pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 92898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: September 23, 2011, 17:09 »
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.

Tyler is a low earner?


« Reply #76 on: September 23, 2011, 17:09 »
0
It really doesn't matter which agency for which they are referring because they can use anybody and anything at anytime to "justify" these new rules.  It is all crap and merely a move to transfer revenue from contributors to FT.  I think they are dying a slow death and they are milking every drop they can before it's over.  My sales are 50% down in the last three months and even potentially lower with these shenanigans now happening. I suspect I am in for more beer money reduction.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 17:14 by Mantis »

« Reply #77 on: September 23, 2011, 17:10 »
0
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.

I have no idea. I haven't received the email (yet) but then I'm not on either PD or TS (for the time being).

« Reply #78 on: September 23, 2011, 17:13 »
0
If FT dared to lower Yuri's commissions, he might not leave but I'm sure he would want buyers to use other sites.  That could cost them a lot of money.

Is it a coincidence that the sites that have cut commissions don't seem to be doing well but SS is thriving?  Thousands of contributors complaining about low commissions, losing their motivation to upload new images has to have some effect.  Every image and portfolio that's removed must reduce traffic.  Does that hit their google rankings?  I'm sure if the sites cut commissions too far, they will lose money.  They should look at other ways to improve their profits.

« Reply #79 on: September 23, 2011, 17:13 »
0
Tyler is a low earner?

Obviously not __ he's Emerald. Don't forget FT have only said that they reserve the right, on a case by case basis, to apply these measures. It doesn't mean that they will or state who will be selected.

« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2011, 17:17 »
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.

Yup I've got that email. Like I said, cutting commissions for top sellers makes more sense profit-wise. And last time they did that, they cut Yuri's income (edit: on Fotolia) by 25% (his files used to 4 credit, now it's 3).  So.... wouldn't call it "special treatment" :)

« Reply #81 on: September 23, 2011, 17:18 »
0
Is it a coincidence that the sites that have cut commissions don't seem to be doing well but SS is thriving?  Thousands of contributors complaining about low commissions, losing their motivation to upload new images has to have some effect.  Every image and portfolio that's removed must reduce traffic.  Does that hit their google rankings?  I'm sure if the sites cut commissions too far, they will lose money.  They should look at other ways to improve their profits.

No coincidence. Honey catches more flies than vinegar.

« Reply #82 on: September 23, 2011, 17:23 »
0
Yup I've got that email. Like I said, cutting commissions for top sellers makes more sense profit-wise. And last time they did that, they cut Yuri's income (edit: on Fotolia) by 25% (his files used to 4 credit, now it's 3).  So.... wouldn't call it "special treatment" :)

They weren't cutting his commissions as such __ they were being forced to reduce prices because they detected customer resistance. Yuri's commission percentage remained the same. In fact Yuri has had special 'Yuri only' commission rises when everyone else got cut. Actually Andres was unique in that his stayed the same. I'd certainly call that 'special treatment'.

« Reply #83 on: September 23, 2011, 17:24 »
0
Figers crossed that SS doesn't come up with anything stupid. They do have a great track record.
(Oh yes, I already crossed the line for BME at SS, this is going to be such a great month! - at SS that is)

« Reply #84 on: September 23, 2011, 17:24 »
0
Wow. This doesn't impact me as I have virtually nothing at Fotolia and no sales, but dang. So wrong, on so many levels! Can't believe this is their new policy.

« Reply #85 on: September 23, 2011, 17:25 »
0
Sounds like a really stupid move.  A lot of people complained about the stunts that FT and IS have already pulled this year but I think something like this would cause the majority to pull their ports.  I think not having the product at all will hurt more than having the same product available cheaper elsewhere (I actually didn't think that was possible).  It also sounds like an opportunity for someone, maybe the "fair site" (can't remember which one it is).  How about this scenario:  Site X agrees to accept the FT port in bulk for any contributor who wants to leave.  Technically, a mechanism like the one in microstock analytics could be used to pull thumbs, keywords etc and build skeleton ports on the new site and all that would be required then is a series of ftp uploads and a bit of software to marry the images to the metadata already in place.

« Reply #86 on: September 23, 2011, 17:31 »
0
I really think that agencies that do this stuff to contributors act like nothing happen after, really weird how they can show up at this or that conference, sponsor or not, really nasty stuff I cannot understand what face will they have on the next event regarding stock..

I would be very ashamed of dealing with contributors if I ever met them, what will you guys say to them??

« Reply #87 on: September 23, 2011, 17:33 »
0
*insults removed* With sales going down they just don't have the leverage for a stunt like this. They are TINY.   It's like the some obscure king in some tiny obscure country would start acting like the ruler of the world.

My current FT earnings are only about 20% of my earnings at IS. They are also about 20% of my SS earnings. They are about 10% of my IS+SS earnings. And propably something like 7% of my overall earnings. Do they really think they have the power to pull this crap?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 17:36 by Perry »

« Reply #88 on: September 23, 2011, 17:37 »
0
Yup I've got that email. Like I said, cutting commissions for top sellers makes more sense profit-wise.

C'mon... you sell ELs on FT for 100 and on PD for 5... and you don't see a connection ???
In my day job I work for a major wholesaler in our field. If a supplier in wholesale did the kind of stunt that you have been doing, they would just get a kick in the a55. I wouldn't touch this kind of suppliers with a 10 foot pole.  

« Reply #89 on: September 23, 2011, 17:39 »
0
C'mon... you sell ELs on FT for 100 and on PD for 5... and you don't see a connection ???
In my day job I work for a major wholesaler in our field. If a supplier in wholesale did the kind of stunt that you have been doing, they would just get a kick in the a55. I wouldn't touch this kind of suppliers with a 10 foot pole.  

You can't compare physical products with "zeros and ones"

« Reply #90 on: September 23, 2011, 17:43 »
0
You can't compare physical products with "zeros and ones"

Why not? The product is EXACTLY THE SAME on FT as on PD.
(there might just be minor differences in license terms, but I don't think it matters)

« Reply #91 on: September 23, 2011, 17:46 »
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.

In the Photodune thread I recommended that Photodune's contributors make a projection how much money they will lose when the big sites adjust  their commisions to Photodune's levels. Here you go.

I do think that FT are greedy , but some contributors are way more greedy than FT.
Eventually all greed gets punished.

Fair comment I'd have to say. I really don't understand why the biggest earners in microstock immediately flock  to low-paying start-ups. They can't need the few pennies it brings in (relative to their greater earnings) and you'd think they'd want to preserve the long-term value of their excellent ports by being selective on where it is available. Pissing it away on every two-bit site that will have it just devalues their work by far more than the potential gain.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 17:51 by gostwyck »

« Reply #92 on: September 23, 2011, 17:48 »
0
I've yet to receive the email and I'm bronze.

Then again I haven't been getting the newsletters at all from anywhere and I've not changed any settings on that.  They're all yes for newsletters and stuff.  Wonder if it's coz my email is on Yahoo and they don't want to send them there.

The more I've been thinking about this the more p1ssed off I get.  NO ONE should get special treatment everyone should be treated the same.  FT should be dropped from the big 4 and moved elsewhere.  Trash can would be good.

« Reply #93 on: September 23, 2011, 17:52 »
0
I'm a complete nobody on FT, but on principle I just mailed them to terminate my account.  If nobody takes a stand *.

« Reply #94 on: September 23, 2011, 18:01 »
0
On a general basis is not a good signal when a bussiness reaches the conclusion that the only way to sell their products is selling them cheaper than anybody else on its field.

« Reply #95 on: September 23, 2011, 18:08 »
0
I don't think it is a direct reaction to Photodune - they are too small (though I still won't support them with their current setup).
I think they followed the developments at Istock closely. After a year they decided that the majority of independents took Istock's kick between the legs with a simple reaction - whine a lot but continue to upload. The few that stopped uploading or pulled their port are insignificant.
So they decided that lowering commissions for those who accept lower commissions elsewhere (and Istock's commission is the lowest) would work. The part about prices is only there to confuse the masses and make it look at least a bit logical.

« Reply #96 on: September 23, 2011, 18:12 »
0
People like Yuri with the power to take a stand should do so in principle.  It might cost them a percentage that is not insignificant but it should send a clear message to management that you can't expect to beat contributors to a pulp and get away with it.

Even if they are receiving special treatment that should not deter them from doing what was right.

On iStock most of the big earners said nothing and continued on their way, since they were protected.

The problem of this industry is that the cohesion of the contributor base is as strong as the balance sheet at the end of the month. The competition which is everyone else is toxic to top earners so where is the incentive to help out?

In the end however even top earners will suffer from a downgrade as the tide of files gets so large that their current advantage/upload ratio wont be sufficient to continue earning as much. By then it will be too late and some stock sites might collapse.

They know that they can act this way because we are all rats in a maze waiting to take the only piece of cheese, why share a big piece?   Competitiveness at its best.  

John Nash's "A Beautiful Mind"  economic theories are all based in cooperative play for a final improvement of conditions, if you work together for a better goal it will prove better in the long run for the individual.  Nobel prize of economics.  Seems we are playing deaf to that kind of thinking. Too bad!

« Reply #97 on: September 23, 2011, 18:17 »
0
"People like Yuri with the power to take a stand should do so in principle.  It might cost them a percentage that is not insignificant but it should send a clear message to management that you can't expect to beat contributors to a pulp and get away with it."

If they wanted to send any message, they would have already done, by not uploading to the penny sites in the first place.  It's likely they created this problem by uploading anywhere with a pulse, as Gostwyck said.

grp_photo

« Reply #98 on: September 23, 2011, 18:27 »
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.

In the Photodune thread I recommended that Photodune's contributors make a projection how much money they will lose when the big sites adjust  their commisions to Photodune's levels. Here you go.

I do think that FT are greedy , but some contributors are way more greedy than FT.
Eventually all greed gets punished.

Fair comment I'd have to say. I really don't understand why the biggest earners in microstock immediately flock  to low-paying start-ups. They can't need the few pennies it brings in (relative to their greater earnings) and you'd think they'd want to preserve the long-term value of their excellent ports by being selective on where it is available. Pissing it away on every two-bit site that will have it just devalues their work by far more than the potential gain.
Exactly my thoughts couldn't understand the hype at PD I also think their offer sucks especially for a start-up. But Fotolia they have drove the prices down from their very beginning and ruined the healthy German midstock-market I wish them worst they suck deeply.

« Reply #99 on: September 23, 2011, 18:53 »
0
"People like Yuri with the power to take a stand should do so in principle.  It might cost them a percentage that is not insignificant but it should send a clear message to management that you can't expect to beat contributors to a pulp and get away with it."

If they wanted to send any message, they would have already done, by not uploading to the penny sites in the first place.  It's likely they created this problem by uploading anywhere with a pulse, as Gostwyck said.

If I didn't know Fotolia better, I'd almost think they were doing us a favor by punishing people that submit to low paying agencies. That can't be right though. Can it?


 

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