Author Topic: D-DayS (plurial) (Read 1586 times)

rene · « **on:** July 24, 2013, 20:54 »

I read topics about impacts of deleting files and especially D-Day. Many good points for both, pro and cons. I understand perfectly people who hesitating.
I propose to create D-Days, on monthly or bi-monthly basis. For example every 13th of each month. Instead of deleting files we have decided to deactivate anyway (for different reasons like protest, quality, better performance on other site etc), we wait and delete them only on one day of the month.
I cannot see any cons. And advantages are there:
- it is not more individual but collective action.
- we can use 'D-Days' term for "our" communication
- sites should monitor different operation. Huge increase of deactivation will remain sites not to go too far
- good for my spiritual health
- costless
We can start with Fotolia... Are you available on 28th?

CD123 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2013, 23:24 »

These type of actions only works when:
a) A substantial amount of contributors has reached a point of no return with being fed-up with a site
b) The site had ample notification and time to rectify whatever is wrong
c) The size of the problem outweighs the potential income loss
d) Most contributing members agrees with the intended action and are driven to add action to word

The iStock incident was a huge exception to the rule of all talk and no action. In fact, although my knowledge period of this industry is rather short, the iStock action was near historical in nature. Although history can repeat itself and although I totally agree and feel with your sentiment, I unfortunately doubt the impact and success of this drive of yours.

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2013, 01:03 »

I think the success of D-Day was all the articles written about how badly istock treats its contributors. I'm sure some buyers read those and decided istock was no longer for them. That could be done with FT but I think a one off event will have a lot more success than a monthly day of deleting images.

I would be interested but FT seem to be doing a good job of sending buyers elsewhere themselves. When they're shooting themselves in the foot, do they need any help from us? I sell mostly subs there now, they seem to of already lost a lot of their pay per download buyers and I'm sure that's nothing to do with prices, as microstock is so cheap.

I'll give them until August 21st to come up with a better option for non-selling images. If it was for images over 2 years old, it might make more sense. If they don't change, I'll start deleting images that haven't sold for 6 months.

borg · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2013, 08:45 »

According this topic:

And then Fotolia will have max 1,567% less images on site... Customers won't even notice...

------------------

I have another idea!

We have to found one of agencies which will be ready to give us 100% of earnings in next year...
But, at the end of a year agency should to be transparent and give us insight to business books...
Then agency should make "list of costs" or "estimated budget" for next year, and then contributors who want to participate one year more, have to give money regarding with size of portfolio, profit, etc.

What do you think!?