Author Topic: Going exclusive... Before and after. (Read 22875 times)

Pheby · « **Reply #50 on:** October 20, 2009, 21:55 »

It might be a bad business decision, but Fotolia never really minded slapping the faces of their photographers, did they?

Someone pointed out the fact that they had found a contributor to have gold status but only 2 sales on the German forum today. The moderator said he had no idea and would find out about it. I can't wait to read no answer to that tomorrow. Probably the thread will have vanished.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #51 on:** October 20, 2009, 22:01 »

I wonder if Fotolia even knows about that press release or if he just made it himself.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 20, 2009, 22:10 »

Fotolia's management team has never been the poster boy of good decision making. This will most likely backfire, and I would hope that the contributors who work hard for this would make a gigantic stink about it.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** October 21, 2009, 00:24 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 20, 2009, 22:01

I wonder if Fotolia even knows about that press release or if he just made it himself.

From the release on PR Web is the following quote:

"Having had the privilege of collaborating with Jim DeLillo in the past, I know his exceptional portfolio will only enhance Fotolia's collection of over seven million images," says Garth Johnson, Fotolia Executive Vice President, North America. "We welcome him to the Fotolia community with open arms."

That's a direct quote from a Fotolia employee in the press release and it mentions the photographer's name and welcoming him with open arms. I'd say FT knows about the release (OTOH this is the era of balloon boy and amazing hoaxes for publicity's sake, so one never knows

)

sharpshot · « **Reply #54 on:** October 21, 2009, 00:47 »

eppic · « **Reply #55 on:** October 21, 2009, 07:52 »

Ive been watching this thread with a fair bit of interest as Ive also toyed with the idea of going exclusive with IS as Ive been eligible for awhile now.
IS accounts for roughly 2/3 of my total stock earnings and that has been consistent since March, but the kicker is that just one image in my port there is responsible for about 75% of what I earn at IS (its double flamed now). If that image loses popularity, which Im sure it will eventually, then my IS earnings will drop significantly unless other images step up to the plate for me.
Here's where my involvement with DT has helped me put the brakes on doing anything rash due to that 6 month image period.
However I may reconsider going exclusive with IS once I reach the 2500 DL tier, which should be within a year's time.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:02 »

Quote from: eppic on October 21, 2009, 07:52

IS accounts for roughly 2/3 of my total stock earnings and that has been consistent since March, but the kicker is that just one image in my port there is responsible for about 75% of what I earn at IS (its double flamed now). If that image loses popularity, which Im sure it will eventually, then my IS earnings will drop significantly unless other images step up to the plate for me.

To be honest, if you're in any way serious about trying to preserve your earnings or the longevity of your precious best-sellers, then it's probably best not to post handy links to them on public forums. I can almost hear the sound of compasses and walking boots being dusted off all over the world.

travelstock · « **Reply #57 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:12 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 20, 2009, 18:07

I would of just reached gold now with the old FT limits, now I have another 5,000 downloads to go. Seeing them give away a gold ranking makes me so happy

This could backfire, I don't like the idea of exclusivity but if I was considering it, this might make me want to go to istock.

I think moves like this backfire on agencies already. There are a lot of contributors who are also buyers - probably a much larger portion on IS than anywhere else because they're IS exclusives.

An online marketplace that relies on crowd sourcing really isn't the place where you can look at your buyers and sellers as being completely separate. Even if someone isn't a buyer directly, chances are they talk to buyers and the subject of "where should I buy your photos" will come up. In that context - moving goalposts and this latest move just aren't smart.

Its also a reason why I think DT's pricing and commission moves don't seem to have paid off the dividends that they'd been calculating.

I can see why FT would want to poach IS exclusives - but they should really be upfront about it such as by announcing some sort of deal, rather than annoying the existing contributor base - especially by signing up someone with a mediocre portfolio half of which would probably be rejected in the normal inspection process.

gostwyck · « **Reply #58 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:23 »

Quote from: holgs on October 21, 2009, 08:12

I think moves like this backfire on agencies already. There are a lot of contributors who are also buyers - probably a much larger portion on IS than anywhere else because they're IS exclusives.

snip

I can see why FT would want to poach IS exclusives - but they should really be upfront about it such as by announcing some sort of deal, rather than annoying the existing contributor base - especially by signing up someone with a mediocre portfolio half of which would probably be rejected in the normal inspection process.

I'd agree. I've always thought it has been to Istock's considerable credit that there never appears to have been any obvious or significant bending of the rules to favour one contributor over another, irrespective of their status.

Losing the trust of your contributors is a dangerous game to play especially when, as you say, so many of them are buyers too.

cathyslife · « **Reply #59 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:37 »

Surely this is some sort of mistake?? Perhaps it sounds naive, but I can't believe Fotolia would intentionally jerry rig their tier system that way.

I don't think it's a mistake...businesses make these kinds of deals all the time. Sometimes I think top management thinks the rest of us are stupid and that we would never notice things like this. Or maybe they don't think we're stupid, they just don't give a crap as long as it's putting money in their pockets.

loop · « **Reply #60 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:48 »

Why couldn't they do that? Private supply agreement dosn't garantee that any other contributor wil come in by the same standard door. Afer all, it's a business.

FD · « **Reply #61 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:52 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 21, 2009, 08:02

To be honest, if you're in any way serious about trying to preserve your earnings or the longevity of your precious best-sellers, then it's probably best not to post handy links to them on public forums. I can almost hear the sound of compasses and walking boots being dusted off all over the world.

He has many imitators, look here.
But unlike Dreamstime with its new relevancy search (bypassing sales by default), iStock also takes sales into account. His nearest copy on the search page has only 9 downloads while Eppic on position #1 has over 500. One of my best selling concepts over sites that is easy to reshoot dropped off page #1 of Dreamstime since reshooters seem to use more "relevant" keywords, whatever sales. That's why my sales at DT are degrading and getting better at iStock, I guess. At least iStock doesn't favorite copycats.

travelstock · « **Reply #62 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:54 »

Quote from: loop on October 21, 2009, 09:48

Why couldn't they do that? Private supply agreement dosn't garantee that any other contributor wil come in by the same standard door. Afer all, it's a business.

I agree - all sorts of deals go on behind closed doors in this business. Fotolia are not the only ones.

@ Eppic... Istock's best match favors IS exclusive copycats - but there's not too many of them on this forum so you should be ok!

eppic · « **Reply #63 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:45 »

Lol maybe I shouldnt have said anything about that image, but its not an easy one to copy anyway, at least so far as getting that particular look (and that part I wont share with the class).
I honestly think it sells as more of a concept shot than it does as a hand and compass shot, so the copycatters can try copying the concept rather than the image itself.
Hey since I myself have just started contributing to Fotolia maybe I too can bump right into gold status? I can tell them I got this killer shot over at IS...

gostwyck · « **Reply #64 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:53 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 21, 2009, 09:37

[Or maybe they don't think we're stupid, they just don't give a crap as long as it's putting money in their pockets.

True enough Cathy. Sometimes they make it a bit too obvious that they've already got their exit strategy firmly in mind.

bittersweet · « **Reply #65 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:23 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on October 21, 2009, 09:52

He has many imitators, look here.
But unlike Dreamstime with its new relevancy search (bypassing sales by default), iStock also takes sales into account. His nearest copy on the search page has only 9 downloads while Eppic on position #1 has over 500. One of my best selling concepts over sites that is easy to reshoot dropped off page #1 of Dreamstime since reshooters seem to use more "relevant" keywords, whatever sales. That's why my sales at DT are degrading and getting better at iStock, I guess. At least iStock doesn't favorite copycats.

Sorting your results by age, it looks like more than half of his "imitators" uploaded their images before his. That's quite a trick!

FD · « **Reply #66 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:35 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 21, 2009, 12:23

Sorting your results by age, it looks like more than half of his "imitators" uploaded their images before his. That's quite a trick!

Yeah I didn't check age, stupid me. Right, I have a compass here. I still have to find a road that splits.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #67 on:** October 21, 2009, 13:31 »

Well, here you go - the answer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-operation-level-ground-attracts-artists-to-fotolia/msg0/?topicseen#new

RacePhoto · « **Reply #68 on:** October 21, 2009, 13:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 21, 2009, 13:31

Well, here you go - the answer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-operation-level-ground-attracts-artists-to-fotolia/msg0/?topicseen#new

It's specifically targeting roughly 500 top iStock Gold and above, exclusive level artists.

To participate in Operation Level Ground:
1. Artists choose at least 1,000 actively selling images to upload to Fotolia.
2. Prospective contributors provide proof of downloads or earnings to date. (12,000 downloads)
3. Fotolia reviews the application and upon approval assigns an equivalent ranking on www.fotolia.com.

cathyslife · « **Reply #69 on:** October 21, 2009, 20:09 »

And notice this caveat:

Some conditions apply: images are subject to approval. The minimum 1,000 images uploaded to Fotolia must currently be for sale either online or in-studio.

So if I have 1,000 photos on other sites that have already been approved, possibly by more than one site, and are making money, and they want to entice me to join their site, why on earth would they run all of those images back through the approval process with the possibility of rejecting some? That seems like a huge waste of time, unless that's the loophole to get them out of giving tons of new members gold status right off the bat.

lisafx · « **Reply #70 on:** October 22, 2009, 17:02 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 21, 2009, 13:53

Quote from: sjlocke on October 21, 2009, 13:31
Well, here you go - the answer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-operation-level-ground-attracts-artists-to-fotolia/msg0/?topicseen#new

It's specifically targeting roughly 500 top iStock Gold and above, exclusive level artists.

To participate in Operation Level Ground:
1. Artists choose at least 1,000 actively selling images to upload to Fotolia.
2. Prospective contributors provide proof of downloads or earnings to date. (12,000 downloads)
3. Fotolia reviews the application and upon approval assigns an equivalent ranking on www.fotolia.com.

Well this explains it.

I wonder how many istock high-level exclusives they will attract? If I was exclusive to istock this would not sway me to go independent unless I already planned to do so.

For one thing IS exclusives who are used to the favored treatment all exclusives get at Istock will be in for a rude awakening when they learn how Fotolia treats contributors

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Going exclusive... Before and after. (Read 22875 times)

Pheby

PaulieWalnuts

ichiro17

Jo Ann Snover

sharpshot

eppic

gostwyck

travelstock

gostwyck

cathyslife

loop

FD

travelstock

eppic

gostwyck

bittersweet

FD

Sean Locke Photography

RacePhoto

cathyslife

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors