MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: NeonRobot on May 11, 2020, 11:56
-
My opinion: people should stop uploading there before it's too late.
-
There's more to it than that. They started as a worse-than-warez site scrapping our already stolen work from pirate sites and monetizing it in exchange for not having to credit to their site. That is where the money came from to launch as this "legit" bargain basement site.
They are literally the worst and if you upload there you have 1. No self respect and 2. No common sense (if you think you can trust them with your work).
Oh and * SS for continuing to allow them referral income.
-
108% Agreed.
-
I just took a look at the site (I hadn't visited it in a long time) and it appears that Adobe Stock is their "partner"/referral site now. I didn't see SS images (but I'm sure they used to partner with freepik). I can imagine the justification from the agencies, but partnering with these bottom-of-the-barrel sites is very discouraging
I guess my major beef with freepix as a "premium" - i.e. paid - site is the 3,000 images per month for $11.99 (they say "unlimited" but it is all subject to daily limits). it's even cheaper if you pay for a year ($8.25 per month)
https://support.freepik.com/hc/en-us/articles/202567722-How-many-resources-can-I-download-?_ga=2.197257071.1985695260.1589226845-86432309.1589226845
Contributors get 50% of whatever the daily "take" is divided by their download tally. The site has about 2.5 million vectors and 4.5 million images (premium) so it's small compared to any of the other agencies.
The problem is that 50% of a very small number is a very small number.
https://support.freepik.com/hc/en-us/articles/212799769-FAQs-for-contributors?utm_source=landing-faqs&utm_medium=landing&utm_campaign=landing-faqs&_ga=2.129704140.1985695260.1589226845-86432309.1589226845
I have no idea how many actual subscribers they have, but look at the math with 1,000 hypothetical premium subscribers at $8.25 and a 30-day month. The daily take is then $275.
Let's assume subscribers don't download the 100 per day they're allowed, but only download 20. That totals 20K downloads total per day, so each has a value of $0.014.
Suppose you as a premium contributor get 50 downloads that day - your royalty will be half of 70 cents!
Even if you go with the $11.99 subscription and only 10 downloads for each subscriber ($399.67 daily take / 10,000) each download has a value of 4 cents, so your royalty on 50 downloads would be half of $2.00.
That's just madness
-
I voted "don't care" because i did my fight during Greek coronavirus campaigns that used freepik images and i was called from idiot to "self lover" to put it nicely while i was trying to explain even what attribution is.
There will always be free sites, there will always be people offering their or other people's work for free and there will always be clients asking for free stuff. At some point, it seems useless to fight those insticts.
Sorry, i think "termination" is wishfull thoughts and "i love it" is true for clients and individuals.
-
I was a premium uploader on freepik. There is currently a 7-8 cent commission to sell a picture. It is not worth it. When I started there the commission was 13 cents. Its getting worse year after year, our work is worth more than that. >:(
-
I was a premium uploader on freepik. There is currently a 7-8 cent commission to sell a picture. It is not worth it. When I started there the commission was 13 cents. Its getting worse year after year, our work is worth more than that. >:(
Well duh, of course. Did no one warn you that it wasn't sustainable? These sites are something like a pyramid scheme, in that only the first people to sign up make any money. The longer term results are destroying the market for everybody. At least you found out now I guess.
Are you allowed to delete your content?
EDIT: I just tracked down an email when they were trying to recruit me years ago (of course I told them where to stick it) and back then they were offering $5 per 1000 dls so I guess they changed how they pay out. This was back when they were very open about automatically trawling the warez sites for images to resell.
-
Oh no:
https://support.freepik.com/hc/en-us/articles/360024566073-Can-I-delete-my-published-resources-
"Can I delete my published resources?
As stated in the License of Works for Freepik Company (contract), that you sign when becoming a contributor, it is not possible to delete the published files if these have been in Freepik for less than a year."
(but not a surprise)
-
If you close your account, they can sell your photos, the photos will remain in this agency for one year... for a year without pay you any download!
-
Oh no:
https://support.freepik.com/hc/en-us/articles/360024566073-Can-I-delete-my-published-resources-
"Can I delete my published resources?
As stated in the License of Works for Freepik Company (contract), that you sign when becoming a contributor, it is not possible to delete the published files if these have been in Freepik for less than a year."
(but not a surprise)
I look forward to the 1 year. I was still a beginner on the stock pages when I registered here. Fortunately, I uploaded few pictures.
-
If you close your account, they can sell your photos, the photos will remain in this agency for one year... for a year without pay you any download!
Yes, it is worth waiting for this time, there is revenue until then.
-
I was a premium uploader on freepik. There is currently a 7-8 cent commission to sell a picture. It is not worth it. When I started there the commission was 13 cents. Its getting worse year after year, our work is worth more than that. >:(
Looking at pool results, somebody like them!
-
I know a photographer who earns 180$/month on Shutterstock and 300 euro on Freepik. He loves Freepik!
PS. It was 300 euro before they lowered the royalty rate
-
I know a photographer who earns 180$/month on Shutterstock and 300 euro on Freepik. He loves Freepik!
PS. It was 300 euro before they lowered the royalty rate
That sounds extremely unlikely.
-
If you close your account, they can sell your photos, the photos will remain in this agency for one year... for a year without pay you any download!
Sounds like vomit rules.
-
That's just madness
I suspect that they will lower royalties in a while. Almost sure.
-
I frankly don't care all that much about Freepik. Unless they're stealing or infringing copyright, I don't think they can be that detrimental to the stock industry.
It's the major agencies who destroy the industry with a race to the bottom: SS, Pond5, Storyblocks.
-
I know a photographer who earns 180$/month on Shutterstock and 300 euro on Freepik. He loves Freepik!
PS. It was 300 euro before they lowered the royalty rate
That sounds extremely unlikely.
I can believe that he once made that much. When I was first approached several years ago I could see the potential for the first few people who would stoop low enough to work with that kind of agency. You would have to really not give a single flying **** about ******* over your fellow contributors (and yourself in the long run too) though. As soon as there are more than a handful people on the site no one contributor has the volume to make any money with the pathetic RPD and sales are pulled from better paying sites.
With regards to the likes on the poll, they have accounts on here, they just don't post anymore since they realised no one was buying their BS.
-
The problem is that 50% of a very small number is a very small number.
That's just madness
Double yes to that.
I know a photographer who earns 180$/month on Shutterstock and 300 euro on Freepik. He loves Freepik!
PS. It was 300 euro before they lowered the royalty rate
That sounds extremely unlikely.
Perfect time to be a skeptic is when someone makes a claim like making double what they do on SS with Freepik.
"extremely unlikely" and highly improbable. :)
I voted I don't care, because honestly, what does it matter if I care or not? How will caring or a poll change anything?
-
I know it for sure. His photos are subpar and don't sell on shutterstock, though on freepik there is far less competition and they have a chance.
I know a few other photographers who make around a 1000$ on shutterstock and 200-300 euro on freepik. They also love(d) freepik.
Few more facts about Freepik.
I was personally contacted by their manager on instagram about cooperation, after I wrote to him, he never responded back.
I tried to upload some images on Freepik (you need to know your enemy to win the war), after 2 months of waiting for review I wrote to the support asking to delete all the images from the review queue. The support started to persuade me that they will immediately accept them all. After I insisted (and it was happening in the beginning of April right after they had lowered the royalties without any notice so I had one more reason to delete the images) they agreed to delete them. Guess what? They accepted them all and from that time they don't respond to my requests.
So you see how they treat the authors.
-
I know it for sure. His photos are subpar and don't sell on shutterstock, though on freepik there is far less competition and they have a chance.
I know a few other photographers who make around a 1000$ on shutterstock and 200-300 euro on freepik. They also love(d) freepik.
Few more facts about Freepik.
I was personally contacted by their manager on instagram about cooperation, after I wrote to him, he never responded back.
I tried to upload some images on Freepik (you need to know your enemy to win the war), after 2 months of waiting for review I wrote to the support asking to delete all the images from the review queue. The support started to persuade me that they will immediately accept them all. After I insisted (and it was happening in the beginning of April right after they had lowered the royalties without any notice so I had one more reason to delete the images) they agreed to delete them. Guess what? They accepted them all and from that time they don't respond to my requests.
So you see how they treat the authors.
Do you have an account with them still, as in are you getting paid if those images are downloaded, or did they straight up steal them when you asked for a deletion?
-
I have. I can't delete the images for one year as it was mentioned before.
I am getting paid. In April it was 65 euro/month for 400 images (I was NOT going to upload that many items but I have forgotten to untick the checkbox in StockSubmitter) - that is why I believe when my friend with 9000 images in portfolio says that he gets around 300 euro there.
But I certainly will not upload any more.
-
Plain photos are already pretty dead genre, even superb ones.
Such sites as freepik just accelerate royalties degradation.
-
This company acts very intelligently for them. To the point that they know what other agencies sell and the next month they have it in their portfolio. In fact they do it very well, and in reality they are giving benefit to their collaborators. To the point that it is probably the one that gives the most benefit to its collaborators. The calculations are very rare and it represents not knowing this agency. Yes, they started linking to free sites, and now they are the masters of the market by far. But abysmal difference. And that does not work video, illustrations, editorials or case of the 70s from which modern customers flee. I am not with them. Because illustrations do not work and the photographs must be extraordinary. They know what they are doing and they rise like foam. The number one. definitely. New system that contributors are not used to. The daily profit is divided between them and between the collaborators' downloads. In addition an army of workers on demand, at the request of what they observe that is sold in other agencies and they lack material. Simple. Hard to control, but with great benefits for contributors. System very different from what is customary to work. They are very smart, they go to the business and they are number 1.
-
Their brutal traffic guarantees them advertising, referral market as affiliates and customer subscription, they are based on professional design clients with high knowledge of graphic design, direct competition with Adobe and the outdated Shutterstock dandruff that lives decades ago, when they were needed all objects in the world isolated on white background. They continue with the classic doctors in white coats. Of the benefit of subscriptions they divide it into days, a percentage of the profit of that day for them, the rest of the value of the day is divided into sections between their contributors who have downloads that day. They can only grow.
I don't like them, but obviously they don't fail, I only succeed after success every month.
In addition, I suppose that the collaborators on demand must be salaried personnel within the company, company workers, not self-employed, not free staff. I don't like them at all, but they certainly drink the market.
-
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.
-
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.
-
freepik is temporary success, for sure.
They are just biting the hand that feeds them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
Spotify of stock. If you have a niche, dont upload there. Only for 2007 burned images
-
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.
-
Spotify of stock. If you have a niche, dont upload there. Only for 2007 burned images
Good point. Lohasclavao.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.