MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 92897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2011, 16:07 »
0
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.

That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.


« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2011, 16:08 »
0
I think if they go ahead and do this for some contributors and not do it for the ones they chose not to do so, then we as contributors can sue them for sure..

If they do such thing, they must do it for everyone with no exceptions

If FT was a government entity, I believe this would be true, but as a private company I believe they have latitude to offer different deals to different parties at their own whim.  

But that doesn't make it right.  If we can't sue them, we can pull our ports.  I have my letter written and ready to fire off to Patrick.  Refreshing my account page every few minutes, and if my badge turns white, I'm pulling out.  Everyone else should be prepared to do the same.  FT has to get the message LOUD and CLEAR the moment they make this change.

This is a line in the sand.  FT is about to cross it.  This will be WAR.

(and for perspective, check out my recent posts defending FT in other threads.  I think I was one of FT's last cheerleaders here, and they've made me their enemy.  I think Mat may be all alone now.)

I think we can sue them and win it.. there is a very obvious violation..

« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2011, 16:10 »
0
thats a beautiful post, great stuff but in the end I believe top contributors do feel the down on IS and perhaps other agencies so why not to look into other agencies? what do you recommend? just Alamy? wanna hear more from you :)

1. Supply only fair OR expensive microstock sites.
2. Do not supply cheapo sites under no circumstances.
3. Work on your macro portfolio.
4. Put more effort into developing your own sales channels. Try to reduce the depandancy on microstock agencies.
5. Find other things that earn money.

what are the fair agencies and more important the ones that do have buyers? 3 or 4 but no money!

the only one might be stockfresh but they got so little money from IS that they dont have money to invest :P

stock is going down and agencies will keep on wanting new contributors while we get frustrated and leave!

« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2011, 16:10 »
0
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock.

AFAIK Thinkstock pays 0.28 USD for subs and FT 0.27 USD or 0.27 EUR, depending on your zone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2011, 16:15 »
0
I think if they go ahead and do this for some contributors and not do it for the ones they chose not to do so, then we as contributors can sue them for sure..

If they do such thing, they must do it for everyone with no exceptions

why do you say that? I remember Yuri getting the higher level at DP without having the sales

I didn't know that.. then it is illegal.. is it not?  :)

there is no legal or not! agencies can do whatever they want, they can take our portfolio from online, they can go to 1% royalties, unless some big contributors do something or this will go worst and worst (but even there, if some leave other wont and I do understand them, tons will join) myself as a low earner I do the exact same thing, trying to get the most of my stuff, if I can make a deal with a new agency why not?? thats called business and top contributors can demand that at least when a agency is starting

« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2011, 16:22 »
0
straw .... camel .... back

« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2011, 16:25 »
0
Interestingly, there isn't a thread at FT on this.  I bet they are clobbering those as fast as they blossom! :-\

nruboc

« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2011, 16:26 »
0
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock.

AFAIK Thinkstock pays 0.28 USD for subs and FT 0.27 USD or 0.27 EUR, depending on your zone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The pay is based on your rank, so for Emerald, I get .33

« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2011, 16:27 »
0
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock. If the alternative was to reduce commissions on EVERYONE then I support this decision. Hit the ones that are contributing to the lowering of commissions, not the ones that are standing their ground against Getty's race to the bottom.

You've been supporting the lowering of commissions by having your portfolio on FT. Why didn't you pull your port from FT on any of the many occasions that they have done so?

« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2011, 16:29 »
0
i hope fotolia goes broke they are a bunch of weazels.

Have they said which agencies ?

Have they turned into photographers direct ?

Why should the % other agency pay matter ?

I love the part about "us working together for a fairer stock world." Lets all joins hands with Fotolia the shining beacon of fairness and superhero fighting for the industry"

Who sells stuff cheaper than Fotolia ? Aren't they one of the cheapest

« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2011, 16:31 »
0
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.

That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.

The " worlds top selling microstock photographer " has 40k images on Photodune.  Let's see if his company joins you guys in taking a stand on something.  Sorry I can't help. Just glad they didn't sway me with their promotions last year.

Seriously, this kind of non-compete extortion sounds like the kind of thing France lives to sue over.

« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2011, 16:33 »
0
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.

That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.

Yuri has 38K images at PD and Andres has 27K there. I can't imagine that FT will be reducing either of those to 'White' and yet they are doing more to support 'the competition' than anyone else ... by a country mile.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2011, 16:34 »
0


I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.

All you muppets supplying Photodune and selling ELs for 5 USD x 25%, did you really think this would have no consequences?
How old are you? 10? You really thought they would not mind if you demand 100 USD for an EL at FT and happily sell the same elsewhere for 5 USD? Wait for more! In fact you guys are lucky that I'm not the CEO of FT because I would degrade your rank to "transparent" and pay you 1% because by selling at Photodune you have announced publicly that you will lick any peanuts off the floor anywhere where peanuts are to be found. You undercut yourselves, you undercut everybody else, you should not expect a fair treatment. You are cheapos, period....


+1000

nruboc

« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2011, 16:38 »
0
Fotolia has been mirroring IStock's moves, so I believe this had to do with the forced inclusion of files into ThinkStock. If the alternative was to reduce commissions on EVERYONE then I support this decision. Hit the ones that are contributing to the lowering of commissions, not the ones that are standing their ground against Getty's race to the bottom.

You've been supporting the lowering of commissions by having your portfolio on FT. Why didn't you pull your port from FT on any of the many occasions that they have done so?

Because they're still at a level I am ok with, at my rank. It's an individual decision like everyone has argued about time and time again. If you submit to IStock/Thinkstock, I don't have any problem with them lowering your comissions and not mine for not submitting there, simple as that. I have a family to feed, it's about me this time :)

« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2011, 16:40 »
0
I still think it's mainly a reaction to Thinkstock, after all we are only five days away from the deadline set by Getty, to either accept the new ASA, or close our accounts. I don't think the timing is a coincidence.

nruboc

« Reply #65 on: September 23, 2011, 16:40 »
0
I bet they are referring e.g. to Photodune, since they never seemed to be interested in DT's or IS's pricing.
If it is really so and they don't refer to other big sites, I think this is the right move.

That would make sense to protect their turf from a new player.

Yuri has 38K images at PD and Andres has 27K there. I can't imagine that FT will be reducing either of those to 'White' and yet they are doing more to support 'the competition' than anyone else ... by a country mile.

This I agree with, if they don't leave PD, their commissions should be dropped!

« Reply #66 on: September 23, 2011, 16:41 »
0
back when they got white to 20%, bronze to 23 and silver to 25, gold to 28.. above emerald there was no cut.. now it looks like it will be on the top contributors, I cannot see Yuri 43% to 20%.. but hey there will be some exceptions :)

« Reply #67 on: September 23, 2011, 16:46 »
0

I think we can sue them and win it.. there is a very obvious violation..

Probably!
Every company that operates in the public should have an equal treatment for everyone on the same position... So if Yuri has portfolio on Photodune like me, we must  have equal treatment for levels....
Any different treatment is directly robbing of those contributors with reduced level...

« Reply #68 on: September 23, 2011, 16:48 »
0
I still think it's mainly a reaction to Thinkstock, after all we are only five days away from the deadline set by Getty, to either accept the new ASA, or close our accounts. I don't think the timing is a coincidence.

Actually I very much doubt it. For starters probably 90%+ of their contributors are also contributors on Istock. Most of us are being forced there against our will anyway. You'd have thought that they'd have pulled this stunt when TS was a new threat and when it was actually voluntary. I think it's about the smaller and newer agencies like PD.

If it is about TS then folk are just going to pull their ports from FT. Dropping down to White, apart from the insult, would so reduce my (ever dwindling) earnings from FT that it wouldn't particulary matter.

« Reply #69 on: September 23, 2011, 16:49 »
0

I think we can sue them and win it.. there is a very obvious violation..

Probably!
Every company that operates in the public should have an equal treatment for everyone on the same position... So if Yuri has portfolio on Photodune like me, we must  have equal treatment for levels....
Any different treatment is directly robbing of those contributors with reduced level...

do you have any friend that is a lawyer? yuri should be at 38% and not in 42% at DP

« Reply #70 on: September 23, 2011, 16:57 »
0
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...

nruboc

« Reply #71 on: September 23, 2011, 16:58 »
0
I still think it's mainly a reaction to Thinkstock, after all we are only five days away from the deadline set by Getty, to either accept the new ASA, or close our accounts. I don't think the timing is a coincidence.

Actually I very much doubt it. For starters probably 90%+ of their contributors are also contributors on Istock. Most of us are being forced there against our will anyway. You'd have thought that they'd have pulled this stunt when TS was a new threat and when it was actually voluntary. I think it's about the smaller and newer agencies like PD.

If it is about TS then folk are just going to pull their ports from FT. Dropping down to White, apart from the insult, would so reduce my (ever dwindling) earnings from FT that it wouldn't particulary matter.

So who do you think it is then? PhotoDune? A site I've never even heard of... surely poses no threat to Fotolia. Every move Fotolia has made has seemed to  been precipitated by a move from IStockphoto, they have execs from IStockphoto, farily obvious to me.

« Reply #72 on: September 23, 2011, 16:59 »
0
now it looks like it will be on the top contributors, I cannot see Yuri 43% to 20%..

Why not? After all, 20% is "the Arcurs rate" at IS  :)
I suspect that the top contributors received some incentives from PD to upload their stuff, so they might not be able to leave so easily.
Actually I think FT could play it hard and lower his royalty. I don't think he would leave FT.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 17:06 by Snufkin »

« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2011, 17:03 »
0
...I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...

Really? This move seems entirely in keeping with Fotolia's track record.

« Reply #74 on: September 23, 2011, 17:07 »
0
This is just an excuse to lower commissions for top-level contributors. If you want to squeeze out more profit, cutting commissions for people who have biggest portfolios and/or sell most files will bring you biggest chunk of cash. Totally makes sense from the point of view of greed and wanting more profit now. I wonder why they bothered with this excuse - it doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it. Being non-exclusive means I can sell at other places, period. Everyone's prices are different and they are also changing all the time.
And screwing people who helped you to become successful is way easier than competing by proper business practices and nurturing and expanding your customer base. I am amazed by complete lack of business ethics though... and shortsightedness...

Did you receive the email? I very, very much doubt that they would apply this to you Elena. FT have a long history of having 'special rules' for their topselling contributors. I suspect this is more about hammering down commissions for the low selling contributors. They probably don't care if they stay or go.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
8934 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
4421 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
3361 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
19505 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
2911 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