MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shocking Fotolia Earnings Drop  (Read 16305 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2012, 14:23 »
0
If everyone saw their sales drop when they reached the emerald level, they wouldn't go down in the rankings.  Emeralds here have said that they have fallen in the rankings, so they're being replaced by other emeralds that I presume are doing better.  So I'm still not convinced by the emerald drop theory.

I'm sure someone from FT will come here and explain it all to us :)

LOL!  I'm not holding my breath.

Why do you assume that the people who are passing emeralds in the WEEKLY rankings are emeralds?   My weekly ranking is the one that has plummeted in the past couple of years, not my overall ranking.  That's held fairly steady.  I think it went from 34 - 39.  But my weekly ranking is between 400-600.  That suggests it is, in fact, lower ranked people outselling me.  And LOTS of them. 

I am in the top 50 or better across other microstock sites.   I don't think it's exactly bragging to say that there are not 400-600 people selling better than me in microstock generally.  Just on Fotolia.

Most other emeralds report the same.  Doubt it all you want, doesn't change the reality. 
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 14:28 by lisafx »


« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2012, 14:40 »
+1
If everyone saw their sales drop when they reached the emerald level, they wouldn't go down in the rankings.  Emeralds here have said that they have fallen in the rankings, so they're being replaced by other emeralds that I presume are doing better.  So I'm still not convinced by the emerald drop theory.

I'm sure someone from FT will come here and explain it all to us :)

LOL!  I'm not holding my breath.

Why do you assume that the people who are passing emeralds in the WEEKLY rankings are emeralds?   My weekly ranking is the one that has plummeted in the past couple of years, not my overall ranking.  That's held fairly steady.  I think it went from 34 - 39.  But my weekly ranking is between 400-600.  That suggests it is, in fact, lower ranked people outselling me.  And LOTS of them. 

I am in the top 50 or better across other microstock sites.   I don't think it's exactly bragging to say that there are not 400-600 people selling better than me in microstock generally.  Just on Fotolia.

Most other emeralds report the same.  Doubt it all you want, doesn't change the reality.
Exactly, my 7 day rank is over 1000.  I doubt very much that there are 1000 emeralds.  At one time it was about 30.

Microbius

« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2012, 14:57 »
+1
Could make an interesting poll. The 7 day ranking of emeralds.

« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2012, 15:17 »
0
If everyone saw their sales drop when they reached the emerald level, they wouldn't go down in the rankings.  Emeralds here have said that they have fallen in the rankings, so they're being replaced by other emeralds that I presume are doing better.  So I'm still not convinced by the emerald drop theory.

I'm sure someone from FT will come here and explain it all to us :)

LOL!  I'm not holding my breath.

Why do you assume that the people who are passing emeralds in the WEEKLY rankings are emeralds?   My weekly ranking is the one that has plummeted in the past couple of years, not my overall ranking.  That's held fairly steady.  I think it went from 34 - 39.  But my weekly ranking is between 400-600.  That suggests it is, in fact, lower ranked people outselling me.  And LOTS of them. 

I am in the top 50 or better across other microstock sites.   I don't think it's exactly bragging to say that there are not 400-600 people selling better than me in microstock generally.  Just on Fotolia.

Most other emeralds report the same.  Doubt it all you want, doesn't change the reality.
I don't doubt that lots of emeralds have seen their earnings slump but as the same thing has happened to me and lots of others, I doubt that it's just to do with canister levels.  It could be people that have been there a few years are being hit the hardest and newer contributors are getting a boost.  It seems more random to me.  The only people that know are working for FT, we're just guessing.

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2012, 18:55 »
0
The only people that know are working for FT, we're just guessing.

You're right, we are just guessing.  I don't know of another explanation for why so many people are reporting that their sales drop off a cliff practically overnight after getting promoted from gold to emerald.  I would be interested to hear any other theories that account for that.

I suspect it is a combination of factors.  Obviously it is not ONLY emeralds who are seeing drops.  There is also clearly some universal sales and traffic slowdown at Fotolia.  No doubt they are experiencing something similar to what Istock has after making a series of changes that upset contributors and perhaps alienated buyers. 

« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2012, 22:52 »
0
Maybe the emeralds loose sales because they raise the prices.

lisafx

« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2012, 23:02 »
0
Maybe the emeralds loose sales because they raise the prices.

Please refer to the rest of this thread which deals with that idea in depth a number of times...

« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2012, 23:26 »
0
Ja, its a bit primitively written and I am not really familiar with the price and ranking system of fotolia.

But if I were a buyer it would find it annoying that pictures had different prices and I would certainly look at the price before I downloaded.
I might even have my boss coming after me, when I had downloaded a more expensive file. I would have to argue and explain.
That might motivate me to find another agency next time.

So what Im saying is that higher prices may cause falling sales both individually and to the agency in general.


Microbius

« Reply #58 on: December 16, 2012, 04:30 »
0
Here's the poll for Emeralds, results should be interesting to all!
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-emeralds-7-day-ranking-poll-(emeralds-only)

grafix04

« Reply #59 on: December 16, 2012, 05:54 »
0
I may be off the mark here, but hear me out anyway because this is what I think is going on.

I don't believe FT is penalizing Emeralds.  I believe FT is penalizing all contributors who sell at other lower priced micros like DP.  Remember this thread?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/return-to-start-fotolia-reserves-right-to-put-you-back-at-white-ranking/

Remember they wanted to push people contributing to DP (or other cheap micros) back to white level?  They backed down on this because there would have been a huge backlash and possibly even legal implications.  I suspect instead of punishing people by dropping the levels, they've punished them quietly and sneakily by pushing them down the ranks.

For months now I've been slowly dumping the micros, getting rid of the smaller and cheaper ones first.  I dropped DP and then my earnings at FT went up a short time after that.  FT was on my hit list but since the rise in sales, I've pushed them back on the list.  Could it be that they stopped punishing me because I left DP, or is that buyers wanting my images migrated from DP to FT?  I suspect it's a bit of both.

Maybe you need another poll to determine whether contributors at DP have seen a decline in sales at FT.

« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2012, 06:02 »
0
grafix04 are you emerald?

if you aren't I don't think they are "wasting" time looking where you have your portfolio or not, it would be crazy to track us all, I don't think they would unless you are emerald, I believe they are been tracked because they are just a few and also like you said from a previous thread where some receive a FT email regarding "cheaper agencies"

« Reply #61 on: December 16, 2012, 06:11 »
+2
It might be worth considering that if Fotolia "spread the joy" by rotating the search in such a way that lots of lower-level contributors pick up an unusually big slice of the action three things happen: F pays less in commission to the big hitters, keeping a larger slice for itself (not sure how that balances between higher commissions and higher file prices); F increases the average time between payouts across the board, which would massively increase the pile of contributor's cash it is sitting on; and F should get lots of happy lower-rank people who will feel encouraged to keep pushing work into the site.


 

« Reply #62 on: December 16, 2012, 06:20 »
0
It might be worth considering that if Fotolia "spread the joy" by rotating the search in such a way that lots of lower-level contributors pick up an unusually big slice of the action three things happen: F pays less in commission to the big hitters, keeping a larger slice for itself (not sure how that balances between higher commissions and higher file prices); F increases the average time between payouts across the board, which would massively increase the pile of contributor's cash it is sitting on; and F should get lots of happy lower-rank people who will feel encouraged to keep pushing work into the site.

well well well said! you only missed a few favorite contributors they have ;D

grafix04

« Reply #63 on: December 16, 2012, 06:39 »
0
Perhaps, Luis, still worth considering it for Emeralds and above.   They did want to punish them for dealing with DP.  I believe they found a way ;)

« Reply #64 on: December 16, 2012, 07:06 »
0
Perhaps, Luis, still worth considering it for Emeralds and above.   They did want to punish them for dealing with DP.  I believe they found a way ;)

indeed! the lack of uploading help too thinking of some reports here, beside that I dont remember one emerald reporting an increase in sales...
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 07:09 by luissantos84 »

grafix04

« Reply #65 on: December 16, 2012, 07:23 »
0
I haven't uploaded anything new on FT for about a year and my sales have gone up.  Strange because they were dropping at a rapid rate before that and I had them high on the list to dump them. With two commission cuts within a year and the drop in sales it would have been easy to get rid of them.  But now this sudden increase since dropping DP?  Coincidence?  Who knows. 

« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2012, 14:09 »
+3
As the OP, I just wanted to add a couple additional details about my situation, because they aren't consistent with the speculation as to the reasons for the sharp earnings drop.

I'm not an emerald.  I got stuck at silver when they increased the number of sales needed for the next level.

I also don't contribute to DP.

And yet my earnings started dropping significantly after not uploading for only 8 months and are now down by 90%.

It took 3 1/2 freakin' months to reach my last payout (used to regularly receiving weekly payouts).  After I'm finished with this post, I'm writing to Fotolia to ask that my portfolio be removed and account terminated.  I refuse to support their destructive company and greedy shareholders anymore.   

« Reply #67 on: December 18, 2012, 14:54 »
+4
Thought I'd add a screen shot of my Fotolia views 3-year chart just for kicks.  Unbelievable to go from over 8000 views per month in January 2010 to a mere 705 views in November 2012 (that's not even 1/2 a view per image!). 

And that crazy sudden drop in views in the middle?  I went from 6013 views in August 2011 to 3266 in September to 2249 in October to 1190 in November...an 81% drop in views in a mere 4 months!  Unreal.  Let these numbers be a warning to all Fotolia contributors that drops like this can happen to anyone of any ranking at any time without notice, suddenly landing your income in the tank.

FYI -- this chart is available on Fotolia to all contributors.

Sent my account termination email to Fotolia.  Good riddance to the worst micro of them all.

Ahhhhh...FREEDOM!!!!!!!!

lisafx

« Reply #68 on: December 18, 2012, 15:27 »
+1
Wow, Karimala, my views graph looks exactly like yours.  Falls off a cliff in August 2011. Assuming I'm doing the math right, looks like we've both had around a 90% drop, give or take a couple points.   :o



My earnings decline was more gradual, but still very severe over time. 
 


My earnings drop is 70%.  This indicates that I am actually selling images to a HIGHER percentage of viewers than I was three years ago, so I don't think this represents a decline in the desirability of my work, either quality or price-wise.  Just way too few views to translate into decent sales. 
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 15:37 by lisafx »

« Reply #69 on: December 18, 2012, 15:55 »
0


in the FT forum a while ago the drop in views was discussed, some say it is related to bigger thumbnails

« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2012, 15:56 »
+1
I have exactly the same shaped graph. Views suddenly plummet by about 80% after Aug 2011. The views pattern don't relate to my sales though.

My guess is they did something to the way they collected the data, possibly registering views only from bona-fide buyers rather than all contributors. They might have needed to save load on their servers and/or make the stat's more meaningful.

Wasn't this about the same time that they introduced the new 'Dashboard' in which you had to choose 'Customer mode' or 'Contributor mode'?

« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2012, 16:21 »
0

i had a coupla periods where i stopped uploading to FT for  year or more, but not much change in income.  i started uploading againabout 3 years ago, but again no real effect.  started uploading again about 8 months ago and income seems to be increasing somewhat

=========== added later ==========

sorry must be my preschool hasidic kabala study coming back....

for convenience, i insert a new column on the LEFT side each month [so i dont have to scroll way iut], so the most RECENT data is on the left

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 20:34 by cascoly »

Poncke

« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2012, 16:25 »
0
^^ Your portfolio seems to go down while you are uploading. I must  be missing something

« Reply #73 on: December 18, 2012, 16:27 »
0
^^ Your portfolio seems to go down while you are uploading. I must  be missing something

I was wondering the same, not understanding, less total images and less earnings... what do you mean Steve?

grafix04

« Reply #74 on: December 18, 2012, 19:51 »
0
I think Steve's 'total images' should read 'uploads'? 




The 'views' data from the other contributors is interesting.  Again mine is similar to all of your charts but has had a sharp rise in the last couple of months and is consistent with my sales. 

I haven't uploaded anything for a year, my revenue has suddenly spiked and it's my older images that are still outperforming the newer ones.  Is there a method to this madness or is this just a fluke?  Probably the latter.  I should expect it all to come crashing down soon.

The only other thing that I can think of is that there's someone out there that is heavily promoting my portfolio - doubtful though.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2620 Views
Last post January 18, 2009, 17:01
by NYTumbleweeds
22 Replies
7920 Views
Last post July 15, 2009, 20:22
by bad to the bone
199 Replies
34145 Views
Last post March 22, 2013, 13:07
by Poncke
2 Replies
2174 Views
Last post August 19, 2013, 15:33
by tab62
2 Replies
2621 Views
Last post April 13, 2018, 12:15
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle