Then again, the average revenue per download has risen by roughly 9% (from $2.33 to $2.52) in the same period, so you could assume to make a similar amount of money from the same images without adding any at all.

That would only be valid if there was a direct relationship between revenue and royalties.
For the majority of sales (subs, OD, EL) this is not the case, those sales are paid with fixed rates, independent of the revenue.

That's a bit disappointing...
Sounds like a partner is running some kind of POD shop.
When years ago Fotolia introduced their API and partners like that came up, there was a lot of noise in the forums, as the general understanding was that such merchandise (t-shirt, mug, poster...) would require an EL.
At the end most people settled down, as the understanding was that every such sale would lead to a credit sale of the highest resolution - the explanation was that this deal is similar to an end customer buying a regular license and ordering it printed elsewhere.

Now we find something similar here, but not with big size credit sales but only double subs rate...

No incentive to start uploading to Bigstock again, that much is certain...

30% dl increase, 42% collection growth = 9% fewer sales per image, therefore you need to grow your portfolio 9% per quarter (about 40% per year) just to stand still, if my arithmetic is any good.

I think the numbers describe annual growth, not quarterly.
Supply is outgrowing demand, but "only" by 9% per year.

Quote

Licenses sold for Shared Content will earn the Contributor a base Royalty Rate of 30%

Licenses sold for Exclusive Content will earn the Contributor a base Royalty Rate of 40%

Contribution-based incentives will be put in place that will allow Contributors to earn 35% on Shared Content and 50% on Exclusive Content.

And... we're done here.

Agree.
Different pricing for exclusive vs. non-exclusive content makes sense.
But there's no reason why they should not pay 50% on non-exclusive content.

I hadn't heard from them before this thread, but I do agree, the basics (pricing, commissions) do sound appealing.
So I thought I give them a try. They accepted me, I started to upload a few images.
Yes, missing IPTC is a PITA, but to try out with a few images that is ok.
I wonder if they are strong on photo sales as well, it would be a nice alternative to the existing agencies.

Quote from: dirkr on July 21, 2014, 16:36

The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

Doesn't that apply to the whole existence of Fotolia?

You could say it applies to the whole existence of microstock.

But in comparison to other microstocks their credit prices aren't too far off.
Offering high res files for one dollar with a minimum commitment of only 10 dollars is what's making DPC an ugly deal - because, if successful, that will take away those higher paying on demand sales (both on FT and elsewhere) that make the low subs commission acceptable.

In other words, just another scheme to sell images as cheap as possible.

Why don't you ever come up with ideas how to sell for higher prices and pay more to your contributors?

Never noticed that before, but you may be right.
It works with one of my sets of 377 images, it does not work with the next bigger one (450 images), so there may be a limit at around 400 images per set...

Whatever that project he claims he is managing is about - if it does not include a substantial raise in non-exclusive commissions it will be a project I will continue to watch from the outside...

Have you contacted Shutterstock (you say there's a watermark on the image)?
They should take care.
Don't know if they receive any compensation and how that is shared with you, but you could ask them...

Just as an anecdote (I doubt it will work the same with a blogger): I once found an image of mine in use on the website of a newspaper in Switzerland, with the watermark of a German mid-stock agency on it.
I wrote them, they took it to their lawyer, and some time later I received �145.
The regular price for a high-res image would have been about �30.

There are a lot sites like that out there that seem to use the Fotolia API.
When that first came up some years ago, FT said that once such a product is sold they have to buy a regular licence (of the biggest size available), we would then get our regular royalty for an XL or XXL credit sale.

Whether this was true and / or still is true, I don't know.

My story with Fotolia

Uploaded 10 about a year ago. Felt appalled by a sense of greed and stopped.
In the beginning of April I thought what the heck and began to upload more, about 200 files.
End of April learned about the D-Day and I opted out of DPC (Don't Puff Cigars) and deleted all - but one.

This one I had a sale on the day after�

Thinking of closing up the account but I have some money there and I hate to leave it, even if it is a small amount.

Today I got this in the mail

"Hello,
 
We're sorry to see you have recently removed some files from your portfolio.
If you change your mind please remember that you can just send us a ticket and we'll put all your files back online. However, this must be done within the next 30 days.
Also, we would like to remind you that you can choose to opt in or opt out your images from DPC in your photographers' parameters.
We hope to see you back soon and will be doing all to grow your income.

Kind Regards,

The Fotolia Team"

I would like to do the right thing and the whole situation feels rotten.

What to do� Go for the trickle of pennies or stand up straight?
Put those images back and then not upload anymore?
 

Why not just write back to them and tell them that you would love to do business with them if they revise their concept of DPC, as it is detrimental to contributors.

If they get tons of those messages maybe that helps them make up their mind.

Oleg Tscheltzoff's on Graphic Design USA Magazine

http://blog.gdusa.com/the-next-step-in-simple/#more

"The next step in simple, says stock industry veteran and serial entrepreneur Oleg Tscheltzoff, is the Dollar Photo Club. In an interview with GDUSA, it became clear that Tscheltzoff has thought long and hard about how to eliminate the last obstacles to easy image access. Honing in on the values of simplicity, predictability, and efficiency, he explains: �Customers are tangled up in plans they don�t need, use, or even understand.

Pricing structures have become an unruly mess that needs to be scaled back and simplified for the benefit of customers � not for companies and shareholders � (do you see any reference to us here?  )

So we�ve created Dollar Photo Club, which gets right to the point, offering straightforward access to over 25 million professional images for $1 each, at one low monthly fee.

Dollar Photo Club customers pay only for what they use, nothing more, and always just $1.�
...
"The bottomline, he says, is that simplifying the price will be a significant time-saver, since it eliminates shopping for price on traditional sites, does not require signing up for large plans with lots of credits or downloads. "

They were supposed to represent OUR interests, to be a sort of agency. Shame on them.

Fully agree.

But obviously they still want to spin that thing to us.

... 
The interest of contributors and the agencies is aligned and our only goal is to grow the market and to grow commissions as a whole. 
...

What a joke!