pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

freepik should be terminated?

Yes [They are terminating already almost dead stock industry!]
27 (55.1%)
No [I love them much!]
3 (6.1%)
I don't care.
19 (38.8%)

Total Members Voted: 48

Author Topic: Poll on freepik [name just speaks for itself]  (Read 1838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2020, 00:43 »
+1
There are many more destroyers apart from this website.
like pngtree, pikbest, lovepik, vecteezy etc.

they offer same free works and I hate them too.


« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2020, 02:34 »
+1
Freepik are just the worst of a bad crowd agreed.

I also agree with the previous posts that they are seeing a lot of success from their ridiculously unscrupulous practices.

On this thread we haven't even gone into on them employing an army of their own staff to imitate the best selling images on the other stock site (but if you search the forum you will find examples).

Do you think that they aren't also looking at their own collection and creating in house versions of contributors' most downloaded work so they can deliver to clients without having to split revenue? And yet people are dumb/ short sighted enough to just give them their work, taking all the risk to provide the market research for them.

They have the Uber mentality, drivers are an unnecessary burden until automated vehicles mean they can throw them all out.
 
No contributors who will give their work away for your low traffic site? Just steal our work from Chinese warez sites and sell it via subscription as if it is yours.
Have enough traffic/ income from the stolen work to rope in some contributors? Add their work.
Don't like paying contributors? Employ army of your own illustrators to copy best selling work, undercut other sites and take their sales even on your own site.




spacedrone808

  • spacedrone808


« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2020, 02:55 »
0
freepik is temporary success, for sure.
They are just biting the hand that feeds them.

« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2020, 03:16 »
0
freepik is temporary success, for sure.
They are just biting the hand that feeds them.
I don't know. They could take over the market eventually by replacing more and more contributor downloads with more of their own in-house content. It could already be too late for Adobe or SS to pull the plug on their referral income, which I believe is what sustained them as a site for a long time. I guess at least we aren't the only ones shooting ourselves in the foot.

georgep7

« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2020, 03:38 »
0
freepik is temporary success, for sure.
They are just biting the hand that feeds them.
I don't know. They could take over the market eventually by replacing more and more contributor downloads with more of their own in-house content. It could already be too late for Adobe or SS to pull the plug on their referral income, which I believe is what sustained them as a site for a long time. I guess at least we aren't the only ones shooting ourselves in the foot.

Still a newbie, still low to no sales but what i consider as "the market", is clients browsing inside marketplaces i contribute. Perhaps i am wrong though or just misread the statement. I dunno.

EDIT, on a second thought, i have to agree that indeed the market is shrinking due to free sites.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 03:43 by georgep7 »

« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2020, 12:07 »
+1
They give customers maximum quality at an affordable price. In addition, they give the option that if it is not in their agency you can acquire it in another agency, after the appropriate commission, also, while you browse their website you generate views of their Google advertising. Quite simply, to say that this agency is temporary is to say a lot. Actually, they can't go unless. They can only grow month by month. If collaborators turn their backs on mass, they will last a year on the market. The situation has to occur that all its collaborators close the accounts. They have more open websites, they work more things besides photographs and vectors. To deny them affiliation by large agencies is to blind them to the market. Not only do they benefit from users who do not buy from them through third-party commission but from advertising, but they guide them where the sale that escapes their portfolio is. Presumably and it is simply a conjecture, mere speculation, theory. All this, with modern, close marketing, extreme quality and a new international record, have hired a theoretically eminence, a recognized winner in other companies, a star in the sector for its new international expansion. In addition, with external collaborations, which facilitate the vision of the portfolio if you collaborate as an ambassador for your agency, promoting your agency on social networks or websites. They succeed a lot, month by month. Your collaborators earn money. And apparently a lot of money. Of course, not everyone enters the agency, they are very demanding.

True exercise of faith in what they pay you, I suppose. But, that it is temporary, I don't think so. They are monopolizing the market and it seems that their progressive rise has no ceiling.

« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2020, 16:22 »
0
They give customers maximum quality at an affordable price. In addition, they give the option that if it is not in their agency you can acquire it in another agency, after the appropriate commission, also, while you browse their website you generate views of their Google advertising. Quite simply, to say that this agency is temporary is to say a lot. Actually, they can't go unless. They can only grow month by month. If collaborators turn their backs on mass, they will last a year on the market. The situation has to occur that all its collaborators close the accounts. They have more open websites, they work more things besides photographs and vectors. To deny them affiliation by large agencies is to blind them to the market. Not only do they benefit from users who do not buy from them through third-party commission but from advertising, but they guide them where the sale that escapes their portfolio is. Presumably and it is simply a conjecture, mere speculation, theory. All this, with modern, close marketing, extreme quality and a new international record, have hired a theoretically eminence, a recognized winner in other companies, a star in the sector for its new international expansion. In addition, with external collaborations, which facilitate the vision of the portfolio if you collaborate as an ambassador for your agency, promoting your agency on social networks or websites. They succeed a lot, month by month. Your collaborators earn money. And apparently a lot of money. Of course, not everyone enters the agency, they are very demanding.

True exercise of faith in what they pay you, I suppose. But, that it is temporary, I don't think so. They are monopolizing the market and it seems that their progressive rise has no ceiling.

Excellent analysis.

« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2020, 18:13 »
0
Tenebroso, 6 months ago they paid 0.11 per download, 5 months ago, 0.10, 4 months ago at 0.09, 3 months ago at 0.08, last month and May at 0.07 ... I don't know if you see the trend, but I wonder how much the images will be sold in FPK in the near future ... And I have heard that in a few months they will start offering videos ...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 08:59 by Yakystockero »

« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2020, 19:00 »
0

Thank you, hatman12

Cheers, @Yakystockero

The agency is very smart. If the economy falls, if sales fall, if sales disperse, it must be understood that income is divided by the current day, adapted to the sales of the day, if you have a higher rank, you charge more.

If many images are downloaded that day, the income is lower. They never lose, obviously, they will be expanding on video, of course, they tighten the market to the maximum.

I do not defend them. I do not represent them. They simply do not fail. That more or less is charged does not represent that the company grows. Some collaborators may earn more than others, logically. It is charged in relation to dividing the benefit of the day, between the daily service to customers.

In many places sales fall. This company is maintained. They started by linking free images from third parties, and only by advertising they earned money. Regardless of whether the images were on sites with copyright or not. They were third party sources.

Contributors are making money. That they are going to disappear, they would not be thinking about the videos. This company is not temporary.

I don't like their system, but let's take the calculation of income away, if you have sales, they can pay more or less and with difficult control, exercise of spiritual faith. But they are income. And it should be noted that all income adds up. And they sell. In addition, they do not hide, if you advertise the agency, they give you more visibility. They are very smart.

Ethically, I dislike them a lot. But economically they are working. And with galactic numbers. Collaborators affirm that their month, what they lose in other agencies, they recover with this one.

Some compare it to SS from the beginning.

They do not stipulate a fixed price for any file, it depends on the downloads of each day. But it seems that in the market, there are many images downloaded from this agency, which are not downloaded from other agencies. It depends on the downloads of the day and the profit of the agency, on that day.

« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2020, 09:06 »
+1
Yes, but if you sell 1,000 images at 0.11 = 110 profit. At 0.06 per image = 60. And you will see that price in a month or two ...

I wonder if, as professional photographers, it is worth flooding the stock market with thousands of our photos for 60 / month
A few months ago, FPK was my first agency in income, then the second, now it is the third, behind SS and AdobeS, and tied with Istock in 3rd place. Is it worth selling 1,000 images for 60? Doesn't that dilute our sales in other agencies? Does it not degrade our own portfolios in agencies where you can earn 5, 10 or 20 times more for the same image?

I have stopped uploading photos to fpk this month, and I will think if it pays me to continue uploading. If I want to delete my photos, I will have to wait a full year due to their policies ...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 09:08 by Yakystockero »

« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2020, 10:26 »
0
No one else is arguing that is is a good agency to upload to. Just that they have some success with their cut-throat tactics.

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2020, 11:10 »
0
 Spotify of stock. If you have a niche, dont upload there. Only for 2007 burned images

« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2020, 11:59 »
0
Cut-throat tactics .I like that definition, correct. Thank you.


That is the problem, many downloads, clients with good material at a very low price, but as the market is going, that is just the dilemma, charging little or nothing at that agency. They sell a lot, occupying a market and taking value of work and clients to other agencies. I totally agree, that is the dilemma, they sell a lot and the profit is minimal per unit sold, but they sell a lot. This is unfair competition, in my theory. But they exist, and they work.


And I am afraid that SS is at the moment of deciding to charge a fee adapted to the country, as TV series companies, with a different fee in Turkey than the USA, conclusion, it is probable that in SS and AS it is determined to charge a fee according to the country of sale, sales will go up and commission will go down per unit. The dilemma of charging more per volume will enter, being the unit, the file with very low value.



It is the market, perhaps, to raise the price per unit of prestige to the agency, but I am afraid that the premium or VIP sectors do that in each agency, therefore, the next movement will revolve in charge less to customers and opening the market those potential customers who can't afford the USA prices. New customers who can't afford to pay those prices. More in the Great World Depression that is coming.

On this assumption, we will be in the same situation, but generalized, more sales and less value to work. But this is about volume.

« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2020, 14:21 »
0
Spotify of stock. If you have a niche, dont upload there. Only for 2007 burned images


Good point. Lohasclavao.

georgep7

« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2020, 14:56 »
0
Quote
potential customers who can't afford the USA prices

tenebroso I think that I agree with your logic from all your thoughts.
But "can't afford your price" was many client's argument since I remember my self.
The real argument was "I don't value you or your work that much"
either, "I like your work but I don't want to pay this amount of money".
In both cases, it seems more preferable to drop the client or the agency.
It is hard to say "f*ck it, I will delete my portfolio" here or there
but in some cases perhaps, might, maybe it is the only way to sleep calm at nights.
Still a newbie but I already recall some frustrating days with conflicts, sh*tty prices and "good news".

« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2020, 15:11 »
0
I subscribe your words. Totally. Hola, @ georgep7

The only thing, I value your comments, please, sales do not describe people, they do not add or subtract value. Please do not say more if you are new to the business or not. Opinions are opinions. No one has the absolute truth. A hug.

We are all rookie experts.

Shelma1

« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2020, 16:14 »
+1
Shutterstock and Adobe brought this on themselves. I complained to Shutterstock about Freepik stealing dozens of my illustrations from them and giving them away for free for years and they did nothing, allowing Freepik to make money with stolen work by being an affiliate. Now Adobe allows it. Unfortunately, we'll be the ones to suffer for it.


« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2020, 18:04 »
0
Yes, they started like this, with free images. Some images, apparently, of very doubtful gratuitousness, always supposedly.


I understand your unpleasant experience, verified as affected, and it is sad, I understand you perfectly. Today, it seems that they work their portfolio with great care. Currently, as its own portfolio, in the situation of two equal images, the two channels were out, the two channels expelled until verifying which is the real author, today. It looks like.



Adobe. Objectively, obtaining an income from third parties based on affiliation agreements is a profitable business. It brings you closer to customers who otherwise do not access them. Through third parties, you enter money that you share with third parties.

Apparently it is, a good thing. I personally would add one more clause in the contracts. Membership is accepted, except with agencies that have their own microstock archiving agency.

Since, month to month, they tell them the sales that come through them. Therefore, the agency that receives the commission knows that the clients have looked outside, something that they do not have. A perfect working guide. A double benefit. Of course, pure theory, nothing proven, pure conjecture.

However, losing SS this affiliation is to stop receiving income but on the other hand, to earn income by not sharing with third parties, what SS clients buy. I think AS will be leaving this affiliation soon. They are pure guesses, thoughts out loud. For me, an incorrect decision by AS and a relief from the traffic in SS.


EDITADO
Prejudice, I think the collaborators and AS lose. Both were injured. Affiliate benefit, supposedly. We lose all but them.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 18:13 by Tenebroso »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
6070 Views
Last post January 30, 2014, 01:43
by Jo Ann Snover
2 Replies
14468 Views
Last post September 23, 2015, 07:57
by elsystudio
5 Replies
3137 Views
Last post May 11, 2020, 16:15
by charged
8 Replies
5206 Views
Last post December 15, 2017, 10:29
by Ilfede
15 Replies
1647 Views
Last post January 08, 2020, 15:14
by georgep7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle