MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: MatHayward on September 10, 2010, 17:15
-
I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all.
So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice.
Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?) Photographer I earn a 54% commission on my sales. 54%! Not only is the commission high, but I set my prices at $5 for XS and $40 for XL so I'm getting a higher commission on a higher dollar amount. Every time I sell an XL file I get $21.60 added to my account.
As an Emerald Photographer I also have an Infinite Collection account to sell photos at even higher prices ($20 for XS, $200 for XL) with increased visibility and a 50% commission.
As far as I know, even non-exclusive commission rates have always been dramatically higher than those of I-Stock. I always found it shocking that so many people were so defensive of IS and their 20% commissions...now?
FT has an option for Image Exclusivity which lets contributors raise prices on individual photos. Of course you get the higher commission if you are an exclusive photographer but you can still get the benefit of higher prices on exclusive images even if not. This doesn't benefit me as I'm totally exclusive anyway but I thought I would mention it regardless.
I can upload as many images as I want as often as I want regardless of being exclusive or not. I heard there is some sort of bulk upload option for new photographers as well but I'm not too sure about that. When I dipped my toes in the I-stock water a few years ago I was puzzled and frustrated by the limits. I would never get caught up...ever! Not that I am now but being chronically behind is solely based on my procrastination through FT not on silly limitations they put on me.
FT pays commissions on promotional and free credits as though they were purchased. I heard that I-Stock does not do this? From what I understand they send out a lot of these promo credits to recruit buyers.
FT is the number one micro-stock site in Europe and is picking up speed around the world! I have always believed that FT has had my best interest in mind as their successes equate to my success. I would both love and hate it if all the top micro-stockers were at FT. Love it because the quality of imagery would be so high that the lions share of the buyers would have to be there too. Hate it because the competition would be so fierce I would really have to step up my game. I'm willing to do it if you want to give it a shot come on over!
For what it's worth guys, I'm sorry that you are getting dumped on so rough at IS. Especially those of you that are exclusive. If any of you have any questions about FT I'm happy to answer them. I'm not always a shameless cheerleader, I'll give straight answers to the best of my ability and if I don't know the answer I will try to find it for you.
Good luck all,
Mat Hayward
-
Well, Mat, although I agree that IS is acting very poorly regarding members, both exclusive and non-exclusive, it's not like FT management (and others) are angels either. They have taken drastic cuts in our commissions, and there is always the complaint about exchange rates.
(At least for me, US sales are such a minority that I have to agree with the currency discussions that took place in the past. It does seem that FT is making an extra earning from that - selling more in £ and € but paying contributors more in USD.)
-
Well, Mat, although I agree that IS is acting very poorly regarding members, both exclusive and non-exclusive, it's not like FT management (and others) are angels either. They have taken drastic cuts in our commissions, and there is always the complaint about exchange rates.
Not to mention sub sales at maximum sizes, and (in my experience, YMMV) random, high rejection rates.
-
I love Fotolia because ... they're not Istock? Although we know Fotolia are every bit as greedy as Istock so far they are limited in how much they can express it without destroying their entire business.
Be warned Fotolia __ don't get too greedy or we contributors could reduce the value of your business to virtually NOTHING inside of a few days. You haven't seen what's going to happen to Istock __ yet.
Ever read Malcolm Gladwells 'The Tipping Point'? I imagine there's a few Istock directors wishing they had __ and I don't envy whoever has to launder their underwear right now.
-
I'm also at Fotolia, and quite content about it. Not there as exclusive though. Good sales there every day
-
watermarks... that's the big problem i have with FT... a lot of my isolated images don't even have a mark at all... i wish they would change the watermark to a bigger one or allow you to control the placement.. I had emailed them about that recently but they said they have no plans to change anything right now.. :(
-
That all sounds well and good, but seriously, what chances would a close-to-silver IS exclusive (just over 2100 DL) have of getting similar placement on FT without having to go back through the ranks of the unwashed masses?
Exactly. I'll give you a minute to wipe off your screen...sorry for the mess.
-
Yeah buddy, don't think we've forgotten about you and all of Fotolia's shenanigans. We're just distracted with something else right now. You're still on double secret probation. ;D
There definitely was a spoon full of sugar to help the poison go down in most of Fotolia's changes though.
-
Fotolia dropped my commission rate twice as I recall, and by just about 20%. Funny how that figure keeps showing up. And to add insult to injury, the last time they did it they offered to undo it. All I had to do was give away a hundred of my top selling images. I wonder how much that would have ended up costing me...
-
Sorry but i just have to speak openly about this
For starters, Fotolia lied to contributors few times before , remember somebody stated how subs are bad for business and taking it down for both sides.
Then introduced them soon and gave them at largest size images , but not counting them as normal sales for further level chase ?
Were we not (and still are) chasing limits like donkeys carrots and then they were raised in a same way IS is doing now.
Can u say its not happening again? I certainly can not because I tend to believe someone once, when im fooled i have serious problem with forgetting.
What about pure stealing from contributors on exchange rates that is happening at FT at this moment ?
FT and IS have exactly same goal , and its not about happiness of contributors , at all
Than, this post of yours come in good time for fotolia, but personally i find it at least unethical
And its not nice to start cra..ing on IS now whatever they are doing, even if u do it politely in white gloves, especially when u know that u guys are banning people
on FT for mentioning anything not good for FT including stats and links , even when they lead to interviews of your stuff. You can, but is not polite.
At least they are letting people write at this moment, Fotolia was banning like crazy, acting like gestapo and even suspending few accounts if im not wrong, but you know better than me.
When somebody comes to your home and u forbid him to smoke, you don't come to his house and light a cigarette same moment, even if you know its ok with him.
In simple words, you are officially representing FT in certain way, and taking advantage of situation on IS to come here a try to make FT look like heaven and feel sorry for people that contribute there.
-
In simple words, you are officially representing FT in certain way, and taking advantage of situation on IS to come here a try to make FT look like heaven and feel sorry for people that contribute there.
I should have clarified this before...I am definitely not officially representing Fotolia. I am a contributor just like you. I felt compelled to point out what to me has been obvious all along....that while the volume of sales at IS is higher than FT, the commissions and other aspects of Fotolia even after the changes they had made are far more advantageous to the photographers. As I mentioned before, I tried to upload to IS a while back before the exclusivity rules applied at FT and found myself very frustrated. I never went back.
I am probably more well aware than anyone else that FT has pissed people off but the fact remains that at the end of the day I am making good money with them. Have there been changes made I didn't like? Of course. This business is evolving every day and the past 2 years I would say have been very dramatic as the money is very serious and we are considered more "legit" as photographers than we once were. I'm sure there are many more changes to come. I just wanted to remind people that 54% commission rates on $40 sales add up pretty quick is all.
Peace,
Mat
-
You're still on double secret probation. ;D
*! I thought that was expired!
-
Hmm ... fighting urge to speak up ... must fight it .... mmmmmmmmmmmm ....... ok. Deep breaths. Ok. Thank goodness. I would not want to get banned for speaking out like so many others in the past have.
I will say this: the site is too freaking slow!
-
Unfortunately for FT, most of us still make more money at IS than FT, even when we were independent. If FT makes a similar announcement, will FT (through you as a moderator) allow us to have a free debate about it?
I hate to see the direction that IS is taking, but FT has not made an appealing case either.
In simple words, you are officially representing FT in certain way, and taking advantage of situation on IS to come here a try to make FT look like heaven and feel sorry for people that contribute there.
I should have clarified this before...I am definitely not officially representing Fotolia. I am a contributor just like you. I felt compelled to point out what to me has been obvious all along....that while the volume of sales at IS is higher than FT, the commissions and other aspects of Fotolia even after the changes they had made are far more advantageous to the photographers. As I mentioned before, I tried to upload to IS a while back before the exclusivity rules applied at FT and found myself very frustrated. I never went back.
I am probably more well aware than anyone else that FT has pissed people off but the fact remains that at the end of the day I am making good money with them. Have there been changes made I didn't like? Of course. This business is evolving every day and the past 2 years I would say have been very dramatic as the money is very serious and we are considered more "legit" as photographers than we once were. I'm sure there are many more changes to come. I just wanted to remind people that 54% commission rates on $40 sales add up pretty quick is all.
Peace,
Mat
-
I think you really need to ask yourself why it is there is nobody - and I mean nobody - who is a full-time stock photographer and exclusive at Fotolia. You can be fond of all the things you've mentioned, Matt, but when it comes down to the bottom line you are selling yourself short. More short than you think is possible.
-
I think you really need to ask yourself why it is there is nobody - and I mean nobody - who is a full-time stock photographer and exclusive at Fotolia. You can be fond of all the things you've mentioned, Matt, but when it comes down to the bottom line you are selling yourself short. More short than you think is possible.
does this mean you get more on IS exclusivity??
-
Unfortunately for FT, most of us still make more money at IS than FT, even when we were independent.
Actually IS and FT go well together for me. Last year FT was 5% ahead of IS, this year IS is 4% ahead of FT.
-
You are right on that ... they sure do go well together ...
-
Unfortunately for FT, most of us still make more money at IS than FT, even when we were independent.
Actually IS and FT go well together for me. Last year FT was 5% ahead of IS, this year IS is 4% ahead of FT.
Back when I was independent, I could take my total FT earnings and multiply by 3 and it would still be less than IS. Pity they didn't count subscription DLs as a full DL, but as a 1/4 DL. Do they still do that? Does it still take 4 sub DLs to equal 1 normal FT download?
-
Do they still do that? Does it still take 4 sub DLs to equal 1 normal FT download?
uh huh...i really don't get ft's popularity. some people do really well by them and some don't. even veer outperforms them for me.
-
what why spruke about how good Fotolia is compared to Istock ? if Fotolia actually had any sizable number of exclusives they would have screwed them long ago. Fotolia are by far the best at screwing contributors over.
I do not believe you when you say you don't have any vested interest in Fotolia other the being a contributor.
-
FT, is great and a great concept, I do sell a lot there and I agree 100% about their tough editing of NOT letting irrelevant material clogg up every corner such as IS and SS have managed to do.
Now I do believe IS will never, ever regain contributors/buyers trust anymore, its just become too messy and no doubt the Getty-folks wanted this reaction, they knew exactly what they were doing, business-people not creatives.
FT, with a bit of smart moves could perhaps pick up some pieces here, who knows?
-
I think you really need to ask yourself why it is there is nobody - and I mean nobody - who is a full-time stock photographer and exclusive at Fotolia. You can be fond of all the things you've mentioned, Matt, but when it comes down to the bottom line you are selling yourself short. More short than you think is possible.
I promise you I've given that a lot of thought, I really have. That's kind of why making this post is a bit selfish. I want Fotolia's volume to be equal to that of I-Stock which everyone knows it isn't...yet. The best way I see that happening is if the best photographers are there. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the commissions decimate those of I-Stock. It isn't even close in any category as far as I can tell whether exclusive or not and it never has been.
As for selling myself short, if I went non or partial exclusive I would need to spend countless hours uploading to the other sites and would need to sell many times the number of pics I do now to even break even. I had the numbers figured out at one point in time but I don't remember them off the top of my head. It was a lot though as I wouldn't be able to charge $40 and my commission rate would be less. As it is, I make a decent amount of money. Not near where I want it to be but every month of every year has increased for me and I'm not seeing any signs of that trend changing <knock-on-wood>.
Mat
-
I do not believe you when you say you don't have any vested interest in Fotolia other the being a contributor.
Believe it Brother! I'm a freak! What can I say?
Mat
-
I think you really need to ask yourself why it is there is nobody - and I mean nobody - who is a full-time stock photographer and exclusive at Fotolia. You can be fond of all the things you've mentioned, Matt, but when it comes down to the bottom line you are selling yourself short. More short than you think is possible.
One other point I meant to make...I think where I-Stock has been superior in their exclusive program is in their aggressive marketing and recruitment. From what I understand they have a massive staff to focus on specific things like photographer recruitment. I think FT is very small in comparison. They (FT) could sell themselves better in this regard as I don't know how many people even know about the benefits of exclusivity there anymore. Like you eluded to and others...it confuses people that know this business that I am exclusive at FT. That being said, I'm happy with my choice. I want more of course and it's coming but I feel I'm treated fairly.
Have a good one,
Mat
-
This seems to actually work for you. I guess for the vast majority going exclusive with Fotolia would be a very bad decision, but you have good sales, a high commission and lots of highly priced quality images. I can't be sure, but it doesn't seem to me you're selling yourself short. Either you're granted some serious perks by Fotolia being one of the few exclusives there, or you're selling images that are highly in demand at that particular site. Either way congratulations on your choice, and thanks for sharing this.
I would never dream of going exclusive anywhere, but it seems to work for some people (at least untill the agency changes the agreement and you're locked in)
-
I am pleased it works for you, and agree they have a much better commission structure.
However FT has also cut commissions and had some big issues with contributor relations. Personally they are not high on the sites I trust list (but higher than istock at the moment), I couldnt see me trusting them enough to ever become exclusive with them (thankfully I didnt istock either, mostly because best match shifts)
I am impressed at the amount of ranting etc that istock is allowing, FT would never allow this, half their contributors would be banned. I have also always got a response from istock in regards to questions, whereas a number of times with FT it has been contact the US manager, who then never returns emails.
Phil
-
Didn't Yuri also say Fotolia did better for him then IStock a while back? so I guess if he was going to go exclusive (which I doubt he ever would) I guess that's where he'd go to.
-
Yes... I'm pleased it works for you too, but it's the same problem of having all the eggs in one basket. If they do something in the future that is irrevocable and unacceptable, I'd be in the same boat as a lot of iStock exclusives are now.
I just don't think exclusivity will ever be something I want to entertain. It's always seemed to much of a risk to me.
-
Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?)
No, in order to be a diamond on iStock you have to have sold a certain number of files no exceptions, if memory serves me right you got your emerald ranking because you became exclusive? There have also been other examples where folk on FT have been bumped up the ranking for one reason or another, and don't forget the huge ranking change fiasco a couple of years back.
The ranking system on FT is a joke, they should scrap it and start a new one based purely on sales figures.
You've chosen to be exclusive on FT for reasons known only to yourself, as has been pointed out there isn't a single full time photographer that has chosen FT to be it's exclusive distributor, and because of past treatment I think the management would have to do something spectacular in order for any full time photographer to even consider going exclusive there, iStocks latest screw over is going to make anyone extremely careful when considering future exclusivity no matter which site it is.
-
Behind such violent storms on the sea of stock tranquility, I smell a banksters bum reeking havoc amongst the korporate kleptocracy as it attempts to get it's a** together to preserve their bonuses. Just as a high tide lifts all ships, let us hope that when the tide goes out only IS has been caught swimming nekkid and that FT's lauding here has not been overly premature.
(No need to call me on spelling either!) :)
-
Believe it Brother! I'm a freak! What can I say?
Mat
What did you thought about by writing this thread. You certainly know how the people would react at a such embellishment of Fotolia. They threat their contributors as crap as well. That was nothing else than pure back kissing :)
-
IS figured they could get away with shafting us partly because FT got away with it so many times.
FT lead the charge and DT and IS gladly followed. Thanks FT.
-
Not to leave Mat Hayward alone, I too, am exclusive to Fotolia.I had a spring cleaning, around May and closed all my other accounts. Each agency has different ways of uploading, and I found Fotolia's way the easiest, plus a fast editing process, too. Also I'd rather concentrate on my photography, then trying to remember what I sent to who,and whatever. As for pricing, Fotolia offers the most options, exclusive, non exclusive, partial exclusive,and up to now,their payout is one of the highest.Fotolia was for me, the one with a high acceptance rate, easiest upload, fastest editing turnaround, and the one who I made the most money with, so it was a no-brainer when it was time to become exclusive.
-
LOL Fotolia is a complete rip-off of istock and they will the next in line that will cut commissions for non-exclusive, I also expecting them to adjust to the new level-system that istock introduced. I don't expect them to cut royalties for exclusive because they lack of an serious exclusive base and are in need for any exclusive material that they can get.
-
LOL Fotolia is a complete rip-off of istock
To be fair, that isn't exactly true. They have certainly been the leader in opening up European markets. Istock has been playing catch-up to Fotolia there.
-
Mat, all the facts you have mentioned can be changed by fotolia within the wink of an eye, and we all know it. Other people were singing the same song as you are singing now about istock when fotolia came around the corner with the "You are great, and we are growing, so down goes your commission. But thank you, we are growing and you are great, if you do not like the changes, stuff it".
-
If there is an agency among the big 4 that would deserve a "why I love it" thread, that would undoubtedly be Shutterstock (in my eyes). They have treated contributors with the most fairness among all others. And money-wise, SS is still the best for the vast majority of independent contributors.
-
at least they are paying more than 20%... I guess they lack a lot on communication, but lately have improved on my side..
-
I give Fotolia credit for understanding the potential in European markets and growing very quickly into a major player because of that.
However, in spite of my loathing for what iStock is currently doing, if anything keeps me as an iStock exclusive it will be Fotolia. They way they behaved during the time I was independent is not something I relish returning to.
-
if anything keeps me as an iStock exclusive it will be Fotolia. They way they behaved during the time I was independent is not something I relish returning to.
I also have my resentments towards FT, however one thing they made less painful was the commission cut, because credit prices increased at the same time, so indeed in the end my earnings remained more or less the same, slightly increasing in fact.
-
I don't think you'll find anyone to dispute the fact that they've made mistakes and have turned people off in the past. There have been communication issues, there have been changes that had me scratching my head from time to time. As many of you know, I am intimately familiar with the frustrations photographers have felt there. At the end of the day however, I feel that I am and have been consistently treated fairly and compensated fairly. I've never been an I-Stock contributor (as mentioned..I tried...it didn't work out) so all I can really say is that their popularity had confused me greatly considering their nearly non-existent commissions. They got out of the gate the fasted and the most visibly so from the start they've been essentially the "Brand Name" company in Microstock and have attracted many buyers. It feels to me and has for some time that FT is gaining that "Brand Name" status amongst buyers and I've been feeling it in the increase in sales.
If you are at FT cool. If not and you have any questions, you are invited to shoot me an email. If not and you don't...no worries.
Have a good one y'all.
Mat
-
It's interesting to see how you try to compare your experience and figures with what you believe IS is doing and then you state you've never been a contributor at IS yourself. All your figures don't mean much if you keep the number of sales at each site out of the equation. If you sold 3 to 4 times more photos at IS as an exclusive instead of at FT (given the current percentages given both at IS and FT), don't you think your income would be a lot higher? When I started at FT, I sold roughly 10x more photos at IS. Of course everyone's mileage varies but from anecdotal evidence it seems clear to me that it pays off better to be at IS than FT.
-
^^ That may be true for you, but as an independent, I consistently earn more at Fotolia than iStock. It all depends on what you produce, I guess.
-
^^ That may be true for you, but as an independent, I consistently earn more at Fotolia than iStock. It all depends on what you produce, I guess.
Well, how many photos do you have at FT vs. IS? When did you start on both sites? What is your subject? Don't make this a post about me. Mine was just an example and I think I clearly stated that everyone's mileage varies, but that I strongly believe with everything being mostly equal, you are better of at IS because IS outsells FT by far.
-
^^ That may be true for you, but as an independent, I consistently earn more at Fotolia than iStock. It all depends on what you produce, I guess.
Well, how many photos do you have at FT vs. IS? When did you start on both sites? What is your subject? Don't make this a post about me. Mine was just an example and I think I clearly stated that everyone's mileage varies, but that I strongly believe with everything being mostly equal, you are better of at IS because IS outsells FT by far.
So what!! at this moment IS might outsell FT but I bet you after all this mayhem, give a year or two, FT will be there, no doubt about it, FT is already the fastest rising agency, their strategy is great and they dont beef around, they dont waste time on crap as many of the others do.
-
Yeah Fotolia really seems on the rise. There is positive trend for years. For me they already overtook iStock some time earlier this year I believe. Exclusivity at Fotolia is actually much more popular for Europe photographers. I believe there are quite a few good German photographers who sell exclusively at Fotolia.
-
Yeah Fotolia really seems on the rise. There is positive trend for years. For me they already overtook iStock some time earlier this year I believe. Exclusivity at Fotolia is actually much more popular for Europe photographers. I believe there are quite a few good German photographers who sell exclusively at Fotolia.
Yes they are on the rise and the biggest rival for iStock and especially for long-time contributors they are better than SS (and of course a lot better than DT - DT constantly loosing marketshare), because of their strong position I'm sure they will be next to lowering commission percentage for non-exclusives.
-
Yeah, Im awaiting a sneaky and greedy move towards the end of the year.
-
Exclusivity at Fotolia is actually much more popular for Europe photographers.
And probably FT is more popular with EU buyers too, considering the low share of sales made to US buyers (given the 30% tax I lose on these).
-
Exclusivity at Fotolia is actually much more popular for Europe photographers.
And probably FT is more popular with EU buyers too, considering the low share of sales made to US buyers (given the 30% tax I lose on these).
When FT still showed the buyers' name, most of my sales were from Germany and the UK indeed.
-
I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all.
So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice.
Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?) Photographer I earn a 54% commission on my sales. 54%! Not only is the commission high, but I set my prices at $5 for XS and $40 for XL so I'm getting a higher commission on a higher dollar amount. Every time I sell an XL file I get $21.60 added to my account.
As an Emerald Photographer I also have an Infinite Collection account to sell photos at even higher prices ($20 for XS, $200 for XL) with increased visibility and a 50% commission.
As far as I know, even non-exclusive commission rates have always been dramatically higher than those of I-Stock. I always found it shocking that so many people were so defensive of IS and their 20% commissions...now?
FT has an option for Image Exclusivity which lets contributors raise prices on individual photos. Of course you get the higher commission if you are an exclusive photographer but you can still get the benefit of higher prices on exclusive images even if not. This doesn't benefit me as I'm totally exclusive anyway but I thought I would mention it regardless.
I can upload as many images as I want as often as I want regardless of being exclusive or not. I heard there is some sort of bulk upload option for new photographers as well but I'm not too sure about that. When I dipped my toes in the I-stock water a few years ago I was puzzled and frustrated by the limits. I would never get caught up...ever! Not that I am now but being chronically behind is solely based on my procrastination through FT not on silly limitations they put on me.
FT pays commissions on promotional and free credits as though they were purchased. I heard that I-Stock does not do this? From what I understand they send out a lot of these promo credits to recruit buyers.
FT is the number one micro-stock site in Europe and is picking up speed around the world! I have always believed that FT has had my best interest in mind as their successes equate to my success. I would both love and hate it if all the top micro-stockers were at FT. Love it because the quality of imagery would be so high that the lions share of the buyers would have to be there too. Hate it because the competition would be so fierce I would really have to step up my game. I'm willing to do it if you want to give it a shot come on over!
For what it's worth guys, I'm sorry that you are getting dumped on so rough at IS. Especially those of you that are exclusive. If any of you have any questions about FT I'm happy to answer them. I'm not always a shameless cheerleader, I'll give straight answers to the best of my ability and if I don't know the answer I will try to find it for you.
Good luck all,
Mat Hayward
And Fotolia now do almost the same thing as IS ....... you have to find this funny Mat ....... and then someone bans me from the forum ?? you just have to laugh ..... or forgot Mat its ok because it don't affect you :-)
-
Interesting to read through this old thread...funny how things change in a few months...I didn't realize fotolia bans people for commenting about changes they made...will they really ban you if you speak your opinions in this forum as well...even istock doesn't do that...I better keep my mouth shut or open an anonymous account...wow that is really terrible sorry to hear that.
-
They cant ban you from this Forum but I have to be careful what I say althe same I cant afford to have my portfolio pulled at FT ....only wish I could !! have been at FT for Six years made it up silver rank (without any help !!) and now after six years I am back to the commission I was getting when I first started as is every other silver or below !!
-
Interesting to read through this old thread...funny how things change in a few months...I didn't realize fotolia bans people for commenting about changes they made...will they really ban you if you speak your opinions in this forum as well...even istock doesn't do that...I better keep my mouth shut or open an anonymous account...wow that is really terrible sorry to hear that.
The forums at the stock sites are run by people, and as such, are subject to human emotions such as being petty and vindictive. No one ever wants to admit there is something wrong in the little world into which they have invested so much of their lives. That's why people like Matt come here and try to spin everything from their own point of view. The bottom line on all these sites is that they can do whatever they want. I've been banned from Istock forums, and if I cared enough to even go to the fotolia forums I' sure they'd ban me there too. In my opinion, those at Fotolia who stay there are on the next sinking ship.
-
Dont agree on this one! FT, is selling very, very well and is nowhere near a sinking ship?? so they cut the rates, big deal, so what, they will all do the same, eventually. Getting banned from a forum? well, what the heck, its only a forum.
I once belonged to this DPR-camera forum and somehow got involved in a crazy thread regarding Nikon vs Canon, OH! BOY! half the members got banned after that thread EXEPT the OP, who started it and later turned out to be a troll, he didnt even use these cameras.
-
Dont agree on this one! FT, is selling very, very well and is nowhere near a sinking ship?? so they cut the rates, big deal, so what, they will all do the same, eventually. Getting banned from a forum? well, what the heck, its only a forum.
I once belonged to this DPR-camera forum and somehow got involved in a crazy thread regarding Nikon vs Canon, OH! BOY! half the members got banned after that thread EXEPT the OP, who started it and later turned out to be a troll, he didnt even use these cameras.
Well I can only speak from my perspective, and hope springs eternal that FT will start selling again, but all I get these days is subs, very few other sales, so the payout is about 50% down from last year. Hopefully you are right and my results are not typical...
-
Re: "Hope springs eternal"
My hope springs eternal that IS and FT will sink below the Middle Tier as better managed sites rise to prominence.
-
I never thought I'd say this, but.......despite Fotolia's latest commission decrease, despite three years of seemingly never-ending frustration with them, my business is now at a point where I'm seriously considering exclusivity in the next year or two, and Fotolia is at the top of my list.
Last time they decreased commissions, my income rose so much that Fotolia is now my #2 earner. I've also made some of my best sellers at Fotolia exclusive, and they still sell as hotly as they ever did, and because I tripled my price, now I earn 3x more than I did on the same credit sales volume. Tripling my price on everything and earning 45% at silver sounds pretty appealing at this point in my five-year micro journey.
-
I never thought I'd say this, but.......despite Fotolia's latest commission decrease, despite three years of seemingly never-ending frustration with them, my business is now at a point where I'm seriously considering exclusivity in the next year or two, and Fotolia is at the top of my list.
I'm not in anyway considering going exclusive but if I did it would be at fotolia.
-
I never thought I'd say this, but.......despite Fotolia's latest commission decrease, despite three years of seemingly never-ending frustration with them, my business is now at a point where I'm seriously considering exclusivity in the next year or two, and Fotolia is at the top of my list.
I'm not in anyway considering going exclusive but if I did it would be at fotolia.
They haven't screwed exclusives much YET (unless you count moving the levels goalposts away).
-
I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all. So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice...
are you still happy with fotolia after the latest updates? ;D
-
Yes, I am. I still receive a 54% commission on my sales. Because of my exclusivity I can set my prices higher so more % on more $ makes me still happy.
I can appreciate the frustration of those that were impacted by the recent changes. I have some strong opinions that are <big shocker> not very popular with the majority of microstock photographers but I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry :( Especially for non-exclusives.
Good luck all,
Mat
I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all. So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice...
are you still happy with fotolia after the latest updates? ;D
-
Good points Mat.
-
Yes, I am. I still receive a 54% commission on my sales. Because of my exclusivity I can set my prices higher so more % on more $ makes me still happy.
I can appreciate the frustration of those that were impacted by the recent changes. I have some strong opinions that are <big shocker> not very popular with the majority of microstock photographers but I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry :( Especially for non-exclusives.
Good luck all,
Mat
i totally agree with you.
I also want to add why Fotolia less considerable for me:
Exclusives in istock get between 1,7-2,1x more % than non-exc. but in fotolia you get 1,35-1,75x more % than non excl. Also if you consider sub sells this difference getting bigger (%50 sub. dowload rate in fotolia and % 1 rate in istockphoto).
If the opt-out from subscribtion sells do not effect best match search, Fotolia should be more considerable.
-
Sorry Mat delighted you are so happy with Fotolia however I am seriously disappointed by there recent antics/cuts in royalties especially how I have defended and recomended them strongly in the past ..... no matter what spin they or you put on it cutting to the chase (and all spin aside) they witnessed istockphoto get away with the savage reductions and followed suit
I say to them what I said to IS my allegiance has been shifted and any further cuts and I am out!
-
I can appreciate the frustration of those that were impacted by the recent changes. I have some strong opinions that are <big shocker> not very popular with the majority of microstock photographers but I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry :( Especially for non-exclusives.
Good luck all,
Mat
There are some very good points there, and to one extent I agree that non-exclusivity is probably the cause of how some agencies can almost treat their suppliers like dirt.
The reason I place my images with agencies is to use them to market my images, I agree that total exclusivity would mean the sites would compete to get the best, however for me personally (not that I'll ever go exclusive) a big concern with Fotolia is that they don't place any value on exclusivity, and that's not just my opinion that's come from the management.
Not so long ago after iStock announced their greedy commission cuts structured commission rank I contacted Chad at Fotolia to discuss a couple of things amongst which was that I was thinking about supplying Fotolia some images on an exclusive only basis and my concern was why they didn't promote exclusive images, now I think he misunderstood my question but his reply, which surprised me, was that Fotolia do not want to promote exclusivity of any shape or form, or in other words exclusive images do not get any type of marketing advantage on Fotolia over non-exclusive images, and the same goes for contributors your work as an exclusive gets the same treatment as mine a non-exclusive.
The appeal to anyone for exclusivity be it totally or image only is to increase sales and therefore increase revenue, Fotolia allow you to increase your prices but don't do anything to promote your work over and above the rest of the stuff on the site, as Tyler (leaf) pointed out a while ago there's an unknown equation for whether an image takes off on Fotolia, to go exclusive there is just too much of a risk IMO, iStock has many many faults but one thing you can't knock them for is their constant promotion of the exclusive content.
Edited to add: Another reason I would never go exclusive with Fotolia is my disgust over the fact that someone who sells less than me gets a higher commission rate because of the unjust ranking change last year.
-
Because of my exclusivity I can set my prices higher so more % on more $ makes me still happy.
I though, from another thread, that you had exclusive images, not that you were exclusive.
Your avatar made me think of FT and IS. :)
-
Because of my exclusivity I can set my prices higher so more % on more $ makes me still happy.
I though, from another thread, that you had exclusive images, not that you were exclusive.
Your avatar made me think of FT and IS. :)
Nope, I am an exclusive photographer. All of my RF images are on FT. I have some editorial RM images up on Alamy as an experiment that is sadly not doing well as of right now.
Mat
-
I thought about exclusivity with FT, too, but quickly dropped the idea. I just don't trust any of them, not even DT or SS.
-
Interesting points, Richard and Mat.
The great thing about Fotolia and DT is the ability to offer exclusive images instead of making an entire portfolio exclusive. Before making a decision about total exclusivity (if I ever do), I'm slowly going through all of my portfolios and comparing sales stats, and then turning best sellers into exclusive images. Some photos will have great sales at one site and hardly any on all the rest of the sites, so why leave them on other sites where they don't sell when I can earn more from them through exclusivity? My portfolio's eggs aren't all in one basket, archives aren't duplicated with the same photos, and with this approach just a handful of images have already made a noticeable positive impact on my overall income. Eventually I'm going to drop sites that only payout every few months, stop uploading to sites that don't offer per-image exclusivity, and only upload new stuff to SS, DT, and FT.
-
the point Matt makes about exclusivity makes sense, but since it almost seems like an afterthought at FT, the logical conclusion to his argument is exclusivity at Istock. IF FT were a bigger player, had they demonstrated an effort to make contributors more of a partner and less of an exploited natural resource, exclusivity could work. However, that horse left the barn a long time ago.
-
the point Matt makes about exclusivity makes sense, but since it almost seems like an afterthought at FT, the logical conclusion to his argument is exclusivity at Istock. IF FT were a bigger player, had they demonstrated an effort to make contributors more of a partner and less of an exploited natural resource, exclusivity could work. However, that horse left the barn a long time ago.
FYI -- Fotolia is the biggest player in the European market...ahead of IS.
As for single image exclusivity, after I wrote my above post I went over to FT to see what sold today. Oh hey...guess what...this one image I made exclusive that rarely if ever sold anywhere else, but for some reason sells nearly every day at FT...well, it sold 5x in the last 24 hours, two of which were XXL at 3x the regular credit price earning me $9.30 a pop. The medium size earned $6.00 and the xs earned 75 cents. The last sale was a subscription. IS wouldn't even touch this image, since it's a non-vector illustration, so exclusivity there doesn't make any sense when I can earn just as much money elsewhere on images they refuse to accept.
-
the point Matt makes about exclusivity makes sense, but since it almost seems like an afterthought at FT, the logical conclusion to his argument is exclusivity at Istock. IF FT were a bigger player, had they demonstrated an effort to make contributors more of a partner and less of an exploited natural resource, exclusivity could work. However, that horse left the barn a long time ago.
FYI -- Fotolia is the biggest player in the European market...ahead of IS.
As for single image exclusivity, after I wrote my above post I went over to FT to see what sold today. Oh hey...guess what...this one image I made exclusive that rarely if ever sold anywhere else, but for some reason sells nearly every day at FT...well, it sold 5x in the last 24 hours, two of which were XXL at 3x the regular credit price earning me $9.30 a pop. The medium size earned $6.00 and the xs earned 75 cents. The last sale was a subscription. IS wouldn't even touch this image, since it's a non-vector illustration, so exclusivity there doesn't make any sense when I can earn just as much money elsewhere on images they refuse to accept.
Well, everyone has to decide based on their own sales, and for whatever reason, my sales at FT have been dropping like a stone. If there was a way to opt out of subs, I could see making an image exclusive with FT, but the numbers are just not there for me. Sub after sub. Even with the high rejection rate at IS, my sales are 6 times the sales at FT. Maybe Europeans don't like my images? If it works for you , then go for it. :)
-
If there was a way to opt out of subs, I could see making an image exclusive with FT, but the numbers are just not there for me. Sub after sub.
At FT you can opt out of subs your exclusive images (and only those).
-
If there was a way to opt out of subs, I could see making an image exclusive with FT, but the numbers are just not there for me. Sub after sub.
At FT you can opt out of subs your exclusive images (and only those).
But then all those sub sales count just the same as a regular sale for the purpose of sort order placement (at least as far as we know).
-
But then all those sub sales count just the same as a regular sale for the purpose of sort order placement (at least as far as we know).
Right. How much that impacts sales is another question. I have no way of knowing since I do not have any exclusive files...
-
But then all those sub sales count just the same as a regular sale for the purpose of sort order placement (at least as far as we know).
Right. How much that impacts sales is another question. I have no way of knowing since I do not have any exclusive files...
I didn't know you could opt out exclusive images. Following Karimala's point about making those files that sell well at FT only as the exclusive files, and then taking them out of subs, would maybe be a good way to go. I don't know about sort order- that's too much granularity for me :)
-
I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry :( Especially for non-exclusives.
That's an interesting thought but the fact is that iStock has scr*wed most of its leading exclusives harder than anybody else. Exclusive benefits have become a weapon to use against them, because they have invested so much in iStock that they can't afford to change horses.
-
I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry :( Especially for non-exclusives.
That's an interesting thought but the fact is that iStock has scr*wed most of its leading exclusives harder than anybody else. Exclusive benefits have become a weapon to use against them, because they have invested so much in iStock that they can't afford to change horses.
Yes I agree. What's with all of these Stockholm Syndrome - Patty-Hearst-type exclusives? Actually sticking up for, and protecting your captor can not be healthy. Yes, I see, it is my own fault my husband hits me, give me a break, as stated above being loyal didn't help anyone from getting screwed (with the exception of a few at the very top). You can't seriously blame the photographers for these sites lowering commissions when exclusives are seeing cuts too. Do you really think when sites have millions of images there is anyway for a particular agency to have unique images! There are so many photographers all clamoring to take photos of the same things, it makes good business sense to focus your energy on proven sellers Unless you are a small niche site with less than 100,000 images you are not going to have unique content ever. I would go exclusive if any site offered better pay than I get by being with ten sites its very simple to run the numbers not an emotional decision purely numbers I do what makes me the most money. No agency has stepped up to the plate yet with a high enough percent to actually come out better by going exclusive.
-
being loyal didn't help anyone from getting screwed (with the exception of a few at the very top).
I'm still getting 54% commissions on sales ranging from $3 to $30. If you think I'm at the very top you have a skewed vision of where the top is.
You can't seriously blame the photographers for these sites lowering commissions when exclusives are seeing cuts too.
Yes I can. Buyers aren't stupid. They know they can get the same pics at all the sites. They have the luxury of shopping for the lowest prices. That is what they make their buying decision on so the sites must fight to be the cheapest.
Do you really think when sites have millions of images there is anyway for a particular agency to have unique images!
That's my point exactly. They don't have unique images. They have the exact same images because 99% of the photographers in the Microstock industry uploaded all the same pics to every site that would accept them.
-
You can't seriously blame the photographers for these sites lowering commissions when exclusives are seeing cuts too.
Yes I can. Buyers aren't stupid. They know they can get the same pics at all the sites. They have the luxury of shopping for the lowest prices. That is what they make their buying decision on so the sites must fight to be the cheapest.
Can't speak for every buyer but as a typical Freelance Designer I couldn't care less if I paid $1 or $50. It would probably cost me $50 in time just to look elsewhere - if I find the right image I just buy it regardless of where or how much it cost (within reason). The only factor which would make me think twice is if I required a whole bunch of images - that rarely happens though!
-
You can't seriously blame the photographers for these sites lowering commissions when exclusives are seeing cuts too.
Yes I can. Buyers aren't stupid. They know they can get the same pics at all the sites. They have the luxury of shopping for the lowest prices. That is what they make their buying decision on so the sites must fight to be the cheapest.
Can't speak for every buyer but as a typical Freelance Designer I couldn't care less if I paid $1 or $50. It would probably cost me $50 in time just to look elsewhere - if I find the right image I just buy it regardless of where or how much it cost (within reason). The only factor which would make me think twice is if I required a whole bunch of images - that rarely happens though!
I agree
If majority of buyers were price sensitive why would they buy any of Yuri's photos on Istock when you can get them much cheaper elsewhere.
he's sold like 1 million downloads.
Some customers are but I'd say a lot aren't.
-
But then all those sub sales count just the same as a regular sale for the purpose of sort order placement (at least as far as we know).
Right. How much that impacts sales is another question. I have no way of knowing since I do not have any exclusive files...
Bin there tried that! After 3 weeks of cancelled subs and virtually no sales, I returned to the fold. Don't have a lot of images there but I do have a couple of good sellers (both in subs as DL's). The DL's seemed to drop off sharply too. Subs may only count as one quarter download for canister level but I think they count one for one in sort order placement.
From Fotolia for contributors:
"Visibility
By following the rules above, you will achieve a better visibility. But there are further tips to increase your visibility:
1. By allowing the sales in subscription you will improve the ratio sold/views for each one of your contents. When a subscription customer wants to buy your image and you don’t allow the sale in subscription, your content will be marked at 0 sold for 1 view. The ratio sold/view is an important criteria within our search engine. Images that are sold each time they are viewed receive a better visibility in the results page."
-
being loyal didn't help anyone from getting screwed (with the exception of a few at the very top).
I'm still getting 54% commissions on sales ranging from $3 to $30. If you think I'm at the very top you have a skewed vision of where the top is.
You can't seriously blame the photographers for these sites lowering commissions when exclusives are seeing cuts too.
Yes I can. Buyers aren't stupid. They know they can get the same pics at all the sites. They have the luxury of shopping for the lowest prices. That is what they make their buying decision on so the sites must fight to be the cheapest.
Do you really think when sites have millions of images there is anyway for a particular agency to have unique images!
That's my point exactly. They don't have unique images. They have the exact same images because 99% of the photographers in the Microstock industry uploaded all the same pics to every site that would accept them.
Didn't Fotolia and Dreamstime put the price of credits up at the same time as each commission cut? I would think (possibly in error) that would invalidate the arguments of all they can do is compete on is price?
-
Didn't Fotolia and Dreamstime put the price of credits up at the same time as each commission cut? I would think (possibly in error) that would invalidate the arguments of all they can do is compete on is price?
I'm not sure of the answer to that question. It's been a while since the price structure changed at FT. I know very little about Dreamstime or their price structure. I do know that the prices at FT for exclusives were lowered in December in order to maintain a competitive edge against the competition. Non-exclusives were already at a minimum for the same reason as far as I know.
Mat
-
Yesterday I sold one EL on Fotolia! 50 credits but my part is 8$...
Maybe buyer has paid the 75 euros for this pic but my part is only cca 5-6 €...
What injustice because of triple conversion from buyers money to my credits ... Where is love here?
-
Yesterday I sold one EL on Fotolia!
Maybe buyer has paid the 75 euros for this pic but my part is only cca 5-6 €...
What injustice because of triple conversion from buyers money to my credits ... Where is love here?
how is that possible? what do you mena by triple?
beside the royalties cut I got US account and I am european.. another 25% taken!
-
50 credits, my part is 8$
1. Cost of buyers credits, probably more than 1€ or $
2. My part is now less in percentage
3. 1$=1€ only for Fotolia
-
you aren´t alone.. >:(
I have mine set to 30 and have like 7 or 8 in almost two years
-
Yep! I knew it all before, but I can't help myself in misery when I see that, again and again.... :-[ :'( >:(
-
You are only getting a 16% commission? I don't see where even the lowest rank, non-exclusive photographers receive that low a payout. You are bronze so you should have received 23%. I would call support and ask why that is because it doesn't sound right.
I receive $54 on my $100 EL sales fyi and it doesn't deviate so maybe there is a glitch with your account.
Mat
50 credits, my part is 8$
1. Cost of buyers credits, probably more than 1€ or $
2. My part is now less in percentage
3. 1$=1€ only for Fotolia
-
1. Cost of buyers credits, probably more than 1€ or $
Never mind my last post, I see now that you are speculating.
Good luck,
Mat
-
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
-
I didnt know you could have image-only exclusivity at FT???-------- is that right?
-
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
right :)
-
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
How are you learning what currency the credits are purchased with?
-
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
right :)
If you are a non-exclusive Bronze ranked photographer dealing in American Dollars and you sell an EL for 50 credits you should receive $11.50.
What am I missing here?
-
I receive $54 on my $100 EL sales fyi and it doesn't deviate so maybe there is a glitch with your account.
No you don't __ you receive 54 credits on a 100 credit sale. There can be a very big difference.
If the credits used to purchase the license were originally paid for in Euros (and Europe is supposedly FT's biggest market) then they'd have cost about $130 with an average bundle. Your $54 commission therefore represents only about 41% of the purchase price.
-
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
right :)
If you are a non-exclusive Bronze ranked photographer dealing in American Dollars and you sell an EL for 50 credits you should receive $11.50.
What am I missing here?
if it is a US sale.. :P
and then there the US account I have instead of european, another ridiculous and lot of advantageous to FT.. (can´t understand why they cannot change it without getting a new account, absurd..)
-
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
How are you learning what currency the credits are purchased with?
Is there any currency in which a credit is less than US$1? if not, and if the image is indeed at 50 credits, then his commission was no more than 16%.
-
It is all so much easier to deal with when you're not affected anymore. ;D
-
It is all so much easier to deal with when you're not affected anymore. ;D
it is your business but I guess if I had your earnings I wouldn´t leave for sure 3k $ per year isn´t that low but I feel and agree with your decision :)
-
Hi guys!
That was US sale (-30% of tax), usually for bronze level is 11,xx credits for EL sale of 50credits...
But point here is what buyer pays and what we get...
That certainly isn't percentage on my level...
But that is an old story.... :-\
-
it is your business but I guess if I had your earnings I wouldn´t leave for sure 3k $ per year isn´t that low but I feel and agree with your decision :)
Yeah, I'll definitely miss the money, but I've been trying to think of things from a more long term perspective. RPD and royalty percentages have become important to me. Ideally, I'd like to get $5 per sale and around a 50% royalty. Unfortunately, there are only a few sites that satisfy both of those criteria.
Fotolia seemed to be moving further and further away from the ideal that I wanted. Plus, I didn't feel that I could trust them at all. I probably should clean out a few other agencies as well. I'm not sure if it is the best business decision, but neither does continuously feeding these unrewarding businesses. I'm not sure there is a good answer.
-
I wasn´t waiting any kind of answer thanks! :) I was just telling you that I agree with your decision!
best of luck
-
I didnt know you could have image-only exclusivity at FT???-------- is that right?
Yes, FT has image exclusivity. You can raise the prices of exclusive files according to your cannister level, and you can opt your exclusive files out of subs (which seems to hurt their best match placement though).
-
I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all.
So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice.
Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?) Photographer I earn a 54% commission on my sales. 54%! Not only is the commission high, but I set my prices at $5 for XS and $40 for XL so I'm getting a higher commission on a higher dollar amount. Every time I sell an XL file I get $21.60 added to my account.
As an Emerald Photographer I also have an Infinite Collection account to sell photos at even higher prices ($20 for XS, $200 for XL) with increased visibility and a 50% commission.
As far as I know, even non-exclusive commission rates have always been dramatically higher than those of I-Stock. I always found it shocking that so many people were so defensive of IS and their 20% commissions...now?
FT has an option for Image Exclusivity which lets contributors raise prices on individual photos. Of course you get the higher commission if you are an exclusive photographer but you can still get the benefit of higher prices on exclusive images even if not. This doesn't benefit me as I'm totally exclusive anyway but I thought I would mention it regardless.
I can upload as many images as I want as often as I want regardless of being exclusive or not. I heard there is some sort of bulk upload option for new photographers as well but I'm not too sure about that. When I dipped my toes in the I-stock water a few years ago I was puzzled and frustrated by the limits. I would never get caught up...ever! Not that I am now but being chronically behind is solely based on my procrastination through FT not on silly limitations they put on me.
FT pays commissions on promotional and free credits as though they were purchased. I heard that I-Stock does not do this? From what I understand they send out a lot of these promo credits to recruit buyers.
FT is the number one micro-stock site in Europe and is picking up speed around the world! I have always believed that FT has had my best interest in mind as their successes equate to my success. I would both love and hate it if all the top micro-stockers were at FT. Love it because the quality of imagery would be so high that the lions share of the buyers would have to be there too. Hate it because the competition would be so fierce I would really have to step up my game. I'm willing to do it if you want to give it a shot come on over!
For what it's worth guys, I'm sorry that you are getting dumped on so rough at IS. Especially those of you that are exclusive. If any of you have any questions about FT I'm happy to answer them. I'm not always a shameless cheerleader, I'll give straight answers to the best of my ability and if I don't know the answer I will try to find it for you.
Good luck all,
Mat Hayward
Unfortunately, your message above is wrought with reciprocal messages. Just about everything you mention above turned out to be the opposite for FT after they followed suit with Istock.
-
Unfortunately, your message above is wrought with reciprocal messages. Just about everything you mention above turned out to be the opposite for FT after they followed suit with Istock.
No, not really. The only point that has changed for Mat is that his files no longer cost 5 credits for an XS sale (it has been limited to 3 credits). His royalty rate of 54 percent has stayed the same, and FT still is the market leader in Europe. He still has no upload limit (neither has anybody else), and he can still submit to the infinite collection. I'm sure the emeralds (exclusive and not) will be affected by the next royalty cut, but the deal that he as an exclusive emerald has got still looks to me like one not to be found anywhere else.
-
Unfortunately, your message above is wrought with reciprocal messages. Just about everything you mention above turned out to be the opposite for Fotolia after they followed suit with Istock.
No, not really. The only point that has changed for Mat is that his files no longer cost 5 credits for an XS sale (it has been limited to 3 credits). His royalty rate of 54 percent has stayed the same, and Fotolia still is the market leader in Europe. He still has no upload limit (neither has anybody else), and he can still submit to the infinite collection. I'm sure the emeralds (exclusive and not) will be affected by the next royalty cut, but the deal that he as an exclusive emerald has got still looks to me like one not to be found anywhere else.
Yes but applying his message to all contributors isn't the same. Royalties have been cut and the rudeness they have practiced when doing this by sanitizing their forums is right in line with what he is insinuating Fotolia wouldn't do, but they did. Now, did he have any way of knowing this? That's a different issue. Shows how fast businesses can change.
-
Unfortunately, your message above is wrought with reciprocal messages. Just about everything you mention above turned out to be the opposite for Fotolia after they followed suit with Istock.
No, not really. The only point that has changed for Mat is that his files no longer cost 5 credits for an XS sale (it has been limited to 3 credits). His royalty rate of 54 percent has stayed the same, and Fotolia still is the market leader in Europe. He still has no upload limit (neither has anybody else), and he can still submit to the infinite collection. I'm sure the emeralds (exclusive and not) will be affected by the next royalty cut, but the deal that he as an exclusive emerald has got still looks to me like one not to be found anywhere else.
Yes but applying his message to all contributors isn't the same. Royalties have been cut and the rudeness they have practiced when doing this by sanitizing their forums is right in line with what he is insinuating Fotolia wouldn't do, but they did. Now, did he have any way of knowing this? That's a different issue. Shows how fast businesses can change.
He didn't apply his message to all contributors (cf. the title of the thread). The conditions changed for the lower-ranked contributors, which he isn't.
As for insinutaing that FT would not cut commissions, I'm not sure. He was only stating his reality at FT and comparing with IS. And as I said, he still has a much better commision deal that most of us.
-
I'm also at Fotolia, and quite content about it. Not there as exclusive though. Good sales there every day
Good sales here too, and not exclusive, either. Great site.