I'm just shocked that they believe what governments tell them. 

Quote from: qwerty on January 25, 2011, 23:01

"...it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases ... "

The element the quoted poster is missing is that the cuts were not done because Fotolia or the market had hit hard times, but rather the opposite.  It was because the business was doing so well that they made the earlier cuts, increase in downloads required to get various levels and the current cuts.

I don't see any reason to believe that FT (or IS - the grand copycat of FT in this particular regard) will reverse the cuts unless they are hard up for images at some point in the future.

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2011, 23:49
The element the quoted poster is missing is that the cuts were not done because Fotolia or the market had hit hard times, but rather the opposite.  It was because the business was doing so well that they made the earlier cuts, increase in downloads required to get various levels and the current cuts.

I don't see any reason to believe that FT (or IS - the grand copycat of FT in this particular regard) will reverse the cuts unless they are hard up for images at some point in the future.

It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 26, 2011, 00:12
It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.

I agree with you about iStock, but don't see it in Fotolia's actions.  Feels more to me like they're seeing how much abuse we'll take before it affects their business.  This is after all not the first time they've cut our royalties.  And they offered sweetheart deals to iStock exclusives that the rest of us will never see.  Unlike iStock, Fotolia management has never pretended to be anything but greedy *insult removed*, at least after those long ago days when Chad was being friendly with the supplier community.  Haven't heard much from him in recent years, have we?

Quote from: qwerty on January 25, 2011, 23:01
How's this one. quote from fotolia forum.  Yeah they screwed us over again lets make them the best. what ?  I thought there were some ass kissers at Istock but this one takes the cake.


"There are a couple of ways we can treat this, either get fed up and give up and just stop uploading or delete our portfolios which seems a shame after all the work that has gone into them or do totally the opposite.

If we continue to upload, and make those images that we do upload the best we can do then we will make Fotolia somewhere that the buyers/licencees want to come and the more that come and buy, the more of our images will be sold, it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases but imagine that, as the UK government keeps telling us - "things may get worse before they get better" but they will get better, they always do it just takes time and a lot of effort.

I think I will treat this as a challenge rather than just accept it as a defeat and try and start shooting again so I can replace some of those images that the rest of you are deleting or not uploading "

Is that like drinking yourself sober? 

Quote from: disorderly on January 25, 2011, 19:32

Quote from: lock_stock on January 25, 2011, 19:25
never say never.
It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.

Never.

There are too many people involved, with too many different motivators.  Microstock began with hobbyists receiving little or no money for their/our work.  If it returns to its origins, I bet there are plenty of new hobbyists who'll replace those of us who decide we've had enough.  Personally, I'll abandon agencies that get too greedy, but I know that's only to make myself feel like less of a patsy.  I'm a drop of rain to Fotolia, and my departure will go unnoticed.

There won't be mass boycott unless something really drastic happens. Like if they do major commission cut.

What is probably already happening is that top contributors are looking for other sources of income because they can see this is becoming less sustainable and are getting scared. Mid-level hobbyists are already backing off uploading because it's becoming a waste of time. And snaptshooters don't care and will continue uploading sunsets.

After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 26, 2011, 00:26

There won't be mass boycott unless something really drastic happens. Like if they do major commission cut.
What is probably already happening is that top contributors are looking for other sources of income because they can see this is becoming less sustainable and are getting scared. Mid-level hobbyists are already backing off uploading because it's becoming a waste of time. And snaptshooters don't care and will continue uploading sunsets.

After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?

So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?

Quote from: Kone on January 26, 2011, 01:22

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 26, 2011, 00:26

There won't be mass boycott unless something really drastic happens. Like if they do major commission cut.
What is probably already happening is that top contributors are looking for other sources of income because they can see this is becoming less sustainable and are getting scared. Mid-level hobbyists are already backing off uploading because it's becoming a waste of time. And snaptshooters don't care and will continue uploading sunsets.

After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?

So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?

Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.

Quote from: Kone on January 26, 2011, 01:22

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 26, 2011, 00:26

So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?

Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.

wasnt that what the reduced RC target levels were for?

The only way "revenge" can be taken is when 90% of the independent contributor from IS and FT delete their portfolio.
And that will only happen when SS offers exclusivity.

Quote from: VB inc on January 26, 2011, 02:17

Quote from: Kone on January 26, 2011, 01:22

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 26, 2011, 00:26

So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?

Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.

wasnt that what the reduced RC target levels were for?

That was a little anesthetic to ease the pain of the cut. They haven't hit the artery yet.

Quote from: leremy on January 26, 2011, 02:23
The only way "revenge" can be taken is when 90% of the independent contributor from IS and FT delete their portfolio.
And that will only happen when SS offers exclusivity.

I can't see SS ever offering exclusivity. They just don't care about premium or exclusive stuff - only about having a regular supply of new images to keep subscribers happy. They have nothing to gain - they actually make more the fewer images a subscriber downloads every month.

Delete image.... delete image... I know it's symbolic but it still makes me feel good in the morning.   

Quote from: Perry on January 20, 2011, 11:05
...I set some goals for me for 2011. I son't see them happening. This is sickening. I'm really seriously thinking about dumping microstock alltogether, I haven't seen any macros pulling stunts like these (IS, FT)
...

Hahahah... are you serious? Maybe it's because you don't sell through them? The trad boards are pretty much up in arms, as is the trad shooters that come into the shop... "Web Licence" on Getty = $4.99 (or something to that effect) Getty selling iStock, Corbis marketing trad and micro together through Veer... All eating into the Trad markets and sales...

One of our customers said he dropped 75% since Getty bought IS...

Quote from: disorderly on January 25, 2011, 19:32Microstock began with hobbyists receiving little or no money for their/our work.  If it returns to its origins, I bet there are plenty of new hobbyists who'll replace those of us who decide we've had enough. 

The one thing wrong with that assumption is that at the beginning hobbyists had an incentive to keep going. We uploaded cr*p images and they promptly downloaded five or six times a month to give us $1 a month per image in income from just one site. It felt good and it was rewarding. That was when there were 100,000 microstock images for sale worldwide. The same image today would get zero earnings so there would be no incentive for the hobbyist to submit any more. The "newbies" who make money now are trained pros with studios, lights and perfect technique who decide they want a slice of the cake.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 26, 2011, 00:26
After enough of these negative changes happen good content supply will drop and sites will be left with stale content and new apples/handshakes/trees. It may take a year or two but what happens when micro buyers only have stale images and snapshots to choose from? Aren't they already complaining about that?

This is the good part, actually. When it will happen, they'll either have to change or die. And if they die, there's plenty of other agencies ready to replace them: just to screw us again in 3 years of course, but who cares? good while it lasts.

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on January 29, 2011, 12:57agencies ready to replace them: just to screw us again in 3 years of course, but who cares? good while it lasts.

I care. Or I will if every three years I have to go to new agencies and upload thousands and thousands of images and keyword and categorise them all.

Istock price policy : Reloaded
I just hope the other agencies doesn't get the same ideas (really) soon!
This business will be about the top performes and the really poor people, who can get by with 10-15% ... sadly ...

" what a good thing for governments, that people do not think"
-adolf hitler-

I got an EL on Fotolia the other day-- they got 20 and I got 4.60.

Quote from: alison1414 on February 03, 2011, 00:13
I got an EL on Fotolia the other day-- they got 20 and I got 4.60.

pull them a little up Ali

Quote from: disorderly on January 26, 2011, 00:21

Quote from: gostwyck on January 26, 2011, 00:12
It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.

I agree with you about iStock, but don't see it in Fotolia's actions.  Feels more to me like they're seeing how much abuse we'll take before it affects their business.  This is after all not the first time they've cut our royalties.  And they offered sweetheart deals to iStock exclusives that the rest of us will never see.  Unlike iStock, Fotolia management has never pretended to be anything but greedy *insult removed*, at least after those long ago days when Chad was being friendly with the supplier community.  Haven't heard much from him in recent years, have we?

Agreed with a slight modification. They are making all they can now, because the model is failing and they might not be raking in the big profits in the future. They don't have to worry about selling, there may be no buyers for a dying concept, they need to worry about staying in business.

This is a Qwerty Quote but he didn't write it, it was quote from the FT forums. "If we continue to upload, and make those images that we do upload the best we can do then we will make Fotolia somewhere that the buyers/licencees want to come and the more that come and buy, the more of our images will be sold, it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases but imagine that, as the UK government keeps telling us - "things may get worse before they get better" but they will get better, they always do it just takes time and a lot of effort."

This person needs to wake up that FT is never going to increase anything and is more likely to go out of business and leave the market, than be sold or ever raise commissions again.

Gostwyk: Would you buy a business that's losing income year after year, losing market share, losing contributors and could go out of business? Is that something you would see as a good investment? I don't think that FT is raising short term income and pumping up profits for a sale, because the only way someone would buy it, would be for them to be a complete fool and not look at the books to see the truth. Do you really think someone would spend millions on a dying business that has scammed their profits to look better than they are?

Quote from: gostwyck on January 26, 2011, 00:12

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2011, 23:49
The element the quoted poster is missing is that the cuts were not done because Fotolia or the market had hit hard times, but rather the opposite.  It was because the business was doing so well that they made the earlier cuts, increase in downloads required to get various levels and the current cuts.

I don't see any reason to believe that FT (or IS - the grand copycat of FT in this particular regard) will reverse the cuts unless they are hard up for images at some point in the future.

It just indicates further to me that both IS and FT are simply pumping their businesses to maximise short-term profit so that they can sell on and walk away. They simply don't care about the future because those that are making the big decisions today don't expect to be involved for much longer.

Pretty obvious where this was going when Mr. Bridewell appeared on the forum under his newly adopted handle, 'THE CHAD'. Admittedly, he was quite early in this, as only recently does one see references on financial sites to THE BEN BERNANKE and THE GOLDMAN SACHS.