Has Adobe made any changes to Fotolia that benefits contributors?

Most companies spend more than 28% to produce their products or services. I don't know if the are bragging or complaining.

Quote from: Rinderart on March 07, 2015, 01:48

Quote from: Snow on March 05, 2015, 15:57
I took GL as an example because they have been with us for quite some time now but of course it goes for every contributor friendly agency out there.

QuoteA few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now

That seems to be the issue with some of the more contributor friendly agencies, not willing to go all the way.
Stocksy seems to be only one that has succeeded in this. I am not with them and maybe never will be but I'm glad agencies like that can still exist in this market.

I very Much Agree. I mean really...If a company Can't make a living On 50% of something they don't even produce themselves? Thats pretty Bad business. Sorry.

It more than making a living. They want luxury, free pizza, free massages, free gym, free insurance, and more free benefits. Some one needs to remind them it is not free; we are paying for it. If they cut all the corporate freebies  and luxuries;they could afford to support their contributors!

Quote from: kmlPhoto on March 05, 2015, 15:05
Up until its recent price dip, I have made more on SS as an investor than as a contributor. We work in a free market economy. If we want to work with SS our only control over what we make is volume and quality of submissions. They have a right to make money and spend it any way they like. they can pay as much or a little to us as the market will bear. There may come a time when it just doesn't work to be a stock contributor with SS or any other agency there are other options for making a living in the imaging space, we are all creative people, we will find them. I don't see any agency owing us anything.  Just a thought from someone who has spent way too much time in the business world and not enough time behind a camera.

They have that right, the question is it ethical?

Profits were announced last Thursday.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-4q-profit-forecasts-221324563.html

Just exposing the profits and lavish corporate lifestyle will create a PR problem. SS will then have an issue they must deal with.

May be a book, " Modern Day Sweat Shop in America" would get the media attention.

Since Vincent at Shutterstock locked this thread on their forum. I have decide this discussion needs to be moved to Microstock.

The days of upload your hard-drive and get rich are over!

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 22, 2011, 03:19
The basic premise is accurate, that's why people are so angry at IS and Getty and StockXpert (for selling out) it's the jilted lover problem. We put in the effort and devotion and they ran away with someone else for the money.

And then with many of them, it's the realization that we've been taken for suckers from the start and have to face the truth that all the kind and friendly talk, the whole community scheme, was a lie. We've been manipulated and lied to.

Yep it is all about themselves and the money. We have been "duped."

I had an EL download a couple of weeks ago. The sales are steady but a little slow.

More nanny state society run amuck. Don't worry too much about this law. The law is written too broad and will not stand-up upon appeal and will be struck down. I suspect a court case is coming quickly to determine the strength and reach of this law.

A word to Tennessee, "You are in over your head and above your pay grade."

Microstock agencies are like girlfriends.
In the beginning it is grand,
show me your pixels, love your pixels,
I need your pixels,
I want your pixels, more, please more.
All is happy, all she talks about is your pixels.
You think everything is great and move-in with her.
It is so swell she is happy with your pixels,
she tells your pixels make her feel good.
One night, tell, "let me show some new pixels."
Suddenly, out of the blue
it is honey not tonight, "I have a headache!"
Your first rejection!
The next night, "honey not tonight, I have already seen your pix!"
Your rejection rate increases!
You realize your girlfriend is becoming old and tired.
She tells you, "I don't want to see your pix, I already had your pix.
Total rejection, you lose all interest and quit submitting.
The final rejection, It is just a snapshot and the final insult,
"The new Photographer is a stud and his pixels are bigger."

This is the trend with all agencies with large image bases. They are started to look macro images and still want to pay micro prices.

They have lots of views, but none of them have any money!

I submitted an image of an alligator, it was rejected because of selected focus. The game winner, was they recommended using a tripod to increase the depth of field. I want the reviewer to show how it done, with more depth of field, using a tripod, and without getting becoming alligator bait!

Don't know about cannibalizing, but with agencies have 10 million images on line are flooding the market.  The market does outstrip the demand. There is an oversupply of images on the market for the foreseeable future.

Yes, All class and No sales. Just give me a sleazy one that has sales!

I quit uploading to FT the first time they cut commissions. I will just let it wither on the vine.  The agency shake-out is occurring and will continue, so will contributors.

When the buyers' quit, is when the market ends. Buyers are the real control on the life or death of an agency.

Some contributors thing they can upload images and the buyers will show. That is not true, you can open a store and the shoppers will still go to Wal-Mart.