Every day lower sales at Fotolia (only Europe contributors) is maybe the result of dollar that just continued advancing against the euro? I think United States Fotolia contributors now selling more.

What do you think?

Fotolia sells credits in different currencies, US buyers pay with US$, Euro buyers with �. The exchange rate will not change buyer behavior.

The other way round: FT also pays their contributors in local currency, i.e. Euro contributors receive �, US contributors receive US$.

The falling Euro (against the dollar) makes payouts in Euro relatively cheaper than before.

The impact on Euro contributors from the change in currency rates could only be positive...

(To explain: As I wrote elsewhere, FT seems to move Euro contributor content to the back of the search on their US site, as paying out in Euros (1 credit = 1�) if the buyer paid in US$ (1 credit = 1 US$) is more expensive to them; the falling Euro would allow them to stop that policy of penalizing Euro content on the US site - but in my test searches on that topic that has not happened yet)

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on March 04, 2015, 21:46

And when you check the earnings page (you have to go through a captcha to get there) you will see that the subs I think are only 22 cents to start - it will be a while before you get to 25-cent subs there.

Subs go higher than 25c, I get 36c there.

We all used to get that. Until they decided that they should pay us less when they are not doing their job (which is selling our images) well enough.

That's when I stopped uploading to them.

Maybe look here...

Quote from: File Sold on February 26, 2015, 05:16

Would be nice to have a top-tier raise like $0.40/subs for over $50.000 earnings or something. That would give a nice bonus for people that really have been the pioneers of microstock.

When I played internet poker, there was these FPP's (player points) and when you got enough them you could buy some nice accessories like Porsche Carrera or a trip to Hawaii  Why not do something like that, but in microstock scene. I could get a retina iMac or 5d3 with my FPP's and make better microstock images. Or then a free vacation away from my computer...

This is actually kind of along the lines of what I've ben thinking. Not a raise, but more of a bonus for people over a certain earnings level. Or it could be assessed annually, if your annual earnings are over some amount, you qualify. There's some incentive to keep up good work if bonus qualifications are regularly re-assessed.

That does sound like an RC scheme. Exactly like IS and 123RF have implemented.

And I don't think that is a negative in itself. If IS had implemented that as additional bonus on top of the existing royalty percentages everyone would have applauded.

Something like that (you can win a bonus if you have a good year, but you can lose it again if the next year isn't as good) - without cutting into the existing royalties - would be a good move.

Motivating to produce more and saleable content, but no everlasting committment to the company.

A raise would be welcome, obviously.

But I have a question: have you ever seen one agency raising the prices over time?

Yes, absolutely. Just one example: When I started with Fotolia in 2007 their biggest size was XL and was sold for 3 Credits (I think they just had three sizes back then).

Now its XXL for 10 Credits.

300% increase (no, they did not lower the price per credit).

I agree that currently there is no economical incentive for Shutterstock to give us a raise. They get all the fresh content they need at the current rate.
They might consider paying more if it were getting more difficult for them to get the fresh content they need to keep their customers happy.

But trying to organize some kind of community action to threaten them by stopping uploads, removing portfolios or such will never work, it did not work in any of the cases before (apart from the fact that them not giving us a raise is not the kind of behavior that would make me taking such drastic action towards a business partner).

So if we want to get more out of our images, we have to think differently.
There are several sites out there that pay a lot more per download (have higher prices or let us set the prices, pay higher percentages).
I'm thinking of Alamy, 500px, CM, Pond5, and such.
Granted, they do not sell much. No way they can replace Shutterstock income - in the short run.

If we upload all our new works to those sites first and wait some time (maybe a few months) before uploading to Shutterstock (and the other usual microstock agencies), that gives those sites the opportunity to show a fresher collection - at least for some time.

If enough of us do it (I started doing it, just to try it) maybe after time sales on those sites will start to rise. Which would mean more money for us.
And maybe (big maybe) after some time the microstock agencies (including Shutterstock) will realize that they have to do something (like a raise) to move up in our uploading priority and not to get the fresh content as the last one.

It's not a big sacrifice like deleting portfolios, the income from Shutterstock keeps coming in, it would just mean to delay income for new images for some time.

I don't know if it will have any impact, but I will try...

Hi Semmick and dirkr,

The honest answer is that the royalty % is calculated on what allows us to grow our business and support our team.

We have a traditional sales team & customer service led approach which has high running costs. Each of our subscribers has a personal account manager that they can call & and who will give them updates throughout the course of their subscription. I am aware this sounds old-fashioned, but there is a niche for this - with many customers choosing us specifically because they enjoy the experience of working with a smaller company.

Our subscription pricing reflects the more niche product & smaller collection size.

There are higher subscription royalty rates elsewhere, however, on a big subscription-based site each image is competing against another 20M - 50M, on Ingimage the choice is smaller - as a result each contributor ultimately receives a much greater share of our revenue.

Thanks,
Henry

Simple answer: Raise your prices (significantly) and that should allow you to raise the royalties then.

Your argue you have higher costs because you provide better service to customers. Than they should pay for that.

With the current setup I don't want you to grow your business.

If your argument is, because of your smaller collection size we should expect more downloads (less competition) and thus accept lower royalties, then I do have a proposal for you (to back up that promise):

A guaranteed commission amount per file and month. Every file I upload I get x.xx $ per month. It's your job to make that up with sales. Interested? Just tell me what x.xx is, and I tell you if I'm interested...

Hey guys,

I understand it's been pretty confusing with the recent changes to the EU Law.  We've answered some of these questions on our forums, like:

Q: The invoices aren�t valid for VAT.
A: You�re correct, and we have a second VAT rollout that is coming right after this one. (Click for full answer)



Q: Does Envato report the VAT in the author�s name?
A: No, VAT will be collected and remitted under Envato�s MOSS registration.
 
Please check out the forum threads like the New Invoices and Statements and Envato Market the platform for more extensive information.  If you do have further questions, please contact [email protected] as this is actively monitored and will be responded to.

Cheers, and thanks for sharing your concerns.

David

David,
you are not answering the open questions.
I would like to read an official statement about why you are doing all these changes.
I have not found a single explanation of why this new setup is beneficial for anyone.

And once more: Who did allow you to give out personal information to third parties (buyers) without first getting our consent - and in direct conflict with your privacy policy?

I am still waiting for an answer.

Early this year they announced that they will close at first of April this year, their business will be taken over by Panthermedia.
Can't find an official announcement right now, but there was a short thread on that on a German stock forum (see here).

When I started selling my images I decided to use a nickname!
Now PD issue invoices with my real name without my permission!

Which is in conflict with their own privacy policy.
Very unprofessional behaviour.

David, how about some comment on that?

The issue with many of those unfilled niches is not that they do not exist, but that the demand for those images is only small.

It's nice to have the only 10 images for a specific topic - so you can get all the five sales per year they generate.

That simply does not make economical sense at microstock prices.

I can't believe it 

That's why seven images of Red-breasted Geese from me (example of one of these) are stuck in pending since early November.

That's so ridiculous.

Canstock, get real!!! That can't be serious, what a joke 

In studio situations I don't think IS is really necessary.
I do shoot a lot of wildlife, which means long lenses (100-400, 600) and often unfavorable lighting conditions. That's where IS comes handy, as you can handhold longer shutter times.
IS does not help if you have light that allows you very short shutter times (e.g. shorter than 1/500 for a long tele lens) or for long exposures from a tripod.
But all the situations in between (where you fight to keep ISO low enough, while getting reasonably short shutter times) IS will save you a lot of shots (even if used from a monopod or tripod - the modern lenses have an IS that works from a tripod as well).