.  That doesn't sound like a site worried about competing images at varying prices, that sounds like an effort to shut down a competitor by trying to coerce others from supplying any goods to them, as well as trying to grab as much profit from the suppliers as they can during the battle.

"If Fotolia becomes aware that a contributor is distributing any images, vectors or videos (the Works) through another stock agency or website (regardless of whether such Works are the same as the Works being distributed through Fotolia),..."

« Reply #394 on: September 29, 2011, 20:51 »
0
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.

ie. We've got plenty of content, so we'll do what we feel like.  Sorry Chad, you can try to paint it however you like, but you (Fotolia) are making a greedy grab at the independents with some imaginary pretense.  Where is your statement about raising your commissions and royalties where other sites are higher?  Whoops.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 05:16 by sjlocke »

« Reply #395 on: September 29, 2011, 22:01 »
0
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?

That's an interesting question. Those would seem to be the biggest targets/offenders in this, and it will be interesting to see what happens and how it is applied. Oh well, I could argue about this topic forever with Chad, but it's probably time to bow out because it really doesn't affect me. He's been a good sport in humoring us. And... there is really no sense in continuing a silly argument.

fujiko

« Reply #396 on: September 29, 2011, 23:45 »
0
All this is really very simple.

FT brains had a meeting and had the great idea to create the 'cheapest subscription ever' and reduce again the percentage to contributors.
They felt very clever and smart, full of themselves, knowing that they created something so big that the microstock world would be at their feet.

When they left the meeting room and announced their 'cheapest subscription ever' they realized that other agencies were already cheaper and paid the contributors more.

They reacted in a very intelligent and mature way making threats to reduce even further the percentage by lowering levels.

They are now thinking to modify the agreement to demand you send them your lunch every day.

« Reply #397 on: September 29, 2011, 23:57 »
0
They are now thinking to modify the agreement to demand you send them your lunch every day.

last week lunch?  ;D

lagereek

« Reply #398 on: September 30, 2011, 01:22 »
0
CHAD!!

Same here, I can see the problem you are describing.
However, with due respect. Ive been around for some time, Ive always done well with FT and will no doubt continue to do so. I havent got the foggiest idea of all the differant pricing at agencies, etc and frankly I dont care.
Back in the film days I was working with guys like Tony-Stone, Stan Kanney, even Mark-Getty of the original Getty images. When the market went sour, too much competition, price fights, etc,  know what they did?  they slightly INCREASED, percentages for their members, " keep your life blood happy"  that was the policy, and the life-blood of any picture agency is ofcourse their photographers. So ? well obviously the photographers will stay, remain.

Do you really think ANY buyer will care? paying 0.31c at FT or say 0.30c, at any other agency. I dont think so.

Now, if some of us are supplying to some hole-in-the-wall site where pricing is less then yours, hell!  I wouldnt even know and certainly havent got the time to wade through it all.

Final point. Why is everyone so scared of this IS/TS merger? whats the big deal?  the Getty/TS, revenues are from mostly squeezing their contributors, not picture sales,  so whats the big deal?  
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 02:05 by lagereek »

« Reply #399 on: September 30, 2011, 02:23 »
0
I think it would be a much more sensible policy to make us tick a box for new images to declare if we have them on lower priced sites.  Those that are on lower priced sites could have a lower price.  That's the only solution that would interest me, going back to white for my entire portfolio would just lead to me reluctantly terminating my FT account.

This is just nuts.  What's next.  Tick here if you [insert std or colour of skin] so we can turn your rank to white.  Exclusive or not exclusive, that's all they need to know.
I was just trying to think of a better option than the one FT are implementing now but I agree.  If FT did get away with this, the sites with higher prices and higher commissions than FT could try the same trick.  They really need to forget about this and concentrate on the real reason why FT is failing.  The sites that are thriving haven't cut commissions as severely and they have kept their buyers.  FT need to make a massive change in direction, making the site more popular with contributors will bring in more buyers than forcing them into yet another commission cut.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 03:15 by sharpshot »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
8128 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
3933 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
2703 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
18726 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
2313 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