Nicely written blog Pixels Away.

... how long it will be before Fotolia changes the animated display of christmas images on the intro page.......

Lets get a few things straight about the best match, because its not unfair and its not rocket science.  Here's my understanding FWIW:

The last best match change happened many months ago and it was quite a radical change which limited a non-exclusive to having a max of four files in the first 100 of a search, and an exclusive to 8 files.  The limitations were imposed due to the discovery of a 'rigging gang' of three photographers who were systematically buying a copy or two of every one of their new uploads within minutes of approval; this created a huge dl/month number for all of their files and guaranteed first page placement in any best match search.  They were discovered due to the large number of files appearing on first pages and the similarity of the pictures (two of them were using the same camera, studio and props and may in fact have been the same person).  These two accounts were both exclusive.

The limitations of 4 and 8 were imposed in order that such rigging could never happen again.  I think its only fair that exclusives should have a higher number than non-exclusives.  Apart from this, there is no preference to exclusives.

EXCEPT......

There is another factor that influences the placing in the search; it isn't best match but the faster approval times.  Let me explain: the main component of best match is dl/month.  This is calculated not from the approval date but from the upload date.

Now imagine this situation: a non-exclusive and an exclusive both upload a highly commercial file. The exclusive image is accepted within a day; the non-exclusive takes a week.  Both files get a first download one day after approval.

The non-exclusive file gets an immediate dl/month number of 4 (because the upload was a week earlier). The exclusive file gets a dl/month number of 31 (because it was uploaded just a day before).

This explains why it appears that exclusives get preferential treatment in the best match.  But the only advantage is gained by files that are highly commercial and attract immediate sales; over time, the 'time advantage' gets diuted away.

I hope all this makes sense.  It is of course just my own understanding of how it all works.

Dear Submitters:

We wanted to let you know that we've been working hard on the details of your 2008 commission increase, and we think you'll be very pleased with the new terms. The final stage of this process is to test new price points for Shutterstock products, which we will do over the next two months. We will then evaluate the results of these price increases and finalize your raise. We expect to be able to announce the raise to you during the first two weeks of May. It will be effective immediately.

This year we will also be experimenting with some "starter" products that offer a less expensive entry point to account holders that have never purchased from us before. These new products will offer a brief trial of our user-friendly subscription model, so the account holder can experience first hand all of the benefits of being a paid Shutterstock customer. We're confident that by doing this we'll convert even more site users into happy -- and actively downloading -- customers.

We're proud that we have the best library in the industry and offer the best products, and we will continue to encourage you, our talented submitters, to submit your outstanding content. Thank you for letting us represent your work.

Best Regards,

Shutterstock

I'm not sure I agree with your drift on this one Lisa.  There was a big price increase in January and this 'sale' only reverses a small part of that increase.  So on a net basis isn't it the case that prices and income are still higher than before january 7th?  So doesn't that mean that on a net basis you are still better off?  How can that be a penalty?

The free images system doesn't work.  People THINK it works, but those people usually have small portfolios where a few extra sales make a big difference in monthly income.

I tried it out last year - for the whole month of September I had lots of free images staggered with various time frames.  In October I had zero free images (deliberately).

My income in October was 40% higher than September.

I have tried it again this year - I had zero freebies in January and I've rotated a few in February.  My income in February is less than January.

The only thing the free image facility does is devalue the microstock industry.  It also attracts to 123RF customers who ONLY want free images and nothing else.  I've noticed a huge number of views of my 'profile' and I've often wondered why - the plain fact is that it is by viewing a contributor's profile that a customer is then able to gain access to the photographer's free image list.

The free images get hundreds or thousands of downloads; far higher than is reasonable in relation to normal sales; I've got images with a handfull of sales but two or three hundred free downloads.

What 123RF is doing is creating a rod for its own back - because the free downloads are so huge relative to normal sales this suggests that only a small percentage of customers actually also pay for higher resolution, and that small percentage represents massive business risk because those customers will disappear if the free stuff ever comes to an end.  It's a house built on sand.

Imagine this scenario:  I'm a potential customer and I say to you "hey, I really like your pictures; I'll buy a few medium and high resolution copies, IF at the same time you give away for free two or three hundred web resolution images to my designer friends dotted around the world".  Think how you would react to that proposal.

If you have a good quality, commercial portfolio, my own experience says you will make MORE money at 123RF by NOT giving away free images.

And think also of your customers at other agencies - how would they react when they have been paying good money to buy small images of yours, and then find you are giving away those same images for free elsewhere?

Well in my opinion this is just a way of reversing some of the large price increase implemented in January.  They appear to have realised that for the L, XL and XXL sizes the increase was a bridge too far, so now they've invented a way to reverse some of that rise.

As sharpshot says - you don't have a January sale in December.

I suspect that at the end of March there will be another announcement along the lines of 'our Spring sale was so successful we've decided to make it permanent'.

It's just a reversal of some of the increase disguised with some spin.

Any buyer looking at that selection of seagull pictures at mostphotos is likely to give up and look for an agency with better quality pictures.

If that page is representative of the stuff for sale at mostphotos they have got a real problem and will never be anything other than a third tier picture agency.

Well I blow hot and cold on the exclusive thing sharpshot - one day I'm all keen on the idea, and the next day I get concerned about the 'eggs in basket' risk.

My decision to leave SV has nothing to do with that - I just don't want to be involved there and I don't want them to have my pictures.  In my view they are sloppy, uncommitted, amateurish and possibly incompetent, and I don't want to be associated with what is probably the laughing stock of the microstock industry.

Just my own view, of course.

Okay, I'm with you - I see the pricing table.

But if an XS costs 57p, why on earth does it say �1 on the home page?

Think I'll delete this thread and put it all down to too much thinking too early in the morning.

But I'd still like to double my Fotolia income.  Somehow......

Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly.

Sharpshot, you say your 'credits' are downvalued to 57p, so you then get paid 33% (at base level) of 57p?  That's 18.81p.

The customer pays �1 for a XS photo, and you get paid 18.81p?

So that's 19% or so.

Have I understood that correctly?

If so, my first post is wrong, but also right (in a way).  The fact of the matter is that for sales in Europe, nobody is actually getting paid 33% of the sale price, but much less.

My original post modified on the basis of too much thinking too early in the morning......