Author Topic: Who's controlling agencies sales? (Read 21128 times)

Stroke Footage · « **on:** March 13, 2016, 13:12 »

A few weeks ago I had some mail exchange with Fotolia support.
Basically, one of their reviewers mistakenly rejected some footage.
I was upset because they claimed they can't do nothing about it and they didn't seem to care much either.
I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away.
Guess what? They enabled the clips and I've got two sales the same day after almost one month of no cash flowing on Fotolia.
This coincidence made me think and wonder.
So, here's the question: who is controlling the sales of the agencies?
I mean, I get a report which states I've got one or more sales. But who grants me that each and every agency reports and pays out the exact amount of clips they actually sell?
Seriously, I don't know.
Anyone?

Thanks!

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2016, 13:21 »

If they were not passing on money owed to us, I think they would get caught out. We can test them, they might have a whistle blower or the tax people might spot it. I don't think the risk would be worth it for the big sites.

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2016, 17:27 »

Quote from: Stroke Footage on March 13, 2016, 13:12

A few weeks ago I had some mail exchange with Fotolia support.
Basically, one of their reviewers mistakenly rejected some footage.
I was upset because they claimed they can't do nothing about it and they didn't seem to care much either.
I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away.
Guess what? They enabled the clips and I've got two sales the same day after almost one month of no cash flowing on Fotolia.
This coincidence made me think and wonder.
So, here's the question: who is controlling the sales of the agencies?
I mean, I get a report which states I've got one or more sales. But who grants me that each and every agency reports and pays out the exact amount of clips they actually sell?
Seriously, I don't know.
Anyone?

Thanks!

I am surprised that they didn't say FU and close your account. That is what and who FOTOLIA is, so you dodged a big bullet.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2016, 22:21 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 13, 2016, 17:27

Quote from: Stroke Footage on March 13, 2016, 13:12
A few weeks ago I had some mail exchange with Fotolia support.
Basically, one of their reviewers mistakenly rejected some footage.
I was upset because they claimed they can't do nothing about it and they didn't seem to care much either.
I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away.
Guess what? They enabled the clips and I've got two sales the same day after almost one month of no cash flowing on Fotolia.
This coincidence made me think and wonder.
So, here's the question: who is controlling the sales of the agencies?
I mean, I get a report which states I've got one or more sales. But who grants me that each and every agency reports and pays out the exact amount of clips they actually sell?
Seriously, I don't know.
Anyone?

Thanks!

I am surprised that they didn't say FU and close your account. That is what and who FOTOLIA is, so you dodged a big bullet.

Maybe Fotolia under Adobe is more contributor friendly.

Dumc · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2016, 01:22 »

So, why did they disable your files? As I understand, they rejected some footage, but that's no reason to disable your other files, right?

Mantis · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2016, 07:56 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 13, 2016, 22:21

Quote from: Mantis on March 13, 2016, 17:27
Quote from: Stroke Footage on March 13, 2016, 13:12
A few weeks ago I had some mail exchange with Fotolia support.
Basically, one of their reviewers mistakenly rejected some footage.
I was upset because they claimed they can't do nothing about it and they didn't seem to care much either.
I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away.
Guess what? They enabled the clips and I've got two sales the same day after almost one month of no cash flowing on Fotolia.
This coincidence made me think and wonder.
So, here's the question: who is controlling the sales of the agencies?
I mean, I get a report which states I've got one or more sales. But who grants me that each and every agency reports and pays out the exact amount of clips they actually sell?
Seriously, I don't know.
Anyone?

Thanks!

I am surprised that they didn't say FU and close your account. That is what and who FOTOLIA is, so you dodged a big bullet.

Maybe Fotolia under Adobe is more contributor friendly.

Entirely possible.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2016, 08:32 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 13, 2016, 22:21

Quote from: Mantis on March 13, 2016, 17:27
Quote from: Stroke Footage on March 13, 2016, 13:12
A few weeks ago I had some mail exchange with Fotolia support.
Basically, one of their reviewers mistakenly rejected some footage.
I was upset because they claimed they can't do nothing about it and they didn't seem to care much either.
I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away.
Guess what? They enabled the clips and I've got two sales the same day after almost one month of no cash flowing on Fotolia.
This coincidence made me think and wonder.
So, here's the question: who is controlling the sales of the agencies?
I mean, I get a report which states I've got one or more sales. But who grants me that each and every agency reports and pays out the exact amount of clips they actually sell?
Seriously, I don't know.
Anyone?

Thanks!

I am surprised that they didn't say FU and close your account. That is what and who FOTOLIA is, so you dodged a big bullet.

Maybe Fotolia under Adobe is more contributor friendly.

I'll believe it when they let some of the banned contributors back on (the ones that haven't been hurling abuse at them of course)

Stroke Footage · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2016, 08:41 »

Dumc: I perhaps didn't explain myself properly.
They did not disable the other files. They rejected some footage on no basis and they claimed they couldn't reactivate it for me to apply any eventual modification and resubmit it. They said that the only option was to upload and tag again from scratch.
I said I won't because it was their mistake, not mine and that I'd leave the agency. Then, magically, the clips were ready to be tagged again and I've got two sales.
It was so suspicious that I started to doubt about sales too.
Btw, I'm asking them since weeks if they have in mind to implement CSV support because their tagging process is so long, especially if you have diverse footage. But no answer on that front.
Cheers everyone!

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2016, 12:05 »

OP sounds like a whiny little self entitled kid.

No agency will miss you so get over yourself.

Stroke Footage · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2016, 15:29 »

Sometimes language is a limit. Not a native speaker.
Why are you so negative?
What's you problem Rose?

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2016, 15:56 »

Quote from: Stroke Footage on March 14, 2016, 15:29

Sometimes language is a limit. Not a native speaker.
Why are you so negative?
What's you problem Rose?

I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away. their mistake, not mine and that I'd leave the agency
Loud and clear, as in crystal clear, as in it's clear. And it sounds whiny. A whole lot of whiny for two clips.

Your English is good enough to spot whiny a mile away.

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2016, 16:03 »

Actually SS pay us a minimum of 0,33 (most of us get 0,36) per image sell but they offer: (!!)

750 image downloads for 199$, so they get 0,26 per image
(this is the main packet)

We have three posiblities here:
1-They are losing money
2-Most of people who paid for 750 images, just download 500 or less
3-They lie us, they report and pay just a % of real sales

What is your opinion?

fotografer · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2016, 16:09 »

I'll take whiney over just plain nasty any day !!!!!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2016, 16:16 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on March 14, 2016, 16:03

Actually SS pay us a minimum of 0,33 ...

According to this page, the minimum is still 25c:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2016, 17:38 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 14, 2016, 16:16

Quote from: Mrblues101 on March 14, 2016, 16:03
Actually SS pay us a minimum of 0,33 ...

According to this page, the minimum is still 25c:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts

Yes, you are right, i just delete from my brain the dark age when i get just 0,25 per image...

Anyway, the math is not totally clear...

Most of users earn 0.33, 0,36 or 0,38...

Zero Talent · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2016, 17:42 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on March 14, 2016, 16:03

Actually SS pay us a minimum of 0,33 (most of us get 0,36) per image sell but they offer: (!!)

750 image downloads for 199$, so they get 0,26 per image
(this is the main packet)

We have three posiblities here:
1-They are losing money
2-Most of people who paid for 750 images, just download 500 or less
3-They lie us, they report and pay just a % of real sales

What is your opinion?

This is how business is run in competitive markets.

Banks might give you the incentive of a free credit card, knowing that, statistically, a large enough number of people will end-up paying a lot more, through interest for late payments.

Mobile operators might invest in coverage of sparsely populated, loss making remote areas, only to statistically keep happy profitable customers form large cities.

Software companies might throw in a free demo, apparently losing money, only because, statistically, enough customers end-up paying for the final product.

The same goes for microstock. Some products might not be profitable for every customer, but statistically, what matters is the bottom line, the RPD of all products combined.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2016, 23:35 »

Quote from: fotografer on March 14, 2016, 16:09

I'll take whiney over just plain nasty any day !!!!!!

+1

I'm assuming the name rose tinted glasses is meant ironically. Either that, or he/she doesn't understand the term.

KnowYourOnions · « **Reply #17 on:** March 15, 2016, 03:38 »

Quote from: Stroke Footage on March 13, 2016, 13:12

A few weeks ago I had some mail exchange with Fotolia support.
Basically, one of their reviewers mistakenly rejected some footage.
I was upset because they claimed they can't do nothing about it and they didn't seem to care much either.
I threatened to leave the agency if they wouldn't enable the clips right away.
Guess what? They enabled the clips and I've got two sales the same day after almost one month of no cash flowing on Fotolia.
This coincidence made me think and wonder.
So, here's the question: who is controlling the sales of the agencies?
I mean, I get a report which states I've got one or more sales. But who grants me that each and every agency reports and pays out the exact amount of clips they actually sell?
Seriously, I don't know.
Anyone?

Thanks!

I salute you for bravery.
Much more needed in every aspect of this business and in all agencies!
Raise your voice folks.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2016, 11:46 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 14, 2016, 23:35

Quote from: fotografer on March 14, 2016, 16:09
I'll take whiney over just plain nasty any day !!!!!!

+1

I'm assuming the name rose tinted glasses is meant ironically. Either that, or he/she doesn't understand the term.

You assume correctly. You have to love the histrionics and temper tantrums that go on here for having work rejected. Little unicorns and rainbows for everyone. Some will call it nasty, but I call it a joke and * childish. What next? I won't be your best friend anymore?

sharpshot · « **Reply #19 on:** March 15, 2016, 12:15 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on March 15, 2016, 11:46

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 14, 2016, 23:35
Quote from: fotografer on March 14, 2016, 16:09
I'll take whiney over just plain nasty any day !!!!!!

+1

I'm assuming the name rose tinted glasses is meant ironically. Either that, or he/she doesn't understand the term.

You assume correctly. You have to love the histrionics and temper tantrums that go on here for having work rejected. Little unicorns and rainbows for everyone. Some will call it nasty, but I call it a joke and * childish. What next? I won't be your best friend anymore?

Sometimes people should just accept rejections but your trolling comments are about as childish as it gets. Try not posting if all you can do is behave like a 12 year old. Sorry if I have offended a 12 year old

chones · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2016, 15:05 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on March 14, 2016, 16:03

Actually SS pay us a minimum of 0,33 (most of us get 0,36) per image sell but they offer: (!!)

750 image downloads for 199$, so they get 0,26 per image
(this is the main packet)

We have three posiblities here:
1-They are losing money
2-Most of people who paid for 750 images, just download 500 or less
3-They lie us, they report and pay just a % of real sales

What is your opinion?

Don't forget Image On Demand sales. SS earning a lot of this sales

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Who's controlling agencies sales? (Read 21128 times)

Stroke Footage

sharpshot

Mantis

PixelBytes

Dumc

Mantis

Justanotherphotographer

Stroke Footage

Rose Tinted Glasses

Stroke Footage

Rose Tinted Glasses

Mrblues101

fotografer

ShadySue

Mrblues101

Zero Talent

PixelBytes

KnowYourOnions

Rose Tinted Glasses

sharpshot

chones

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors