Author Topic: It's time to favor fair sites like 123RF and boycott greedy ones like fotolia (Read 15185 times)

Sammy · « **on:** September 24, 2011, 04:25 »

Just my 2 cents... why don't we all contributors do something to favor fair sites like 123RF, canstock, veer, etc.. and put boycott on the greedy screwing ones like fotolia and istock? Seems like "Big 4" have carte blanche to do with the constributors what they want and we do absolutely nothing. What if a massive amount of people starts to drop those * sites and go to fair ones? what about all of you big contributors with web pages and a good background of customers bring your customers to fair sites? just stop sharing greedy sites banners on your pages, stop giving them a single $ of your comissions, try to move your customers to other sites...

fujiko · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:35 »

Veer?

After they introduce a subscription plan where the more images the client downloads from you or others, the less you get?

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:46 »

While those 3 sites are better than some of the really greedy ones, they could be better.

The sites that I think give a fair deal to microstock contributors are Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers. Sites that pay 50% or more commission with reasonable prices, aren't getting most of their sales from cheap subscriptions and have well designed websites that are easy to use. Unfortunately, they need a lot more buyers. I hope that more can be persuaded to move from sites that have cut commissions and are making it hard to see a future for microstock.

Sammy · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2011, 07:33 »

Say stockfresh, say depositphotos, anyway... what I mean is just leave the most greedy sites and go to less ones...

fritz · « **Reply #4 on:** September 26, 2011, 08:48 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 24, 2011, 05:46

While those 3 sites are better than some of the really greedy ones, they could be better.

The sites that I think give a fair deal to microstock contributors are Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers. Sites that pay 50% or more commission with reasonable prices, aren't getting most of their sales from cheap subscriptions and have well designed websites that are easy to use. Unfortunately, they need a lot more buyers. I hope that more can be persuaded to move from sites that have cut commissions and are making it hard to see a future for microstock.

You're right but there is one small problem with fair microstock sites. No downloads or very few. For instance GL give me 50% commission for 6$ photo and iS commission is 18% and I get for Large Regular 3.00$.
I can't see any difference apart from that iS downloads are 100x higher than GL CanStockPhoto DP 123 DT FT ...........
And that's the most important right?

Allsa · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2011, 09:07 »

I think we need to find a way to help the fair sites advertise. The greedy sites have been using the power of crowd sourcing against us - why not use that same power to help the sites that treat us fairly? We could use websites, blogs, facebook, twitter, networking, ect, ect... If we do this sort of thing collectively, I would think our seer numbers would be bound to have a significant impact! Thoughts, anyone?

serg269 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2011, 09:31 »

It's funny that I asked Fotolia to close my account exactly today

This decision is mostly based on:
1. Unfair policy to force my videos to be sold by subscription low prices.
2. Unfair subscription prices for still images.
3. Inability to clearly understand the rejection reason for a particular image and learn by mistake from that - there is a bunch of possible reasons, but not the exact one.
4. Low income overall.
5. A lot of useless third-party partners who flooded my automated search for stolen images.

lagereek · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2011, 09:50 »

Yes, well your 2 cents donjt go very far, 123= appalling reviewing, some automated softwares, and many of the others, non existant. I rather have a lot from greedy *insult removed*, then nothing from wannabees.

sharpshot · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2011, 09:52 »

Quote from: alexmk on September 26, 2011, 08:48

Quote from: sharpshot on September 24, 2011, 05:46
While those 3 sites are better than some of the really greedy ones, they could be better.

The sites that I think give a fair deal to microstock contributors are Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers. Sites that pay 50% or more commission with reasonable prices, aren't getting most of their sales from cheap subscriptions and have well designed websites that are easy to use. Unfortunately, they need a lot more buyers. I hope that more can be persuaded to move from sites that have cut commissions and are making it hard to see a future for microstock.
You're right but there is one small problem with fair microstock sites. No downloads or very few. For instance GL give me 50% commission for 6$ photo and iS commission is 18% and I get for Large Regular 3.00$.
I can't see any difference apart from that iS downloads are 100x higher than GL CanStockPhoto DP 123 DT FT ...........
And that's the most important right?

It's most important if all I am concerned about is how much I am going to earn this month. What about the future? How much does the istock buyer spend on the photo that you get $3 for? Much more than they spend with GL. How likely is it that your 18% commission is going to be cut again? I think very likely. Will they encourage buyers to go to thinkstock, where you will get $0.28 for that download? That's already happening. Then you have to compete with images from Getty and the ones they own. Do I really want to keep supplying sites when it looks like my future earnings are going to sink?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #9 on:** September 26, 2011, 12:00 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 26, 2011, 09:50

...I rather have a lot from greedy *insult removed*, then nothing from wannabees.

That's the sad truth. I put a good chunk of my portfolio on Stockfresh (for example) but the returns just aren't there. 50% of zero is still zero...

cthoman · « **Reply #10 on:** September 26, 2011, 12:10 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 26, 2011, 12:00

Quote from: lagereek on September 26, 2011, 09:50
...I rather have a lot from greedy *insult removed*, then nothing from wannabees.

That's the sad truth. I put a good chunk of my portfolio on Stockfresh (for example) but the returns just aren't there. 50% of zero is still zero...

There's definitely something to that. I guess it comes down to whether you are planning for the future or just taking what is in front of you now. I think you can take baby steps and do both. That may be the most practical way to do it.

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** September 26, 2011, 12:17 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 26, 2011, 12:00

Quote from: lagereek on September 26, 2011, 09:50
...I rather have a lot from greedy *insult removed*, then nothing from wannabees.

That's the sad truth. I put a good chunk of my portfolio on Stockfresh (for example) but the returns just aren't there. 50% of zero is still zero...

Yes and youre right! its sad, its got to be that way, there are many smaller brillant agencies but unfortuantely they are never given the chance. Somwhow, buyers tend to think, the bigger they are the better.
Its a way of life.

disorderly · « **Reply #12 on:** September 26, 2011, 12:57 »

As much as I appreciate the deal offered by sites like StockFresh and Graphic Leftovers and Zoonar (80%? How great is that!), it means nothing if they can't deliver sales. And none of them have, at least not lately. $1.50 from SF last month and nothing now. $3.12 from GL last month and the same this month. Nothing from Zoonar since April, when I made all of 2.24 Euros. Why should I believe they'll do better? The financial ads say that past performance is no indicator of future results. Still, you're foolish to expect more than that.

PedroV · « **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2011, 13:46 »

I agree

Xalanx · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2011, 14:13 »

Quote from: disorderly on September 26, 2011, 12:57

As much as I appreciate the deal offered by sites like StockFresh and Graphic Leftovers and Zoonar (80%? How great is that!), it means nothing if they can't deliver sales. And none of them have, at least not lately. $1.50 from SF last month and nothing now. $3.12 from GL last month and the same this month. Nothing from Zoonar since April, when I made all of 2.24 Euros. Why should I believe they'll do better? The financial ads say that past performance is no indicator of future results. Still, you're foolish to expect more than that.

You're right, but there are sites that deliver sales and treat contributors fairly. See Veer and 123RF for example.

Allsa · « **Reply #15 on:** September 30, 2011, 14:21 »

Fotolia started out playing fair and treating contributors well, but then they became successful and got greedy. Shutterstock has maintained their integrity all along, which is why they're on top while FT and IS continue to sink. A wannabee site may treat us well in the present, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will continue to treat us well if and when they do become successful.

I almost pulled my portfolio from IS in anger, and I considered it with FT as well. That step is too drastic to take, yet I think I should try to do something to favor the good guys, and and find some small way to 'punish' the abusers. I know I'm not important to any agency, but I feel I should at least try to give the good guys some sort of advantage. So far the only thing I've done is I've stopped uploading to IS and FT. It's not much, but it's something. Make me feel a little better, anyway.

disorderly · « **Reply #16 on:** September 30, 2011, 15:57 »

Quote from: Xalanx on September 30, 2011, 14:13

Quote from: disorderly on September 26, 2011, 12:57
As much as I appreciate the deal offered by sites like StockFresh and Graphic Leftovers and Zoonar (80%? How great is that!), it means nothing if they can't deliver sales. And none of them have, at least not lately. $1.50 from SF last month and nothing now. $3.12 from GL last month and the same this month. Nothing from Zoonar since April, when I made all of 2.24 Euros. Why should I believe they'll do better? The financial ads say that past performance is no indicator of future results. Still, you're foolish to expect more than that.

You're right, but there are sites that deliver sales and treat contributors fairly. See Veer and 123RF for example.

Oh, agreed. I supply both and have been pleased with the results. My response was more about those agencies that were called out for their royalty rates but which haven't yet produced much in the way of actual income.

Xalanx · « **Reply #17 on:** September 30, 2011, 15:59 »

Quote from: disorderly on September 30, 2011, 15:57

Quote from: Xalanx on September 30, 2011, 14:13
Quote from: disorderly on September 26, 2011, 12:57
As much as I appreciate the deal offered by sites like StockFresh and Graphic Leftovers and Zoonar (80%? How great is that!), it means nothing if they can't deliver sales. And none of them have, at least not lately. $1.50 from SF last month and nothing now. $3.12 from GL last month and the same this month. Nothing from Zoonar since April, when I made all of 2.24 Euros. Why should I believe they'll do better? The financial ads say that past performance is no indicator of future results. Still, you're foolish to expect more than that.

You're right, but there are sites that deliver sales and treat contributors fairly. See Veer and 123RF for example.

Oh, agreed. I supply both and have been pleased with the results. My response was more about those agencies that were called out for their royalty rates but which haven't yet produced much in the way of actual income.

Yeah.
I (with regrets and slight disappointment) dropped Stockfresh few days ago, removing all my images. I don't believe that site will ever rise even though we all wished it.

stockastic · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2011, 10:53 »

Many photographers read all the good buzz about sites like GL and CC, and find that it's easy to submit to them, and so those sites end up with lots of contributors. But they don't have lots of sales. So while these small agencies might make enough money to support themselves, individual contributors can't make enough for it to be worthwhile and we quit submitting. I've had about 150 photos on CC for over 2 years and made 20 cents. I get about one sale every few weeks at GL.

The ratio of contributors to buyers is just too high.

borg · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:26 »

But whole the time you can try to redirect buyers to agencies with better deal for you...

50% on GL is always better than 15% or 13%...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:30 »

Quote from: borg on October 01, 2011, 12:26

But whole the time you can try to redirect buyers to agencies with better deal for you...

50% on GL is always better than 15% on IS or 13% on FT...

that´s true but what can we do to redirect buyers? tweet or facebook them all day? I never promote my work thats true but hey that should be an agency problem, sure we can help but how?

borg · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:35 »

Social networks are good for promoting, but there is also other ways such as blogs, emails, etc.

But,if hundreds of us leave on social networks messages like this: "From now, my new photos will be available first on these microstock sites, all other sites will get those images after 3 month or more"....

That is the process not over night...

I think its time to help and reward good agencies...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:40 »

Quote from: borg on October 01, 2011, 12:35

Social networks are good for promoting, but there is also other ways such as blogs, emails, etc.

But,if hundreds of us leave on social networks messages like this: "From now, my new photos will be available first on these microstock sites, all other sites will get those images after 3 month or more"....

That is the process not over night...

agree and it does make sense but I don´t see myself having a twitter, facebook or a blog with just a "promoting" intention and give "hours" of work! I know tons of people promoting hard on twitter mainly a lot of zazzle stuff which I find boring and annoying and I UNfollow immediately but they are collecting hard too..

stockastic · « **Reply #23 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:51 »

I'm not currently doing microstock photos but when I do, I continue to submit to GL. Unfortunately I had to give up on CC, there is just no demand for my stuff there. I go round and round in my head trying to think of how these agencies might start to gain ground. All I ever come up with is that they'd need to differentiate themselves and specialize, somehow.

tdoes · « **Reply #24 on:** October 01, 2011, 17:03 »

Quote from: borg on October 01, 2011, 12:35

Social networks are good for promoting, but there is also other ways such as blogs, emails, etc.

But,if hundreds of us leave on social networks messages like this: "From now, my new photos will be available first on these microstock sites, all other sites will get those images after 3 month or more"....

That is the process not over night...

I think its time to help and reward good agencies...

Agree! I always make the time to promote my business ventures and hobbies! Self promotion gives you control on how successful your ventures will be and you'll only get better the more you do it! The internet provides a lot of effective resources for online promotion. The more you showcase your work on the agencies that provide you with the best rate of return then the more exposure these agencies will get! No agency grows by itself!

pancaketom · « **Reply #25 on:** October 01, 2011, 18:17 »

Quote from: tdoes on October 01, 2011, 17:03

....

No agency grows by itself!

Well, they certainly should be for 40-85% of the take. Maybe some place like the old featurepics wouldn't grow itself and you had to market your own stuff, but you also got 75% of each sale.

I'm all for helping out the sites that pay well but it shouldn't be expected or required.

FD · « **Reply #26 on:** October 01, 2011, 18:25 »

Quote from: Sammy on September 24, 2011, 04:25

Just my 2 cents... why don't we all contributors do something to favor fair sites like 123RF, canstock, veer, etc.. and put boycott on the greedy screwing ones like fotolia and istock?

Perhaps because FT makes me 1 1/2 as much as what 123 makes and 4 times of what CanStockPhoto makes?

rinderart · « **Reply #27 on:** October 01, 2011, 19:44 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 26, 2011, 12:00

Quote from: lagereek on September 26, 2011, 09:50
...I rather have a lot from greedy *insult removed*, then nothing from wannabees.

That's the sad truth. I put a good chunk of my portfolio on Stockfresh (for example) but the returns just aren't there. 50% of zero is still zero...

+1.

fritz · « **Reply #28 on:** October 01, 2011, 19:49 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 26, 2011, 09:52

Quote from: alexmk on September 26, 2011, 08:48
Quote from: sharpshot on September 24, 2011, 05:46
While those 3 sites are better than some of the really greedy ones, they could be better.

The sites that I think give a fair deal to microstock contributors are Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers. Sites that pay 50% or more commission with reasonable prices, aren't getting most of their sales from cheap subscriptions and have well designed websites that are easy to use. Unfortunately, they need a lot more buyers. I hope that more can be persuaded to move from sites that have cut commissions and are making it hard to see a future for microstock.
You're right but there is one small problem with fair microstock sites. No downloads or very few. For instance GL give me 50% commission for 6$ photo and iS commission is 18% and I get for Large Regular 3.00$.
I can't see any difference apart from that iS downloads are 100x higher than GL CanStockPhoto DP 123 DT FT ...........
And that's the most important right?
It's most important if all I am concerned about is how much I am going to earn this month. What about the future? How much does the istock buyer spend on the photo that you get $3 for? Much more than they spend with GL. How likely is it that your 18% commission is going to be cut again? I think very likely. Will they encourage buyers to go to thinkstock, where you will get $0.28 for that download? That's already happening. Then you have to compete with images from Getty and the ones they own. Do I really want to keep supplying sites when it looks like my future earnings are going to sink?

What about the microstock future? Well I don't know. But I know one thing! At the moment I earn only from Thikstock as much as I earn from DT and FT together. If the future is not bright suppose I'll have to move to Tibet or Vis(small Croatian island) -tell me if you know better place.
It's peaceful and quiet to do photography for myself and don't have to make those stupid shallow stock concept which unfortunately are selling best. Well the entire marketing industry sucks.
There is always way out but you have to find the right way to go.
I'm good to go are you?

sharpshot · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2011, 01:32 »

Quote from: alexmk on October 01, 2011, 19:49

...At the moment I earn only from Thikstock as much as I earn from DT and FT together....

Going by other peoples earnings reports, I don't think you can be doing well with DT and FT. And I expect none of us will earn much from Thinkstock when all the non-exclusives on istock have their images moved there. As soon as those millions of images go on, earnings are going to be severely diluted.

lagereek · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2011, 02:08 »

I rather have a lot from a greedy agency then nothing from a fair and nice agency. This is unfortunately the way it works, this must be the only industry where the bad guys always seem to win.

promoting one agency before another is just an opportune way of thinking, since this very agency might turn and go sour the very next day. We see this all the time.

In my 5 years in micro there are only 2 agencies that have stuck like glue to their promisses and acted accordingly, SS and DT. Thats it. The rest are totally unpredictable, swaying their coats with the winds.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2011, 02:18 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 02, 2011, 01:32

Quote from: alexmk on October 01, 2011, 19:49
...At the moment I earn only from Thikstock as much as I earn from DT and FT together....
Going by other peoples earnings reports, I don't think you can be doing well with DT and FT. And I expect none of us will earn much from Thinkstock when all the non-exclusives on istock have their images moved there. As soon as those millions of images go on, earnings are going to be severely diluted.

I've been wondering about that. We don't know how many people boycotted it. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of independents didn't bother to opt out. There may only be a few dozen in the top ranks of non-exclusives who were boycotting. If so, then forcing them to participate would be of no great importance to Getty, except as a prelude to telling the exclusives that they are all going to be pushed into it, too, probably including their most up-to-date content. Look for an announcement of that in January, since they say they will finish transferring all the independents by the year end.

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** October 02, 2011, 04:21 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 02, 2011, 02:18

I've been wondering about that. We don't know how many people boycotted it (Thinkstock). My guess is that the overwhelming majority of independents didn't bother to opt out. There may only be a few dozen in the top ranks of non-exclusives who were boycotting. If so, then forcing them to participate would be of no great importance to Getty, except as a prelude to telling the exclusives that they are all going to be pushed into it, too, probably including their most up-to-date content. Look for an announcement of that in January, since they say they will finish transferring all the independents by the year end.

From the poll last week, out of the 108 who have voted, about 50% of them declared themselves to not have images at TS.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/did-you-receive-ft's-email-and-do-you-have-images-at-ts-or-pd/msg221262/?topicseen#new

lagereek · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2011, 06:10 »

Yes, but, according to the latest change of agreement, as I remember it, there was little option, was it? independants with big ports, either participated or got the boot.
As Lisa said, if you have a big port, its just too much to lose.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2011, 06:15 »

Quote from: lagereek on October 02, 2011, 02:08

I rather have a lot from a greedy agency then nothing from a fair and nice agency. This is unfortunately the way it works, this must be the only industry where the bad guys always seem to win.

But as independents we don't have to choose! We can take what we can from the greedy agencies AND support small sites (if upload process is easy) as an investment for the future - despite their almost non-existent (but growing) sales

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: It's time to favor fair sites like 123RF and boycott greedy ones like fotolia (Read 15185 times)

fujiko

lagereek

lagereek

Xalanx

Xalanx

rinderart

lagereek

lagereek

microstockphoto.co.uk

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors