Beta does not mean you don't know what you're doing, or are deciding what you will do.
Beta means you have done it, and are checking to see if it's flawed.

- edit, typo -

Hi,

couple of questions:

- are you Beate Chelette, former senior director of photography at Corbis?
- regarding your (honestly, really garish) website, when you say "Unfortunately good looking sites in the information marketing or social marketing world as of today don't work, these types of sites do" are you saying that, or is the McTemplate "internet marketing guru"  you hired saying that?

Honestly that site undermines whatever credibility and professional weight you may have.  I think from a business point of view you have to decide whether you want to be a legitimate consultant or a bottom-feeder. Also, I think your price point ($197) is wrong for the type of saturation campaign you're running.

I haven't been paid either.

So far, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that there is a genuine problem.

What is certain is that if there were a problem with them receiving money (ie, their own cash flow), they would make it a top priority and fix it right away.

As a point of discussion:

Let's say Fotolia can cancel anybody's account for
- speaking critically about them
- speaking critically about them while using R-rated language
- speaking critically about them, with all words in poetry of iambic pentameter, wearing slippers on their head

This being the internet, everybody is pretty much anonymous.  Discussions on internet media not directly controlled by Fotolia, for example an independent forum, cannot be verified by Fotolia.

I can claim to be someone else.
I can claim to be a particular person that I am not.
I can claim to be a certain high-ranker on Fotlia.

I can then criticize Fotolia on the internet, while claiming to be that person, using one of the three flavors stated above.  Fotolia polices statements critical of them by punishing the person making the statement.  However, since they are effectively policing internet media not belonging to them, how do they know they are punishing the right person?

I am actually Yuri Arcurs in disguise, by the way. Shhh. Secret. Don't tell anyone.

Quote from: kgtoh

...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...

I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken.  The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.

He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence.  - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.

The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.

And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.)  You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.

This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him.  How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.

fred

Regarding "Rapists":

Let me break down my argument into bite-sized numbered chunks:
in chronological order:
1. Chad / Fotolia claims Bobby called him/Fotolia a) F*kers b) *insult removed* c) Rapists publicly
2. This is an accusation of Libel
3. Based on this alleged Libel, Fotolia terminates its relationship with Bobby
4. Therefore, in my mind, as the termination is based on an alleged act of libel, Fotolia should satisfactorily prove this act of Libel before the action they took
5. As a reaction to Fotolia's accusation, and under provocation, Bobby then called them rapists. This was not a smart thing to do (please refer to my previous post re: children's tactics)
6. This does not, in my mind, remove the need to see evidence of Bobby calling them F*kers and Rapists before the accusation was made (you cannot make an accusation of misdeed, then provoke said misdeed)

All I am asking is for you to show evidence of Bobby's statements from before the accusation.

You say I am taking what Bobby says as gospel. I could accuse you of the same. What I'm looking for is logical evidence, based on what is publicly available.
You could say that this is unnecessary, but I like to think "Innocent until proven guilty".

Regarding offensiveness of "Greedy *insult removed*"

Yes, Fotolia took offense to Bobby, and they reacted in a certain manner. Does this reaction improve their standing in my eyes, or does it reinforce any negative perceptions that I had?

I could, as a terrorist, blow up a car bomb and kill people because a particular author spoke badly about my religion.
I am severely offended. Nobody can argue against that ("no, you are not offended"). It's perfectly in my right to be offended, and many like-minded people will feel similarly offended and that I am fully justified in any actions I do.  There will be others who feel my actions were not fully justified.

Also, extending your boss - employee anology. If an employee mouthed off about me, and I fired him, it's within my rights. (let's just ignore any existing discrimination / employee rights issues for the moment).  The issue here is how do the other employees feel. In this situation, some of the "employees" side with the guy who got fired. Some of the employees are siding with the employer, quite vocally so.

By the way, No, English is not my native language.. so you are correct on that point.

"It also seem perverse that the lower rankings are being riled up against a policy that mostly effects the upper rankings that can't be bothered to do it for themselves."

I am in complete agreement with you on this one. As I mentioned before, I think fulltimers who are in the upper rankings actually have the most to lose in the longterm by not acting.

Quote from: kgtoh on December 04, 2008, 20:40

I was just reading the messages over at micropayment � Microstock Stock Photography Group.

Besides the claims of the employees of Fotolia, I see zero evidence that Bobby spoke in such an insulting and vulgar manner....

I think you need to re-read the first reply to Chad in the Micropayment MS group thread.  Perhaps calling someone a *insult removed* and rapist is not vulgar to you but I think most would agree that it is not appropriate language for a serious discussion of issues.

fred

Fred, can you please provide a link to this post, so that we know we are referencing the same quotation?

I did a full-text search for "*insult removed*" on the forum
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/msearch?query=*insult removed*&pos=20&cnt=10

Is the "first reply to Chad" you refer to this post:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/22137

Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME
A SINGLE WARNING. FOTOLIA has acted in a selfish, greedy and
unethical manner towards those who helped to build you and make you a
success and you have done so on multiple occasions.

You hold out a carrot to all of us promising a reward for perfomance
and then just before a large number of us are about to realize that
reward you move the carrot 3 years down the road. That sir is
unethical treatment of your contributors."

They are claiming he is calling them *insult removed*, f*kers and rapists.  Bobby admits to calling them greedy *insult removed*.
" I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors."
This was said after the accusation, after a point of provocation.
I am looking for evidence Bobby called them a rapist before, not after.

As a point of interest, in my full-text search for "*insult removed*", here are some other references to *insult removed*

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/11508
The Financial Times refers to Google as *insult removed*.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/2426
Sean Locke calls another contributor a greedy *insult removed* (in what looks like a friendly way)

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/19395
Fotolia's own Mat Heyward refers to McCain as a *insult removed*.
Should McCain and the Republican party stop distributing Mat Heywards stock photos?

The only part of the accusation that I have seen proven is Bobby using "greedy *insult removed*". Honestly, I don't find it that bad because I am not seven years old and Mommy is not hovering in the background with a bar of soap.
Chad has not provided any evidence. If you insist on defending him, please provide evidence with a direct link of what he said before the accusation, not something he said after the accusation, upon direct provocation.

Edit: some rapist editing

A couple of questions/comments

1. Do we have any evidence that Bobby said what he did?  We are just assuming Fotolia has not exaggerated or misspoken in some manner.  I would like to hear Bobby's point of view further.

2. I think this issue is bigger than Bobby or any one contributor.  Bobby's relationship with Fotolia, and things he might or might not have said is one thing.  Tarnishing Bobby's reputation and the nobility, or lack thereof, of his individual cause does not diminish the market forces that are in play.  I think in a sense, it's actually unfortunate the two issues have become mixed to such an extent.

Jsnover:
You have some very good points.
"FT is counting on a lack of concerted contributor action to be able to push through their changes. They know that their business would fold tomorrow if most of the contributors close their accounts and contributors look at their monthly income if they did that (and worry about losing their earned rank if they later have to start over) and dither. If they had gotten a worse black eye over the introduction of subs, would they have pulled the current stunt?"

I agree completely.  I'm sure there will be additional changes in the future, mostly not in our favor.
There's a saying, if you drop a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in water and slowly raise the temperature, it will happily sit there and boil.

RT,

I feel I have to speak up regarding what you have just said.
Yes, we have no "rights", that we would have if we were employees.  In fact, one of the main reasons why I'm not doing stock fulltime is that I have a lot more rights and protections as an employee that I do as a stock contributor.

I realize that Fotolia is a business, and has an enlightened self-interest to make money.  This is part and parcel of a free economy. All independent business entities have their own agendas, with the most basic goal to increase earnings (or maximize rents in show-off speak).  Fotolia is a business entity, as are other competing agencies and, as you rightly put, so are all of us.

It is in their best interest to get products at a cheapest possible cost (meaning with the lowest possible reward to us, the supplier).  I think it's clear, as the industry becomes more competitive, agencies such as Fotolia are exploring ways of doing that.  We can choose to accept it, or we can choose to explore ways to make our position stronger. This is business.

I realize that, in the larger scheme of things, supporting Bobby actually helps us all, and more importantly, helps me.
And yes, honestly, it's me that I'm the most concerned about.

To me, the microstock market seems to be an oligopoly with a small number of powerful microstock agencies, who are in a position of power over the suppliers (us, the contributors). Suppliers are weak and fragmented.  Unfortunately, because microstock contributors are in such a position of weakness, the best treatment we can hope to get is tough but fair (Dreamstime) or outright disdain (Fotolia).

It's for this reason that I support the smaller microstock companies as much as possible.  The more like an oligopoly or even monopoly that the microstock sellers become, the weaker my position.  It is in my interest for customers to buy from many different agencies than from a few strong ones.  I would rather sell through 10 agencies than 1 big agency.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult for new entrants to gain a foothold in this market. Barrier to Entry seems deceptively low (basically setting up an engine that can sell photos).  However, barrier to success  is very actually high.

In my opinion, the three main competitive factors among microstock agencies are: price, quality, and selection.  Price (or at least lower price point) is relatively inelastic because there is a lower limit beyond which you can't make a reasonable profit.  Quality is a moot issue since everyone is selling the same images.  That leave selection, which means long-standing agencies with 4 million photos have a huge advantage.

As someone (sorry, can't remember) said on this forum (paraphrasing): "If I'm a new stock agency selling the same photos at the same or high price, with less selection, why should customers buy from me?"
Throw in the fact that some of these newer agencies are pursuing strategies that are, in my opinion, laughably naive, and the future looks grim in that respect.
NB: A half-hearted adwords campaign and SEO skillz does not a "marketing campaign" make.

Just some thoughts, no solutions 

Another post on Fotolia forums that I'm putting here, in case it gets deleted:

If you're bringing up Alamy, Alamy cut commissions to contributors by 5%.
Let's compare the way Alamy did it:

- announced months in advance, making every possible effort to ensure contributors find out about it
- provide detailed explanations of why they were reducing commissions and what they were going to do with the extra money (boost sales efforts, especially in new regions)
- allowed contributors to review the new contract and compare with the old one
- extend a courtesy grace period to opt out of the contract (ie, leave Alamy)

Compared to how Alamy might have chosen to do it

- not make any announcement
- quietly implement the change right before a major holiday when no-one is around
- allow contributors to find out about it by themselves
- a week after, release a small announcement.  Ignore all further questions and discussion on the issue

Which method makes me feel like a respected partner working with a professional agency?

Respecting a contract does not mean that a contract can never be changed.  Respecting a contract means treating the contract and the parties bound to the contract in a professional manner.

Edit:
The original post was censored and deleted from Fotolia's forums.

Just copying a post I made on Fotolia's forum, in case it gets deleted, or I get banned.:

I think it's actually in Fotolia's benefit to hear our opinions on this issue, rather than just assume everyone is OK with the way they have handled things.

I understand that there are larger business issues at stake, and Fotolia is perfectly within their rights to make any business decision they want.  However, I think they handled the whole affair in the worst way possible.

I don't presume to speak for everyone, but for me, here's why I am so upset over this issue:

1. Rankings and ratings systems are as much an emotional issue as a financial one.  People who are achievement-oriented (as I assume most microstockers are) strive towards certain milestones and goals.  Many organizations and systems, including microstock sites, implement this type of ranking system.  Some of these ranking systems are not monetized, and changes in rankings do not affect earnings.  By suddenly changing ranking requirements, this creates a feeling of "chasing the dragon" with contributors and, in effect, reduces the effectiveness of the system.

2.  Fotolia has a long reputation of poor communication with contributors.  Many contributors have taken this as an indication that Fotolia holds them in poor regard.  Despite many complaints and discussions every time Fotolia has done this, Fotolia has chosen to handle the rank change in the exact same manner.

3. Yes, I understand that Fotolia feels certain changes have to be made in order to stay competitive. There are many different ways to address this issue.  Basically, what Fotolia did is to squeeze their suppliers (meaning us) in order to be more attractive to their customers.  Yes, it was a business decision in order to (hopefully) achieve certain goals. However, make no mistake about it, we are the ones being squeezed.  Squeezing the supplier is a legitimate, time-honored practice, by the way.  The squeezee typically doesn't appreciate it though.

4. The way Fotolia chose to handle this demonstrates either a)  a very poor understanding of stakeholder dynamics or b) they don't care about contributors.  To take a business owner - employee analogy (yes, I understand we are not Fotolia employees, but we are in a many to 1 relationship, with Fotolia having the position of power, so close enough), imagine a business owner promising a pizza party to his team if they achieve 100 sales.  Then, when they achieve 100 sales, he says "well, times are tough, the company needs to be leaner and meaner, so we will postpone the pizza party to when we achieve 200 sales. With your hard work, 200 sales shouldn't be a problem. This is for your own good.".  Well, the pizza's not a big deal. I can buy my own pizza, but then it's not the pizza that's the issue is it?

5. What is Fotolia selling? Photographs and Images from contributors.  So, Fotolia has had so much success selling these photographs and images that they need to change the ranking/rewards system to be less favorable than it was previously? We have somehow contributed to the success of Fotolia in a manner that results in less favorable terms for us. Go Team!

Basically, I can understand that they are facing a legitimate business issue.  Is there a way to address the issue that doesn't automatically put us, the contributors, at a disadvantage?  Was squeezing us the last or first option on their list? Could they have handled implementing the change in a better way?  Do I have to buy my own pizza, then cry in it?

Would be nice if Fotolia could officially answer these questions.  Because that would mean they care.

Around the same time as Fotolia changes the ranking requirements, Alamy decreases commission by 5%.

Honestly, I think a drop in commission by 5 percentile points is  more serious and impactful issue than a change in ranking requirements.  However, the difference in the way both agencies handled implementing the change is so different.  Alamy chose to handle it in a professional and forthright manner.  Fotolia chose the opposite. 

To me the big issue is not the change in rankings per se, it is the indication of the disregard in which Fotolia holds its contributors, and its willingness to change its arrangement with contributors arbitrarily and at its sole convenience.  I honestly ask myself if this is an agency I can have a long-term relationship with? If we are basically being punished for contributing to Fotolia's success, do we wish to continue contributing to Fotolia's ongoing success?

Speaking for myself personally, I have suspended submissions to Fotolia.  I will decide on more drastic action later.

Keith

I was looking through my rejections, and most were actually for
"This is a nice image, but because there are typically so many images in this category, each one must be exemplary to be marketable as midstock."

My mistake
(although I did get a bunch of lighting/compositions one)

Here's a rejection:
http://www.dreamstime.com/airport-lounge-image3260281
rejected for
"The lighting of this image limits its stock value"
This shot was taken at night, using available artificial lighting for a more realistic feel.  Sold a bunch of times at various micros, once on Alamy, so I certainly feel it's commercially viable.

I really don't have the time or the inclination to try to justify individual photos.
I am not questioning your marketing position, just whether it's worth it to upload the rest of my portfolio.  Having an entire batch rejected indicates your standards are too high for me (I'm not saying I'm the best photographer in the world, mind you), so it's just wasting my time and your reviewers' time.