MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 76715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #450 on: October 03, 2011, 16:31 »
0
I am not Russian anymore :)


« Reply #451 on: October 03, 2011, 16:32 »
0
Folks,

After carefully considering your feedback, we've decided to focus on retail pricing rather than commissions. Most of the photographers that we have spoken to agree that destructive retail pricing is not good for the industry. We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

Please note that this rule only applies to Emerald, Ruby, and Sapphire ranked images that are non-exclusive, and selling at prices above the standard XS price. No changes will occur without prior communications with the artist.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

-------------------------------------
Reposting for posterity

« Reply #452 on: October 03, 2011, 16:32 »
0
thanks for the clarification Chad.

« Reply #453 on: October 03, 2011, 16:32 »
0
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

« Reply #454 on: October 03, 2011, 16:46 »
0
If there's a rank above sapphire then that's favoritism to keep the top ports from being affected.  If there isn't disregard because I can not find the rank list on the site anymore.

« Reply #455 on: October 03, 2011, 17:05 »
0
 >:(
This time, fotolia really touch the deep bottom, in term of human consideration.

« Reply #456 on: October 03, 2011, 17:07 »
0
Folks,

After carefully considering your feedback, we've decided to focus on retail pricing rather than commissions. Most of the photographers that we have spoken to agree that destructive retail pricing is not good for the industry. We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

Please note that this rule only applies to Emerald, Ruby, and Sapphire ranked images that are non-exclusive, and selling at prices above the standard XS price. No changes will occur without prior communications with the artist.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com


I suppose that it is hard to compete with others on commissions when you are the low commission leader.

actually I agree that sites offering images for too low is a problem - I believe Fotolia offers free images does it not? What are you going to do about that assault on retail pricing?

KB

« Reply #457 on: October 03, 2011, 17:43 »
0
I have no skin in this game, but I'm following this thread because I find it interesting.

Am I the only one who's confused? What am I not understanding correctly?

It seems to me that Chad's most recent statement said basically this: We agree with most photographers, that destructive retail pricing is not good for the industry.  So we will lower our pricing to match this destructive pricing for those top contributors who sell at these low prices on other sites.

Is that what he basically said?  ??? And that will help the industry how?  :o

« Reply #458 on: October 03, 2011, 18:06 »
0
This is almost funny.  Microstock agencies came in and literally pulled the rug out from under the entire stock photo industry and put many stock photo agencies that charged fair prices out of business by licensing photos for less than pennies on the dollar compared to the pricing structure at that time.  They are now finding both that they can't survive on the prices they themselves set and they are attempting to address this by cutting royalties...  and they are finding THEY DON'T LIKE IT MUCH WHEN SOMEONE DOES TO THEM ON A SMALL SCALE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INDUSTRY ON A GRAND SCALE.

It's poetic justice and it would be funny were it not for the fact that the real losers are the photographers who earn their livings making images that others depend on to market themselves.

It's not the same. Macro agencies and macro photographers didn't react, they just made fun of the "poor quality" of microstock agencies and photographer's, stating that susch stuff could never be a threat. I read that hundreds of times in a variety of forums. Big mistake, but their mistake. Never the arrogance sin had a worse punishment.

jbarber873

« Reply #459 on: October 03, 2011, 18:43 »
0
This is almost funny.  Microstock agencies came in and literally pulled the rug out from under the entire stock photo industry and put many stock photo agencies that charged fair prices out of business by licensing photos for less than pennies on the dollar compared to the pricing structure at that time.  They are now finding both that they can't survive on the prices they themselves set and they are attempting to address this by cutting royalties...  and they are finding THEY DON'T LIKE IT MUCH WHEN SOMEONE DOES TO THEM ON A SMALL SCALE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INDUSTRY ON A GRAND SCALE.

It's poetic justice and it would be funny were it not for the fact that the real losers are the photographers who earn their livings making images that others depend on to market themselves.

Of course you could go back to the assignment photographers who made a living shooting the very shots that the stock photographers sold for a fraction of what an assignment shoot cost and ask them how they felt about stock. When I started, stock was nothing more than cast off junk. Technology and globalization killed the stock market, not microstock. It was inevitable that prices had to fall. The bottom line is that if clients really felt that rights managed controlled usage was valuable, they would still be buying that model.  I would argue that Istock made that change an elegant evolution instead of a mad scramble to chaos.Now microstock is reaching the limits of it's business model. But, as always, something new is just around the corner.

« Reply #460 on: October 03, 2011, 19:31 »
0
We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

So, you're saying that since these two companies sell on iStock, where work is available for 1 credit, as opposed to fotolia's 3 credit level, for an XS for example, which is 1/3 of the price, that you'll be dropping them both to the lowest tier?  How did that fly with them?

« Reply #461 on: October 03, 2011, 20:03 »
0
We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

So, you're saying that since these two companies sell on iStock, where work is available for 1 credit, as opposed to fotolia's 3 credit level, for an XS for example, which is 1/3 of the price, that you'll be dropping them both to the lowest tier?  How did that fly with them?

Erm ... I think that was probably covered in FT's original 'rule change' which appeared to discount the 'Top 4' agencies from their latest master plan. FT's words and deeds appear riddled with inconsistency and contradiction.

« Reply #462 on: October 03, 2011, 20:31 »
0
Someone email that thread to Fotolia... 19 pages of talk might give them some thoughts :)

« Reply #463 on: October 03, 2011, 20:40 »
0
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.

Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 20:55 by sjlocke »

« Reply #464 on: October 03, 2011, 23:58 »
0
We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

So, you're saying that since these two companies sell on iStock, where work is available for 1 credit, as opposed to fotolia's 3 credit level, for an XS for example, which is 1/3 of the price, that you'll be dropping them both to the lowest tier?  How did that fly with them?

Erm ... I think that was probably covered in FT's original 'rule change' which appeared to discount the 'Top 4' agencies from their latest master plan. FT's words and deeds appear riddled with inconsistency and contradiction.

And also covered by the part of it that says Fotolia can choose whether or not to apply its rules to any particular submitter.

At the very least Fotolia must make it clear that it will apply its rules equally to all, not pick and choose between contributors according to what it thinks it can get away with or who it regards as a special friend.

What has happened to Depositphotos pricing as a consequence of Yuri's/Mark's intervention? How have they been successful? If they've been successful, why should other contributors seek to negotiate retail pricing with Depositphotos? Is Chad saying that Mark and Yuri's submissions are now being sold at a different price on DP than other people's work? If not, does this mean that Depositphotos has received the Fotolia seal of pricing approval? Will Yuri and Mark confirm that they are acting as intermediaries for Fotolia to get other sites to change their pricing so as not to challenge Fotolia's sales/profits?

And, if Fotolia requires DP to price its sales at the same level as Fotolia, will Fotolia assure us that it will pay all artists the same percentage of the sales value as DP, to prevent Fotolia having an unfair competitive advantage as a result of its massively higher profit margin?

« Reply #465 on: October 04, 2011, 00:11 »
0
What Yuri can do, might be possible for us too, but only if we work together.  I wonder if it had any effect if we all wrote to Istock/Thinkstock with only 1 simple request :  raise the subscription price at Thinkstock with X %.   That would benefit us, Thinkstock, and the whole microstock industry in one go.  (if they listened, like Fotolia did this time).

lagereek

« Reply #466 on: October 04, 2011, 00:30 »
0
I must confess, I dont understand Chads post? I must be stupid,  so whats happening, etc, are we pushed back to zip or do we carry on with our present rankings? :-\

« Reply #467 on: October 04, 2011, 00:42 »
0
What Yuri can do, might be possible for us too, but only if we work together.  I wonder if it had any effect if we all wrote to Istock/Thinkstock with only 1 simple request :  raise the subscription price at Thinkstock with X %.   That would benefit us, Thinkstock, and the whole microstock industry in one go.  (if they listened, like Fotolia did this time).

You will have to write to Shutterstock telling them to raise their subscription price first, since Thinkstock's is currently higher than Shutterstock's.

Christian, Chad appears to be saying that images will be dropped to level-one prices but the percentage commission paid will be according to the existing ranking level. Basically, it is scrapping the ability to promote the price of a file if you are an independent on a site they don't like. Unless you are exempt from the punishment for some reason or other.

lagereek

« Reply #468 on: October 04, 2011, 01:11 »
0
What Yuri can do, might be possible for us too, but only if we work together.  I wonder if it had any effect if we all wrote to Istock/Thinkstock with only 1 simple request :  raise the subscription price at Thinkstock with X %.   That would benefit us, Thinkstock, and the whole microstock industry in one go.  (if they listened, like Fotolia did this time).

You will have to write to Shutterstock telling them to raise their subscription price first, since Thinkstock's is currently higher than Shutterstock's.

Christian, Chad appears to be saying that images will be dropped to level-one prices but the percentage commission paid will be according to the existing ranking level. Basically, it is scrapping the ability to promote the price of a file if you are an independent on a site they don't like. Unless you are exempt from the punishment for some reason or other.

Thanks mate!  I get it.

best.

nruboc

« Reply #469 on: October 04, 2011, 01:25 »
0
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.

Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.

This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.

« Reply #470 on: October 04, 2011, 01:40 »
0
...We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same....
Does this mean that Deposit Photos are raising their prices?  Perhaps Yuri can tell us what's happening?  He seems quite active with his own threads here but it would be appreciated if he could spend some time clarifying what's going on with this.  Mark is probably looking here too, would be nice to know what's going on, even if all you can say is that you can't say anything about it.

« Reply #471 on: October 04, 2011, 01:48 »
0
if Yuri has the highest ranking level at DP since the first day I believe he can ask them to raise their prices :)

« Reply #472 on: October 04, 2011, 04:56 »
0
Folks,

After carefully considering your feedback, we've decided to focus on retail pricing rather than commissions. Most of the photographers that we have spoken to agree that destructive retail pricing is not good for the industry. We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.

Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.

Please note that this rule only applies to Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, and Diamond ranked images that are non-exclusive, and selling at prices above the standard XS price. No changes will occur without prior communications with the artist.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com


Chad,

if retail pricing is such an issue to Fotolia, then please explain following of Fotolia's own pricing policies:

- PhotoXpress is a site launched by Fotolia. Looking at their pricing they do sell monthly subs, from as low as 5 monthly downloads for $9,99. No daily limits, unused downloads roll over to the next month if you renew your subscription. Looks like severely undercutting other subscription sites and at the same time moving customers from PPD to subs (I assume these are credited as subs to photographers, no other way it would work). Which customer in his right mind will buy a XXL for 10 Credits when he can get 5 for $9,99? Maybe this is one reason why Fotolia sells more and more subs and less credit sales...

- EL prices: why don't you allow lower levels to set competitive EL prices (maximum prices for white are 20 Credits, for bronze 50 credits)? Why not set everything to 100 Credits?

- Why does your regular licence include unlimited reproduction rights? This requires an EL at other sites.

These are all examples of Fotolia trying to undercut the market. Did you discuss these things with Yuri and others as well? And did you promise to change, to keep up a reasonable pricing level for the entire industry?

rubyroo

« Reply #473 on: October 04, 2011, 05:23 »
0
Like some others here, I too am confused.  On first reading, I couldn't understand whether the whole shebang only applies to the ranks mentioned, or whether the ability to retain current royalty only applies to the ranks mentioned.

I know nothing of Yuri and Mark's recent 'success' that was alluded to either.  Why so vague?

I really don't know what to think until these things are clarified.

« Reply #474 on: October 04, 2011, 05:54 »
0
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.

Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.

This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.


Maybe it is, I don't know... but it is not a bit less hilarious than watching nruboc calling out constantly istock while submitting to Fotolia and affiliates and supporting their new policies.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 05:56 by loop »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7485 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
3682 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
2234 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
18332 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
1749 Views
Last post April 08, 2016, 07:47
by Amaviael

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results