MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 116934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #250 on: September 26, 2011, 14:02 »
0
This is a threat to our business

Most important part.

This sounds like extortion.

Sounds Like? Hmm, OK that's a polite way to put it.  :o

When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and
commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for
competition.


Ha Ha, every time FT comes out with some new * for contributors, and I look back at closing my account, I feel happier and happier.

This all started with lower commissions, (the first time) then new jewel levels (the first time) and the threats to members for what they wrote on forums outside of FT. That was the last straw. No I was wrong, if someone does a timeline, that was two years ago and they keep coming up with new and amazing ways to insult people?

So someone tell me, (looking for stockmarketer to come to their defense?) what sites have lower commissions than FT, if FT is paying 13% ? Or is this their way to race to the bottom and have lower commissions than all the competition.

Are they trying to be the worst place to work for?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 14:12 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #251 on: September 26, 2011, 14:03 »
0
photodune is relatively new but part of Envato Marketplace. These sites have a lot of buyers. Right now these buyers are buying images at microstock sites. Photodune changes this and will begin to pull in more buyers due to cheap prices and growing library. Im thinking photodune is the site Fotolio is talking about. Look through all the affiliate sites on Envato and see how much products are being sold for. Its a pretty good deal for the buyer and contributors on the whole gets crumbs IMO.

Microbius

« Reply #252 on: September 27, 2011, 03:03 »
0
They don't expect anyone to leave IStock/ Thinkstock. This is nothing to do with trying to stop us uploading to IStock and therefore being on Thinkstock and accepting lower royalties.

They know that given the choice between the two FL will be dropped, because they are the smaller player. They just want us to continue uploading to FL but receive a lower rate. They have seen we will accept less and don't want anyone to be squeezing us any harder then them. This has been FL's strategy from the start, screw contributors as hard as possible without making them leave.
All they are doing is finding a way to keep their payouts in line with the lowest paying sites out there.
It is just an excuse to pay less royalties under the guise of preserving higher rates for us.

Just another move like when they moved the goal posts for levels last time.

« Reply #253 on: September 27, 2011, 03:40 »
0
They...don't want anyone to be squeezing us any harder then them. This has been FL's strategy from the start, screw contributors as hard as possible without making them leave.

Are you sure? I seem to recall that at (even before) the start they were going to be the only site fair to contributers, best commission rates, best ranking system, no nasty subscriptions undermining prices, best uploading, best everything for contributors.

I think that lasted until they has the first million or two files online, then they turned nasty.

The things I remember them saying remind me of what all the wonderful new start-ups today tell us. You know, those sites people say we should support that are desperate to fill their libraries, the sites which keep telling us how great things will be one day if only we spend weeks uploading our archives to them.

That's why I think we should support the market leaders not the ever-growing heap of "super fair" newcomers that may or may not fail but if they succeed will probably rush headlong down the Fotolia/iStock squeeze-the-contributors track.

Support SS and DT because they have a long record of success and being pretty straightforward with contributors, support iS for as long as it continues to deliver a return that is too big to ignore, same for Fotolia, I suppose, unless they wipe out the majority of your commission by downgrading you. Maybe support Veer because of its Corbis link which could be very valuable in the long term. As for the others, I don't think I would join anything that I'm not already partnering with. New sites, if they succeed at all, are likely to dilute sales at leading sites, extending the time it takes to get payouts on one and maybe never reaching payout on the other, which does us no good at all.

« Reply #254 on: September 27, 2011, 06:29 »
0
No comments here from the world's number 1 and 2 independent microstock companies?  This isn't big enough to cause any action or comment?

« Reply #255 on: September 27, 2011, 06:31 »
0
No comments here from the world's number 1 and 2 independent microstock companies?  This isn't big enough to cause any action or comment?
Maybe they have already  contacted FT and know that they are safe from it and are now keeping a low profile about it!!
Oops I read that as microstock contributors
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 07:34 by fotografer »

« Reply #256 on: September 27, 2011, 07:21 »
0
No comments here from the world's number 1 and 2 independent microstock companies?  This isn't big enough to cause any action or comment?

So now there are dependent and independent microstock companies? That's a new concept. It would make a good cartoon, with the Getty octopus clinging to its myriad dependent sites while the brave independents try to evade its questing tentacles. Perhaps it could have a TS mouth that is slowly swallowing its latest prey.

Has there been some word from the world's leading dependent microstock company?

« Reply #257 on: September 27, 2011, 07:44 »
0
Fotolia logic:

When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for competition. -> By cutting the photographer's royalties we will sell more and get more profit!

The real world logic:

When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for competition. -> The Photographer will remove his/her portfolio from Fotolia and we don't get ANYTHING. ZERO! ZILCH! NOTHING! (And the customers will go shopping elsewhere)


In a strange way I wish they would put me back at white ranking. It would be the last straw. The final push. I would pull my portfolio and cancel my account. I really don't like the *insult removed* at FT think they can screw everybody the way they like. Then I could freely give them some feedback with some harsh wording and really start a campaign to move customers from FT to... at least somewhere else....

Are the people at FT totally clueless they have been screwing their contributors for a long time and that there is a limit to everything?

P.S. I'm currently uploading my first batches to PhotoDune. I need to compensate for my dropping rank at FT :D
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 07:51 by Perry »

« Reply #258 on: September 27, 2011, 09:38 »
0
In a strange way I wish they would put me back at white ranking.

Be careful what you wish for... :P

« Reply #259 on: September 27, 2011, 10:06 »
0
Do they talk of this at their forums (FT)? What people in these forums say?

« Reply #260 on: September 27, 2011, 10:14 »
0
Do they talk of this at their forums (FT)? What people in these forums say?

Absolutely nothing, of course. That's why some people are here with pseudonyms.

Microbius

« Reply #261 on: September 27, 2011, 10:18 »
0
is there even a post about it over there?

« Reply #262 on: September 27, 2011, 10:22 »
0
is there even a post about it over there?

Not when I checked (which was when this thread started).

« Reply #263 on: September 27, 2011, 10:26 »
0
Don't know how long this will stay up:
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247

nruboc

« Reply #264 on: September 27, 2011, 10:48 »
0
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. 

you are talking like this because you havent got the "email", I havent also so I can talk any crap I want

have you dropped IS? if not I dont understand why you are supporting this, they pay 15% to 20% which has the lowest royalties %

Of course I dropped IS long ago.

It's not about talking crap, it's about what makes sense, and stopping this race to the bottom.

« Reply #265 on: September 27, 2011, 10:50 »
0
I suppose that once you reach the bottom, as Fotolia proposes, then you are no longer racing towards it.

« Reply #266 on: September 27, 2011, 10:56 »
0
Don't know how long this will stay up:
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247


Those of us who don't have accounts at Fotolia can't read that (even IS lets those not logged in read the forums even if they can't post). Is it short enough you can cut and paste here?

« Reply #267 on: September 27, 2011, 11:09 »
0
Don't know how long this will stay up:
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=36247


Those of us who don't have accounts at Fotolia can't read that (even IS lets those not logged in read the forums even if they can't post). Is it short enough you can cut and paste here?


The first post is a direct quote of the new rule (cut and paste) under the heading "what is this". The second post says:
"It means that Fotolia will price match Wal-Mart coupons.

Basically, they are saying that, if you are willing to take less from another site, Fotolia is willing to pay you less, too."


That's it. Pretty revolutionary stuff.

« Reply #268 on: September 27, 2011, 11:44 »
0
Ah - thanks for posting. Not sure it'd matter if they remove a largely content free post :)


« Reply #270 on: September 27, 2011, 13:47 »
0
Folks,

It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies.

Thanks Chad. Any chance of you naming specific agencies to be avoided?

« Reply #271 on: September 27, 2011, 14:02 »
0
What is an "unfair" commission level in your view? Bearing in mind, of course, that your base rate is 13%.

« Reply #272 on: September 27, 2011, 14:21 »
0
Not to mention violation of privacy of independents whom are not bound by an exclusive contract with anyone and therefore can spread their work out wherever they wish without prejudice.

That and will your top earning contributors be immune to this if that action is taken?  Wouldn't seem fair if they were excluded from this treatment.

« Reply #273 on: September 27, 2011, 14:26 »
0
The reason Shutterstock is so regularly at the top of the earnings poll is that they deliver top earnings month after month - they don't have the same high return per download that (for example) iStock does, but they deliver volume. The winning mix isn't determined by price or commission level alone, but that in combination with sales volume.

For Fotolia to try and starve other agencies for content by taking action against contributors who sell at other sites seems like a double edged sword sort of action to me. Given how low Fotolia's rates have become, suppose Getty/iStock pulled a similar move but targeted Fotolia as the offending agency?

If the agencies start waging this sort of war with one another - scorched earth is a phrase that comes to mind - with hapless contributors caught in the middle, where does it end? When there's only one agency left?

As someone else said earlier, the primary reason big contributors have started supporting some of the newer smaller agencies is because they're trying to maintain income levels as the bigger agencies greedily took more of the pie for themselves.

This isn't about fairness at all. And even though I don't contribute to Fotolia any more, it worries me that this sort of tactic will be taken up by others to the detriment of us all.

« Reply #274 on: September 27, 2011, 14:33 »
0
one recent post was removed for containing insults.

Post your thoughts and comments but keep the insults out of it.  Let's keep this discussion somewhat civilized. Even if we don't agree with Chad / Fotolia's opinion, we can treat him with respect when he makes the effort to come here and respond to our comments.

Thanks for posting a response Chad.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 14:35 by admin »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
10199 Views
Last post December 18, 2006, 02:23
by beisea
3 Replies
5235 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
9 Replies
4004 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 08:47
by lisafx
23 Replies
21320 Views
Last post December 09, 2012, 16:09
by fotografer
3 Replies
3776 Views
Last post April 08, 2016, 07:47
by Amaviael

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors