MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.  (Read 116939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: September 27, 2011, 15:15 »
0
If we are to be unwilling participants in this war on other sites, it would be nice to know who we are at war with.

From the forum: a call to name names.

THE CHAD
27/09/2011 20:38
 Moderator
What is this?
Hello Fotolians,

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. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive . Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours .

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

rimglow
27/09/2011 21:47
Please advise us what sites you are talking about. How are we to avoid these sites if we don't know which ones you consider unfair?

godfer
27/09/2011 21:49
Chad, could you tell us which agencies you are referring to?  It is sometimes very complicated to work out exactly how some of the sites compare against each other and I would hate for any of us to get put down to white level just because of  contributing to a site where we probably aren't making any money anyway,
thanks
mandy
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 16:20 by rimglow »


« Reply #276 on: September 27, 2011, 15:28 »
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. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

Thanks for bravely coming in here. I do wish you would name names (or prices or percents if you (quite understandably) don't want to name specific agencies). I do hope you realize that with a very opaque system and commission percents as low as 13% that Fotolia is the lowest I have heard of among top 15 or so.

« Reply #277 on: September 27, 2011, 15:51 »
0
Several of the sites I use pay me 50% commission or more.  Several of the sites I use charge a lot more than FT.  If FT really want to back their contributors, they should reverse the commission cuts that have taken away our motivation to use the site.

This just seems like another excuse for yet another commission cut, I really don't understand it.  It just looks like FT is desperate for money and can't think of any way to get it other than continually taking more from contributors.

« Reply #278 on: September 27, 2011, 16:01 »
0
Hmm, I'm not sure calling someone who is responsible for the lowest commissions in the industry a hypocrite is an insult given the topic we're discussing.

Did Chad ask you remove that post Leaf? I didn't realise you were in the pockets of the agencies to quite that extent.

« Reply #279 on: September 27, 2011, 16:20 »
0
Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

Have you started at the tippy top and are working your way downward?

If someone is selling at a higher price and a higher royalty cut, will you be raising your bar, or does this only apply where you have money to gain?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 16:23 by sjlocke »

« Reply #280 on: September 27, 2011, 16:22 »
0
@photoagogo Chad's a spokesperson for Fotolia, not a policy maker. Characterizing him versus the policy is what I think changes fair commentary into an insult.

Several people have made the point that Fotolia's commissions are among the lowest anywhere and those posts have stayed. I think we can say everything that needs to be said, plainly, without characterizing the messenger.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 16:26 by jsnover »

« Reply #281 on: September 27, 2011, 16:25 »
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. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

When I started with Fotolia years ago, I received a commission of 33% as a complete Newbie, and was upgraded to 35% when I became bronze.
Now I receive 23% as bronze, close to silver.

If you really want to ... encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. then start thinking about your own commission schedule first.

Fotolia has been leading commission cuts across the microstock industry. You should not be the one talking about "fair commissions" before implementing changes (upwards) on your own site.

« Reply #282 on: September 27, 2011, 16:31 »
0
Chad's a spokesperson for Fotolia, not a policy maker. Characterizing him versus the policy is what I think changes fair commentary into an insult.

Several people have made the point that Fotolia's commissions are among the lowest anywhere and those posts have stayed. I think we can say everything that needs to be said, plainly, without characterizing the messenger.

Thanks Jsnover, well stated.

No, Chad did not ask me to remove anything.  I have recently been trying to encourage 'more civilized' conversation (for lack of a better term), that is to say, void of insults and crude language.  I think there is a lot to gain by having respectful conversation, not the least of which is industry owners taking part.  I have had numerous comments from people (people that would have a lot to add to the discussion) saying they don't take part here simply because the conversation is a bit too 'bar brawl' like.

At the same time, I want to be very clear when anything someone types is removed.. that is why I made the notice... I wanted to give you a chance to restate what you said without the insult.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 16:34 by leaf »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #283 on: September 27, 2011, 16:35 »
0

... they don't have the same high return per download that (for example) iStock does, ...


You mean those 9-12 cent dls? : D

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #284 on: September 27, 2011, 16:43 »
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. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

It came to our attention that fotolia pays possibly the lowest comission.

"By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy"

So ppl should stop uploading to fotolia then? : ) Remember: the 'price' for the contributor is what he/she gets. Nothing else matters.

CD123

« Reply #285 on: September 27, 2011, 17:40 »
0
Sorry to say Chad, but with all the "valid" logical statements above about Fotolia being the last one to be threatening anyone in respect of low prices, it seems more like you are scrambling to try and recover lost ground or recover from some internal financial dilemma. 
It does not sit well in any industry to threaten your suppliers, so I doubt if your company's actions will get any sympathy here.
Would really want to see Fotolia reconsidering their attitude and pricing structure. The site has earned its place in the top tier over the years, it would be nice to see it stay there with a better "fair pricing" and contributor approach themselves.

« Reply #286 on: September 27, 2011, 17:44 »
0
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. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action.

Isn't this ironic? A Microstock site complaining about the same thing the "traditional" stock agencies have been complaining about for years.

I suggest Fotolia to check their own pricing and royalty rates first: they are among the lowest ones in the whole industry.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 17:49 by Perry »


« Reply #288 on: September 27, 2011, 19:02 »
0
Funny how your solution is lowering commissions then.

« Reply #289 on: September 27, 2011, 19:04 »
0
What about a more positive approach?
What if you offered incentives to drop the offending sites, instead of threats if you don't?

« Reply #290 on: September 27, 2011, 19:05 »
0
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad

As far as you're concerned it is. I don't think you're going to get very far with this. You could suffer a huge backlash from any action you take.

« Reply #291 on: September 27, 2011, 19:11 »
0
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad

Coming so soon after a severe reduction in royalties, the third I believe since I have been a supplier, it is hard to separate the two.  Fotolia reduced my royalty once, and then soon after threatens to do so again.  You will forgive me if I don't appreciate such threats or believe that you have my best interests at heart.

« Reply #292 on: September 27, 2011, 20:44 »
0
.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 22:02 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #293 on: September 27, 2011, 21:20 »
0
stockmarketer,

I'm sure you're inteligent enough to know your situation isn't like everybody else's. I am silver and get 29c for subs, 25c for XS image and 1.75 for L image. And actually subs account for most of the sales. My RPD at FT is pathetic.

At the same time, I get 22-23c for XS at IS (rarely 19c, but it happens), and 2.00-2.80 for an L. I don't know how much I'll get with subs at TS.

Additionally - but that's a particular situation - I get taxed by 30% in many FT sales, but not in my IS sales.

Am I satisfied with IS? No. But I'm not satisfied with FT either. Both sites have constantly cut our share, and both are paying us very little. I just think it is unfair of FT to complain of another site when they also pay very little.

« Reply #294 on: September 27, 2011, 21:22 »
0
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.

« Reply #295 on: September 27, 2011, 21:26 »
0
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.

Yeah, I think this is the thing I never understood.  Is a credit one Euro in Europe and one Dollar in the US, but I'm only getting $.37 for each Euro as well as $.37 for each dollar?  Is Fotolia the only site that does this?

« Reply #296 on: September 28, 2011, 00:45 »
0
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.


Yeah, I think this is the thing I never understood.  Is a credit one Euro in Europe and one Dollar in the US, but I'm only getting $.37 for each Euro as well as $.37 for each dollar?  Is Fotolia the only site that does this?


Yeah, that is about how it works in a nutshell.  Here is a log post from early 2010 that explains it (with old pricing)
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/

« Reply #297 on: September 28, 2011, 01:10 »
0
I think the lowest % comes from someone who buys just a few credits with Pounds or Euros and then a base contributor who is paid in dollars.


Yeah, I think this is the thing I never understood.  Is a credit one Euro in Europe and one Dollar in the US, but I'm only getting $.37 for each Euro as well as $.37 for each dollar?  Is Fotolia the only site that does this?


Yeah, that is about how it works in a nutshell.  Here is a log post from early 2010 that explains it (with old pricing)
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/


not the first time I say this but everytime I think of it, it is so depressing! European getting $ is just nuts :/ (only because you joined a "site" with a US link)

« Reply #298 on: September 28, 2011, 02:12 »
0
This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad

You can't completely separate the two topics. A site that charges half your prices has no difficulty matching the payout I receive from you - because your commission percentages are so low.

rubyroo

« Reply #299 on: September 28, 2011, 02:23 »
0
Chad wrote:

"This issue is more about destructive retail pricing than it is about
commissions.

Chad"

Sean replied:

Funny how your solution is lowering commissions then.

Yes!  What Sean said.  Attack the agency in question, not the contributors that are the lifeblood of your company.

I don't get the logic behind the threat at all:

1. Big agency cuts commissions and thereby reduce contributors' income.
2. Contributors start contributing to smaller agencies to make up for their losses.
3. Big agency threatens contributors with further commission cuts if they don't pull out of smaller agencies.

The trouble is, contributors know that "big agency" will cut commission further down the line anyway.  

If you look at this from the contributor's point of view, Chad, you must surely see that FT's position doesn't make sense.  I hope you will, anyway.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 02:28 by rubyroo »


 

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