Could someone who has reached the ranking (Emerald I think) that enables them to double or triple their credits please check:

A photo(s) that has not sold in 6 months with less than 5 sales

to see if the price has dropped to level 1 with that little red box stating something about not changing the price until it has more than 5 sales.

Valid for any contributor at any level. Interestingly, it was valid after 12 months of no sales when announced..................musta snuck in the 6 months while no-one was looking. In the event it should happen to you, it's up to you to notice the 5 sales and request that the image be returned to original status. Not automatic. HAL 9000 doesn't do that.

Quote from: nruboc on September 24, 2011, 18:39

The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.

Oh yeah! FT have never, ever cut commissions have they? Plus, how do you know what % you receive anyway? If your account is in USD then you won't be receiving anything remotely close to the 37% that you are supposed to get from any sales in Euros or GBP's. Let's face it, FT severely penalizes any contributor who is paid in USD. That'll be you then. Why don't you go exclusive with FT if you think they are so 'fair'?

Did you read what I wrote, where did I say they never cut commissions? I even acknowledged they cut commissions after IStock's lead in the same post you quoted above on....Wow.

I took a huge hit from Fotolia's best match change awhile back, so their not exactly top of my favorite agency list, but I like this move, and that is only what I've commented on, and will write to ShutterStock/Dreamstime to consider it as well, I'm tired of getting my commissions cut while agencies try to counter IStocks race to the bottom due to the continued support from contributors. 

@Nruboc
I agree.

@Cthoman
But of course I speak for myself. And I'm fully aware that some of the photographers have left some of the lower paying sites. I did it too. But the numbers are insignificant, and I'm talking about the vast majority here.

@Mellimages,
I agree.
Problem with an agency giving incentives is that the plan doesn't really work in real life. While happily taking bonuses / incentives from more generous sites, photographers do not stop uploading to the lower paying ones. They want it all. Every single cent, from every single site.
It's not about money, or necessity. This is about greed.

@Everyone else,
I agree that the way Fotolia is implementing their new rule is brutal and not fair.
However, in my opinion that's the only way to at least try to stop the sorry bunch at IStock/ThinkStock and Getty from spreading like a plague.
Problem is, for the plan to work, Fotolia needs back up from Shutterstock and Dreamstime.
Do it SS and DT!
Go ahead and do it!
Let's try to stop ThinkStock dead in its tracks.
And don't wait for (the vast majority of) photographers to take action themselves, and stop uploading to ThinkStock. Unless you, the agency, steps in and imposes restrictions, they never will. No matter how low the commission or how measly the 10 cent sales, they will keep on uploading, more and more, feeding ThinkStock and dragging the whole industry closer and closer to the bottom (see Fotolia)

Sorry guys, but this is what I learned from past experiences and this how I feel about it.
No offence though, keep on uploading, it's your business

8 pages of countless posts and I am going to be the only one who actually agrees with this new policy from Fotolia.
Not only that I agree, but I would also love, love Shutterstock and Dreamstime to follow suit.

In my opinion this is not about some unknown 'offending' agencies out there.
This is clearly about IStock (driving everyone down, again!) and forcing independents to submit to ThinkStock.

The only way to stop ThinkStock and Getty from completely taking over the industry is for the other agencies themselves to take a stand. If we leave it to photographers, the battle is lost.
Photographers, newbies or professionals the same, will never, ever stop uploading.
No matter how low the Getty commission, no matter how measly IStock's 0.7 cent payments.
They will not do it.
They will never delete their ports and they will keep on uploading to ThinkStock, image after image, more and more, all the while hiding behind flimsy logics and sorry excuses.
This is not simply about money.
This is about pure greed.  
Not money, or necessity, or the sad stories about, 'I can't afford to leave IStock because my 5 children are so sick and in hospitals', and not even the newer ThinkSock theory, -'It's OK to submit to ThinkStock because ThinkStock cannot hurt SS' holds any water or substance.
These are nothing but excuses.
Excuses to fuel photographers' greed.

I have been secretly hoping for such a statement from an agency for a long time.
And I hope that Shutterstock and Dreamstime follow suit soon.
Go on SS and DT, do it!
And don't worry about photographers deleting their ports.
They never will.

always liked you, your attitude and personality on this forum but this is just over the roof.. I am nobody to talk about stock income but HEY thats is just nuts, how can you want that for photographers? do you want the end of stock? do you wanna turn it into a hobby for everybody? you can do whatever you can that�s for sure, you can call getty, fotty, dreamyy, shuttyy but don�t come with this crap to people that are working hard and haven�t started yesterday and do DEPEND on the income from agencies, you cannot say what you have said and don�t have a proper answer,you need to look to other, if you don�t live with stock income you cannot drop a line about this matter, sorry but thats the real stuff! talk is so easy when you see it as a hobby

you look like someone from a few time ago about all they want is a lens hood, you cannot blame at least 100% the contributors, what we do is compete, who never decided prices and %

@Luis, others
let's make something clear. For the 3-rd and last time.
This is not about 'other' sites. Fotolia's move is obviously in response to IStock's decision to force independents to upload to ThinkStock. This is about ThinkStock, not other, unkown sites.

But alright.
I've only been doing this for over 2 years. You're a pro, I'm a hobbist and I shouldn't be posting here.
You're right.
Enough.
Have it your way, happy uploading

I don't believe Fotolia is acting in response to Istock.  I believe it's Photodune that prompted this.  I believe it's also a preemptive strike against any other potential new agencies that might attempt to undercut even Photodune's price structure.  Something had to be done to stop this race to the bottom.  It's clear that contributors weren't going to do anything.

Great!  so this is it?  all other agencies are now going to freak out from the IS, kiss of death merger with TS, and take various actions to save themselves or run for cover.
Sure! this merger whatever we like to think about it,  is a powerful merger and its there to try and take over the entire industry, reducing it to an absolote gutter level.
Ofcourse this is what Getty hopes to achieve! playing them right into their lap! They must be laughing their heads off, watching FT (for now) falling out with loads of contributors, sitting in the dog-house. Wonder what agency is next?

The Getty folks are playing this one so smart its unbelievable, a IS/TS, merger?  creating a global panic among all other agencies, expecting them to punish their contributors for their merger, so in the end, THEY, will be the good guys, or at least better.

Yap!  they sure know the fleemarket system.

Must say,  it did not take FT very long to jump onto the wagon, Im dissapointed.

Could someone who has reached the ranking (Emerald I think) that enables them to double or triple their credits please check:

A photo(s) that has not sold in 6 months with less than 5 sales

to see if the price has dropped to level 1 with that little red box stating something about not changing the price until it has more than 5 sales.

I've just been through my images and anything that hasn't had 5 sales in the last 15 months has gone back to level 1. It hasn't magically made those images start selling so is a bit of a waste of time.

Fotolia wants to be the cheapest.
They already said this in the mail sent when v3 was introduced.

They are not doing any stand, they want to match the cheapest of the cheapest.

If you get 70% of $1 site, they will match the $1 and apply their %.
If you get 10% of $100 site, they will match the 10% from their price.

Doesn't matter if it's because IS/TS, Veer subs or Photodune EL. They will match the cheapest of the cheapest because that is what they want to be.

The cheapest of the market.

@ Eireann: Thinkstock pays MORE than Fotolia (28c). Istock's lowest rate is just 1 percentage point lower than Fotolia's. So how can this be targetting TS?

Judging by what is reported here, MOST contributors earn at least twice as much from Getty as they do from Fotolia. How can Fotolia have ANY leverage against Getty?

Maybe they want to claim they are fighting the good fight and say: "Oh, you're on a site that pays a minimum of 15% of the real sale price (we don't care if you are in the 18% band) so we will pay you 15% of our pretend dollar credits so that you only really get 10% and we keep 90%.

And with people like you cheering them on to cut commissions from their dismal 16% down to 10%, all the other sites will look at it and say "hey, we're still paying too much". How is that fighting to protect photographers?

AS for how can they police this - it's really easy. They draw up a list of each agency and how low they can pay and claim they are matching it and then send you the e-mail demanding to know who you supply. Whichever of your sites are lowest down their list for credits and for subs .... bingo! that's your new rate.

Obviously, they will target those they think they will make most money from.

Is it, by any chance, people in the euro and pound zones who got this e-mail? Perhaps they are top of the list, since they cost Fotolia most.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2011, 19:16

Quote from: nruboc on September 24, 2011, 18:39

The win is for those who don't support sites who continue to lower commissions (which IStock is leading). I win because I don't have my commissions lowered at Fotolia, which was probably the alternative to this plan, and which happened last time Fotolia followed IStock's lead in lowering commissions. It's only those who continually support the lowering of commissions that get "penalized". That's fair in my book.

Oh yeah! FT have never, ever cut commissions have they? Plus, how do you know what % you receive anyway? If your account is in USD then you won't be receiving anything remotely close to the 37% that you are supposed to get from any sales in Euros or GBP's. Let's face it, FT severely penalizes any contributor who is paid in USD. That'll be you then. Why don't you go exclusive with FT if you think they are so 'fair'?

Did you read what I wrote, where did I say they never cut commissions? I even acknowledged they cut commissions after IStock's lead in the same post you quoted above on....Wow.

I took a huge hit from Fotolia's best match change awhile back, so their not exactly top of my favorite agency list, but I like this move, and that is only what I've commented on, and will write to ShutterStock/Dreamstime to consider it as well, I'm tired of getting my commissions cut while agencies try to counter IStocks race to the bottom due to the continued support from contributors.  

So you want DT to cut those $1.05 subs commissions to the SS $0.38 or lower?  I really don't get it, unless you're just being sarcastic.

All the big sites could have subs at 0.25 or lower if FT get away with this.  PPD commissions would be the same as istock 15-20%.  If we all leave istock, I haven't seen any guarantee from SS, DT or FT that they are willing to stick to their current commissions.

If FT guaranteed that they aren't going to cut commissions again and they promised to keep my canister levels, I would probably start uploading like crazy.  There would be some motivation.  Now, all I can see is lower and lower commissions and I have absolutely no interest in working hard producing images for microstock.  It's probably too late now though, I really don't trust FT or istock.

This latest excuse to threaten reducing commissions yet again really is the final straw.  I'm concentrating on the sites that I still have some faith in.  If things don't improve a lot with the big microstock sites, I don't see a good future, so there's no point investing more time with them.

Most people stand to lose a lot more by giving up IS than by dropping to white level or leaving fotolia and the PTB at fotolia know this so my guess is that they are going after places like photodune not IS.  Most people would drop photodune with no problem to save themselves from dropping levels in fotolia but anybody that would consider dropping IS probably already has done.

Having been thinking about this I find it difficult to believe that FT are seriously concerned about an upstart like PD. Click on the profiles of any of the major contributors there and it is obvious that PD sales are pretty much irrelevant. No, I think that FT are genuinely losing sales and market share and now they are looking for someone to blame. My own earnings from FT are likely to be about 40% down on Sept 2010 and I know others have suffered far more. I don't think it's all down to a best match change either although that does seem to be a significant factor for Emeralds and above.

FT must be fuming about Istock's impending hijacking of all independent images for the Partner Programme so I can only think that the emailed threat is in response to that. As you say I don't know why they are bothering though, as we don't have much choice about our images going to the PP and almost nobody is going to drop Istock in favour of keeping their FT ranking. The only thing FT are likely to achieve is the loss of many valuable portfolios if they do actually take action.

Quote from: fotografer on September 25, 2011, 01:57

Most people stand to lose a lot more by giving up IS than by dropping to white level or leaving fotolia and the PTB at fotolia know this so my guess is that they are going after places like photodune not IS.  Most people would drop photodune with no problem to save themselves from dropping levels in fotolia but anybody that would consider dropping IS probably already has done.

...snip...


 almost nobody is going to drop Istock in favour of keeping their FT ranking. The only thing FT are likely to achieve is the loss of many valuable portfolios if they do actually take action.

I don't know if that is right. Maybe they are not counting on anybody leaving IS, but simply hoping that most affected contributors will whine a lot in the forums but keep their port up at FT.
That's the lesson we taught them with IS.