I'm not very happy with them either. I just added Fotolia a couple months ago, so I don't have a lot there, but lots of images that are getting accepted elsewhere are getting rejected with poor reasoning. I get a sale every couple of days so I will continue with them for now.

Seems we're slowly opening a can of worms here..

To give an indication - I have a somewhat poor acceptance ratio regardless on SS for example (only about 60% I think).
FT, however is ridiculous.
I've submitted around the same number of pics, and although I'm still new to this, my port on SS is around 55 images only. My port on FT is around 16!!!
That's not very encouraging at all.
I've made 35 downloads this month and counting, on a port of 55 images.
I can't say that's bad at all for SS, but shocking for FT.

Seems they're shooting themselves in the foot - if they accepted some fine images from the rest of us, they may actually make more money.
Quality is important - I get that - and there's no compromise, however, in financial times like this, they should potentially be looking into growing their base to make more sales, or at least broaden horizons.

If I was a marketer, I would likely go to the site that has the most images available.
This increases my chances of finding what I'm looking for - surely?

Fotolia's rejections are still hard to explain but their buyers keep me uploading there.   Just wish I could get more accepted then I'd really clean up!

For your amusement, I am posting the pics that did not reach aesthetic level of quality for today:

Beautiful images goldenangel.
I had 2 accepted and 8 rejected in my last batch. All images were rejected with the same reason...they are not beautiful enough for Fotolia. What surprised me, two ugliest images were accepted....

Fotolia has killed my last batch also...

2/10 were approved only...

Here is some of them,also touristic motives but few hundred km from Mostar,island Cres...
Rejected:




Approved:

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on March 24, 2009, 17:46

Seems they're shooting themselves in the foot - if they accepted some fine images from the rest of us, they may actually make more money.
Quality is important - I get that - and there's no compromise, however, in financial times like this, they should potentially be looking into growing their base to make more sales, or at least broaden horizons.

If I was a marketer, I would likely go to the site that has the most images available.
This increases my chances of finding what I'm looking for - surely?

I agree that Fotolia has some crazy rejections.  I certainly would not dispute that.

But to your broader point, no, it does not benefit sites to be less picky and "broaden their horizons".  All the major micros have in the millions of images now.  The sites that do better and attract more buyers are the ones that have higher standards of image quality.    

If you look at the top sites to the right of this forum, you will find that there is a more or less direct correlation between how selective they are and how many sales they generate.  

As an example - istock, which is very selective, is able to charge more and keep its position among the top sites because customers know they can find quality there.  OTOH Canstock, which until very recently took nearly anything submitted, hardly has any sales at all.  

Quote from: lisafx on March 25, 2009, 23:46

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on March 24, 2009, 17:46

Seems they're shooting themselves in the foot - if they accepted some fine images from the rest of us, they may actually make more money.
Quality is important - I get that - and there's no compromise, however, in financial times like this, they should potentially be looking into growing their base to make more sales, or at least broaden horizons.

If I was a marketer, I would likely go to the site that has the most images available.
This increases my chances of finding what I'm looking for - surely?

I agree that Fotolia has some crazy rejections.  I certainly would not dispute that.

But to your broader point, no, it does not benefit sites to be less picky and "broaden their horizons".  All the major micros have in the millions of images now.  The sites that do better and attract more buyers are the ones that have higher standards of image quality.    

If you look at the top sites to the right of this forum, you will find that there is a more or less direct correlation between how selective they are and how many sales they generate.  

As an example - istock, which is very selective, is able to charge more and keep its position among the top sites because customers know they can find quality there.  OTOH Canstock, which until very recently took nearly anything submitted, hardly has any sales at all.  

Before they pulled the capability to see some details on the buyer, I was able to surmise that most of my sales were to European customers.  I really think that FT has a totally different take on what their buyers want.

I'm not sure what time zone you are in Warren, but I am Central Canada and my Fotolia sales are almost all before I'm at my desk in the morning.  That would lead me to believe that, yes, the buyers are European!

As coming out of germany and selling most on Fotolia i can say: yes, most of the customers from Fotolia are out of germany and nearby in europe.
...and don't give any attention to the rejection reasons on FT, they roll a dice for their rejection mails (don't understand this as abuse, they know itself and laugh about it. My own rejection rate is less than 10% on FT and the rejections i get are allmost complet nonsense. Latest rejection i get was about pixelproblems and blur...unfortunately it was a vector illustration).

Greets from Bertold

Agreed to all of the above.
However, SS seems to be the leader at this point, yet their rejection rate for me is nowhere NEAR as bad as FT.

So, the differences are apparent in terms of what they are looking for between markets and sites.

Interesting reading the input though, I learn a lot through these forums - thanks!

Chris

Of the seven sites I have contributed to over the last 2 years - largest portfolio is only 262 on SS -  only on FT have my revenues increased faster than my portfolio size  (121).  Earnings have collapsed elsewhere (WME on SS in spite of the fact that I just got my raise to $0.33) or at best stayed even (IS).  FT must be doing something right.

fred

Add my voice to the FT craziness  they seem to run hot and cold or there is a reviewer out of step with others, I just had a batch hit, in it were images taken on the same background and setup just the object changed yet I got rejections for aesthetic level of quality, most times it makes no sense especially when 9 other agencies approve the same image including IS which people deem to be the toughest to work with.

David

Quote from: djmorgan on March 30, 2009, 22:40
Add my voice to the FT craziness  they seem to run hot and cold or there is a reviewer out of step with others, I just had a batch hit, in it were images taken on the same background and setup just the object changed yet I got rejections for aesthetic level of quality, most times it makes no sense especially when 9 other agencies approve the same image including IS which people deem to be the toughest to work with.

David

Rejections at FT are a pain but they are easy to upload to.  I recently found out that you really don't have to assign any categories if you don't want to and that speeds their upload process a lot.

c h e e r s
fred

In the last months Fotolia rejects 25-30% of my submissions. It is indeed higher than most other sites but I don't see it a big problem, especially upload is easy and sales isn't bad. This is my BME at Fotolia and Fotolia earnings take 3rd place this month (usually it was 4th or even 5th).

Fotolia has also turned out to be my harshest critic by far. 

They reject photos that all other sites accepted. Even phots that IS accepted (!).  They reject my best sellers.  And always with that snotty line about not meeting their "level of aesthetic quality".   Couldn't they change that to something with a bit less edge, maybe "not what we're looking for"?

Just got battered again by FT.  I use them to keep my ego in check.  LOL

Quote from: MikLav on March 31, 2009, 07:51
This is my BME at Fotolia and Fotolia earnings take 3rd place this month (usually it was 4th or even 5th).

I had a pretty good month at Fotolia, not BME, but good.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 01, 2009, 19:39
Just got battered again by FT.  I use them to keep my ego in check.  LOL

Ah! An equal opportunity masochist, like myself!

Quote from: werkmann on March 26, 2009, 03:11
As coming out of germany and selling most on Fotolia i can say: yes, most of the customers from Fotolia are out of germany and nearby in europe.
...and don't give any attention to the rejection reasons on FT, they roll a dice for their rejection mails (don't understand this as abuse, they know itself and laugh about it. My own rejection rate is less than 10% on FT and the rejections i get are allmost complet nonsense. Latest rejection i get was about pixelproblems and blur...unfortunately it was a vector illustration).

Greets from Bertold

I just try to sneak 'em back in later....one at a time!

Seriously though, I believe that most of my sale on FT come from the Eurozone (credit price 1.00 Euro) whereas FT likes to keep me on the UK site at 60 pence/0.66 Euro per credit. This is good business for FT but some things do sell so I'm not whining.

Quite interesting expiriences... I don't have such on FT... More likely I have such rejections on iStock 

Nevertheless more ELs and single sales there than on some other places with much more images in my port...

But, in last 2 months I really had boost in approval rate on FT as well as from 82 images went to 240 accepted and up approval ratio from lower 30% (less than on iStock) to over 60% (less than on many other sites)... Also there was bronze tier very fast for me as well some image which sells everywhere but the best on FT...

Now, with EPS vectors possible to upload I will boost even more... And I am just happy for that they like my images as well as European buyers are more likely more content with some of them as well as American buyers like some other images

Just got clobbered again.  It is very confusing.  I uploaded mostly flowers to a European-leaning site.  That wasn't real smart.  Europeans are way deep in flowering culture.  But, the only one accepted was a flower?  Go figure.   

I think we have all thought about doing that at some point they are very frustrating. some of the rejections I get just puzzle me. now when i get a rejection from them it doesnt even come as a suprise anymore

It only bothers me when they reject photo that I know is good and has been selling elsewhere. 

Fotolia rejections are almost as bad as Crestocks for me.  I just submit and forget about it now.  I don't understand it at all.  Images that are all 100% approved on SS, DT, StockXpert will be denied on Fotolia and it never ceases to amaze.  Hey, their loss.  Maybe you have to be exclusive or one of their top selling contributors to get better reviews.  My rank is currently 545 if that has anything to do with it.