Author Topic: Fotolia cuts commissions again (Read 74228 times)

Anita Potter · « **Reply #150 on:** January 24, 2011, 21:47 »

Quote from: lightscribe on January 24, 2011, 18:02

Quote from: Anita Potter on January 24, 2011, 17:41
Now I really noticed it with a new file upload. When I clicked on the extended license button it said 8 and not 10. Guess it's not just my imagination anymore.

Will see how things fair with them in the next few months. I'm due for the unsold files section come this June (2 years with no files sold) so I'm not making any decisions on anything.

I'm still having a hard time understanding the statistical data of how much it's going down. Can someone way smarter than me put something up that's in like dollars and cents? I've never been good with statistics esp. with percentages. What makes it harder is that they have so many different subscription models I can't figure out where I'm losing at.

your earnings have dropped by around 20% depending on what level you are at. So if you made $100/month you will now make $80 It is a bit more complicated than that but for the most part you will be losing 20 cents on the dollar.

Ahhhh that makes much more sense to me now. Thank you

travelstock · « **Reply #151 on:** January 24, 2011, 22:21 »

Maybe its time for Leaf to update the chart again: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/

Am I right in thinking that with the combination of FT increasing some credit prices and decreasing the percentage of $1 that they pay some contributors are now getting as low as 13% commissions?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #152 on:** January 25, 2011, 01:31 »

Quote from: Allsa on January 21, 2011, 09:27

I would feel much better about this if we had some assurance from Fotolia admin that they do not intend to change the number of downloads needed to advance up a level in rank at any time in the foreseeable future. I'm close enough to emerald where I would be (very resentfully) willing put up with the pay cut until I reach emerald and get my old commission rate restored.

There's a steady increase in that anyway, as there seem to be gradually more and more subscription DLs in the mix and you need four times as many of those as you do credit downloads to get allowed one "download credit" towards your rank.

I see that 24 out of my last 100 downloads were on credits, so that moved me towards the next rank by 24 + 76/4 = 43credit dls. If my sales are average you have to multiply the sales requirements for every level by 2.3

So only fairly serious contributors will get to silver 2,300dl and hardly any will get to gold 23,000dl, let alone emerald (c.60,000dl).

I'm about 10,000 sales short of gold and I'm among the top 1,000 on Fotolia and it will take me two or three years to get to the next level and another decade to reach emerald (by which time they will certainly have put it further out of reach).

Xalanx · « **Reply #153 on:** January 25, 2011, 03:22 »

I'm Silver too. And wow what a pleasant surprise these days when XL sales went drastically from $2.48 to $2.00!!

lock_stock · « **Reply #154 on:** January 25, 2011, 11:27 »

I've deleted part of my Fotolia portfolio and not going to upload new content. Also asked their support to make all of my images unavailable for Extended license sale. Wasn't it enough that most of my buyers are non-US paying in euro and I'm getting my % in $ ? It's not even peanuts now, it's a peanuts shell.

cthoman · « **Reply #155 on:** January 25, 2011, 11:33 »

Quote from: Xalanx on January 25, 2011, 03:22

I'm Silver too. And wow what a pleasant surprise these days when XL sales went drastically from $2.48 to $2.00!!

Wow! I guess that is about 20%. It looks more dramatic when you look at it like that. I used to get a ton of those for 8 credit vector sales. That makes me feel better about my decision to leave FT.

nixite · « **Reply #156 on:** January 25, 2011, 12:17 »

I think there is a lot of problem with Fotolia, I don't like decrease of royalties, and I don't like subscription (but when subscriptions come no one tell about it's not good). But when some people kill their content or stop uploading new content, I'm not sure there is anyone of Fotolia top manager know. And unfortunatly I don't know how to force Fotolia do their changes back. Anyone knows?

Killing all photos, part of photos, stopping of upload - I think it's doesn't matter for Fotolia, when it do just a few people... Any idea of real method?

lock_stock · « **Reply #157 on:** January 25, 2011, 13:05 »

IMHO, the only way to stop microstocks (not only fotolia) from becoming too greedy is a mass photo deleting/stopping uploads and the public reaction of the top contributors. By doing nothing we're just encouraging them.

helix7 · « **Reply #158 on:** January 25, 2011, 14:18 »

Quote from: lock_stock on January 25, 2011, 13:05

IMHO, the only way stop microstocks (not only fotolia) to stop from becoming too greedy is a mass photo deleting/stopping uploads and the public reaction of the top contributors. By doing nothing we're just encouraging them.

It'll never happen.

lock_stock · « **Reply #159 on:** January 25, 2011, 14:25 »

never say never.

It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.

disorderly · « **Reply #160 on:** January 25, 2011, 14:32 »

Quote from: lock_stock on January 25, 2011, 14:25

never say never.

It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.

Never.

There are too many people involved, with too many different motivators. Microstock began with hobbyists receiving little or no money for their/our work. If it returns to its origins, I bet there are plenty of new hobbyists who'll replace those of us who decide we've had enough. Personally, I'll abandon agencies that get too greedy, but I know that's only to make myself feel like less of a patsy. I'm a drop of rain to Fotolia, and my departure will go unnoticed.

marinini · « **Reply #161 on:** January 25, 2011, 14:50 »

I think the problem is not only low commission, Main problem is that with these steps Fotolia, Istock and other agencies who decide to make such action will Kill Mickrostock business.
What I mean? As many others contributors who are affected from last changes in royalty structure I decide to stop uploading. But there are many other people mostly from poor countries and the "third world" who dont really care about the price, they can live with 100$ per month and that is Ok for them. So, if few contributors stop uploading, many other will come - but lets be honest competition will slow, quality of images will drop, therefore Byers will disappear and this excellent opportunity for graphic artists and photographers - mickrostock will crash.

I have few ideas about what we can do about Fotolia (and Istock) greed.

- Make petition

- Ask directly top contributors to join Us (not only complaining in forums that they did not support us)

- Write a "Open Letter" to Fotolia administration about our opinion.
What I mean when I say "Open letter" - a letter addressed not only to Fotolia, but to buyers and partners of Fotolia, they should know whats going on - that many contributors stop serving Fotolia and they (buyers) can find new content created by these contributors in Dreamstime, Shutterstock and other agencies with fair attitude to people. This letter can be published in all possible places in internet personal blogs, forums and etc.

- Make photo/design contest with subject "Fotolia greed" and spread images all over the net

- and off course stop uploading

I posted this clip time age, but unfortunately its still actually
newbielink:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk# [nonactive]

helix7 · « **Reply #162 on:** January 25, 2011, 15:07 »

Quote from: lock_stock on January 25, 2011, 14:25

never say never.

It will happen or microstocks no longer be a source of acceptable (more or less) income for contributors majority. And it's already happening.

Which outcome is more likely: Enough contributors boycott an agency to make a dent in their bottom line, or enough contributors always support an agency enough to keep them from feeling the effects of a boycott?

Agencies know which outcome is more likely, and that's why they're behaving this way. They know that there will always be enough contributors left when the dust settles.

We can't change what these companies are doing. Not now, not ever. The agencies know they have all the power and can do whatever they want. This is the new reality of microstock.

leaf · « **Reply #163 on:** January 25, 2011, 15:28 »

Quote from: holgs on January 24, 2011, 22:21

Maybe its time for Leaf to update the chart again: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/

Am I right in thinking that with the combination of FT increasing some credit prices and decreasing the percentage of $1 that they pay some contributors are now getting as low as 13% commissions?

12.3% actually
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-cuts-commissions-again/msg180662/#msg180662

Pixart · « **Reply #164 on:** January 25, 2011, 15:39 »

Shouldn't we be kicking them back where it hurts the most? In their wallet and their pride?

If we had a union they would likely be doing this already. A well crafted statement (advertisement) in specific publications clearly stating how these agencies are treating their artist (the words raping and pillaging come to mind

). I dont even know what the publications would be Layers, GDUSA?

We would need the publications that creatives/artists read. Creatives will feel our pain - if we tell a creative that our commissions have been reduced by (20%) - that the agencies keep as much as 85% of the licensing fees, and that whenever they feel so inclined they take more and more and more - it will get their attention. We could point out the offenders and we could point out the agencies we feel fair. They will be left to draw their own conclusions and shop where they would like to spend their dollars.

When I worked in Film and Television and read the trades this was very common, and it wasn't just the unions that would place a full page advert in Variety to get your attention when there was a big issue.

lock_stock · « **Reply #165 on:** January 25, 2011, 15:55 »

Quote from: marinini on January 25, 2011, 14:50

I think the problem is not only low commission, Main problem is that with these steps Fotolia, Istock and other agencies who decide to make such action will Kill Mickrostock business...

Absolutely agree with every word.

Quote from: helix7

Which outcome is more likely: Enough contributors boycott an agency to make a dent in their bottom line, or enough contributors always support an agency enough to keep them from feeling the effects of a boycott?

I doubt that agency can keep enough loyal contributors for a long time by permanent infringe contributor's interests. And in the end, as Marinini said:

Quote

competition will slow, quality of images will drop, therefore Byers will disappear and this excellent opportunity for graphic artists and photographers - mickrostock will crash.

R.I.P.)))

loop · « **Reply #166 on:** January 25, 2011, 16:22 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 25, 2011, 14:18

Quote from: lock_stock on January 25, 2011, 13:05
IMHO, the only way stop microstocks (not only fotolia) to stop from becoming too greedy is a mass photo deleting/stopping uploads and the public reaction of the top contributors. By doing nothing we're just encouraging them.

It'll never happen.

... and they know it.

borg · « **Reply #167 on:** January 25, 2011, 16:31 »

Again!!!!

They cut commissions few days ago, why again!?

maigi · « **Reply #168 on:** January 25, 2011, 16:37 »

Your target (microstock submitters) is wrong.
Agencies exist because of buyers.
Give buyers what they need elsewhere, and they drop those agencies what you don't like.

Look in the history. Slavery didn't ended because slaves stopped working, but because there were people who stood up and made other people understand that it's not ethical to benefit from slaves work.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #169 on:** January 25, 2011, 17:05 »

Quote from: maigi on January 25, 2011, 16:37

Your target (microstock submitters) is wrong.
Agencies exist because of buyers.
Give buyers what they need elsewhere, and they drop those agencies what you don't like.

Look in the history. Slavery didn't ended because slaves stopped working, but because there were people who stood up and made other people understand that it's not ethical to benefit from slaves work.

Point taken, but there is no obvious place for contributors to take their work. Even the agencies who get highest marks from contributors have reduced commissions to increase their share of the take. I can't think of one agency (not even SS) who hasn't done this. And I'm not counting minuscule agencies with no marketing budget who give 90% to the photographer as 90% of almost-zero is still almost-zero.

When the microstock end of the business was new and agencies needed images, contributors had more leverage. Now that there is real money in it, all the agencies want a bigger piece of the pie and are not as motivated to keep contributors happy.

We (contributors) are both beneficiaries and victims of microstock's sucess.

niserin · « **Reply #170 on:** January 25, 2011, 17:15 »

Marinini and Pixart -> your ideas seem very plausible and DOABLE.
Maybe consider creating a new thread in the general forum ? Here they may get unnoticed...

Cheers,

maigi · « **Reply #171 on:** January 25, 2011, 17:32 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2011, 17:05

Point taken, but there is no obvious place for contributors to take their work. Even the agencies who get highest marks from contributors have reduced commissions to increase their share of the take.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. (I'm not very good in English, sorry.) When we spend long hours to invite and convince contributors to fight against greedy agencies, it possibly might turn out just lots of wasted energy. It's much better to focus the energy into figuring out what could be that "other place" (a new business model?), where contributors could take their work, find customers and get fair pay.

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #172 on:** January 25, 2011, 17:44 »

We deleted our port at FT in March of 2009 because of credit card fraud, mass rejections, incorrect crediting on our account and other such things.
As tempting as it has been to re-activate our account and grab some money, it's topics like this that make me glad that I never did. Money doesn't buy happiness, ethical treatment does.

cthoman · « **Reply #173 on:** January 25, 2011, 17:51 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2011, 17:05

And I'm not counting minuscule agencies with no marketing budget who give 90% to the photographer as 90% of almost-zero is still almost-zero.

Well, if you started promoting those agencies a little more they might actually sell more. I think people forget some of the biggest advertisers for these micros is us contributors. I've sent plenty of traffic to these agencies with links, referrals and affiliates. Maybe, you can't just will something to happen, but you can certainly be proactive in trying to make it happen.

qwerty · « **Reply #174 on:** January 25, 2011, 18:01 »

How's this one. quote from fotolia forum. Yeah they screwed us over again lets make them the best. what ? I thought there were some ass kissers at Istock but this one takes the cake.

"There are a couple of ways we can treat this, either get fed up and give up and just stop uploading or delete our portfolios which seems a shame after all the work that has gone into them or do totally the opposite.

If we continue to upload, and make those images that we do upload the best we can do then we will make Fotolia somewhere that the buyers/licencees want to come and the more that come and buy, the more of our images will be sold, it is totally up to us, the submitters, we are what makes Fotolia and the better they do, the better we do - when times were good we got rewarded, I trust that if we can put Fotolia at the top of the microstock market we will again get increases but imagine that, as the UK government keeps telling us - "things may get worse before they get better" but they will get better, they always do it just takes time and a lot of effort.

I think I will treat this as a challenge rather than just accept it as a defeat and try and start shooting again so I can replace some of those images that the rest of you are deleting or not uploading "

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia cuts commissions again (Read 74228 times)

Anita Potter

travelstock

BaldricksTrousers

Xalanx

lock_stock

cthoman

nixite

lock_stock

helix7

lock_stock

disorderly

marinini

helix7

leaf

Pixart

lock_stock

loop

borg

maigi

Jo Ann Snover

niserin

maigi

RGebbiePhoto

cthoman

qwerty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors