Author Topic: Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May,1 (Read 340024 times)

Desintegrator · « **Reply #775 on:** May 06, 2014, 16:13 »

One more of the little things we can do...
It is almost certain that the funds for the advertising of DPC come from Fotolia. Probably it's almost nothing, still we can all ask or payout now. Normally i did it bout twice a year or so, but from now on i will request payout every time i reach 50 credits.
The same as I don't want my images to fight their silly war, neither do i want my money to be used for that.

Dook · « **Reply #776 on:** May 06, 2014, 16:14 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on May 06, 2014, 16:13

One more of the little things we can do...
It is almost certain that the funds for the advertising of DPC come from Fotolia. Probably it's almost nothing, still we can all ask or payout now. Normally i did it bout twice a year or so, but from now on i will request payout every time i reach 50 credits.
The same as I don't want my images to fight their silly war, neither do i want my money to be used for that.

Good point!

Photobomb · « **Reply #777 on:** May 06, 2014, 16:23 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on May 06, 2014, 16:13

One more of the little things we can do...
It is almost certain that the funds for the advertising of DPC come from Fotolia. Probably it's almost nothing, still we can all ask or payout now. Normally i did it bout twice a year or so, but from now on i will request payout every time i reach 50 credits.
The same as I don't want my images to fight their silly war, neither do i want my money to be used for that.

Wow! I'd never leave money with any agency a moment longer than required. It's always been my theory that the money is better, for me, in my bank account as opposed to theirs. And the memory of 'Lucky Oliver' going belly up leaving people with uncollectible earnings only reinforces my position. I don't know that any business is trustworthy enough to hold my money (including banks

)

Red Dove · « **Reply #778 on:** May 06, 2014, 16:31 »

What PhotoBomb said. Plus I hate to think of Oleg enjoying a Cohiba Gran Reserva lit with my money.

Pixart also nailed it in his comment above. FT are changing the perceived value of the work. It doesn't matter what they change on commissions or what other sweeteners they have in the pipeline to retain contributors, this is cannibalization of existing business and potentially, a silver bullet for someone else in the Top Tier. I have a feeling it won't be SS.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #779 on:** May 06, 2014, 16:45 »

Thanks for reminding me the payout was at $50. Silly me waiting endlessly for it to reach $100.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #780 on:** May 06, 2014, 17:16 »

Quote from: Dook on May 06, 2014, 16:11

Microstock agencies are doing what they've been doing from their beginning (this time it's Fotolia) - lowering prices and devaluing our work. Aren't the agencies that we all work for the ones who cut the traditional stock prices and almost completely changed the stock photography market? Aren't we, microstock contributors, the ones how made profit out of this, since we were the ones who never made it into traditional stock, or weren't even aware of its existence?
Therefore, we could all see this coming. Even more, we all participated in this, nobody is innocent. We all agreed to work for 0.25$ ten years ago.

I don't think you have the history of microstock even close to accurate, and as a result have come to an inaccurate conclusion.

The huge differences are that microstock wasn't offering the same thing to the same audience at lower prices.

Microstock expanded the market by bringing new buyers who couldn't previously afford either stock or custom photo shoots. The shots were initially of very variable quality and for the most part had much lower production values. For some buyers that was a plus because it didn't look as plastic fantastic as some high end stock.

And just as a point of order, 10 years ago Shutterstock paid 20 cents a download, not 25 and iStock paid 10, 20 or 30 cents depending on S-M-L. Dreamstime was 50 cents on the $1 (and I forget if they had two or three sizes). CanStock was a little higher at first.

What Fotolia is doing is offering the same buyers the same product at a lower price - and they didn't ask the owners of the content if it was OK with them first. The lower price part of that is not only the low royalties but the lack of volume - you can buy in for $10 making it a massive giveaway as they get the high volume price for low volume purchases.

It's very very different.

EmberMike · « **Reply #781 on:** May 06, 2014, 17:51 »

Quote from: EmberMike on May 06, 2014, 14:18

...If anyone can directly contact any folks that are still on DPC, why not do it? It's painstaking to do this one email at a time, but it's better than not doing anything.

That email I sent? The contributor opted out. And just like that 10,000 more images are gone from DPC.

Send those emails, folks. It works.

H2O · « **Reply #782 on:** May 06, 2014, 18:02 »

Quote from: EmberMike on May 06, 2014, 17:51

Quote from: EmberMike on May 06, 2014, 14:18
...If anyone can directly contact any folks that are still on DPC, why not do it? It's painstaking to do this one email at a time, but it's better than not doing anything.

That email I sent? The contributor opted out. And just like that 10,000 more images are gone from DPC.

Send those emails, folks. It works.

Sending emails is a good idea but the only way to get real traction on opting out is to force the issue, the advertising and design press should be contacted in say New York, London, Paris this would rise the profile of the issue.

1. Sales at DPC would go up, the effect of which would be for contributers to question what is going on with such low returns.

2. The advertising and design community would get the message and the message would then spread to the contributers, because they are one and the same.

bpepz · « **Reply #783 on:** May 06, 2014, 18:23 »

OM · « **Reply #784 on:** May 06, 2014, 19:33 »

Quote from: bpepz on May 06, 2014, 18:23

I opted out my 1371 images a few days ago, somehow my images are all still up. I even made sure to hit "save". Anyone else notice this?

Takes 'em a few days to remove the images but when I opted out the images were still visible initially but not 'clickable'/downloadable.

BTW. I see that the Africa Studio factory is still innit2winnit there with more than 450,000 images!
Quick, someone send them an email. Probably wouldn't do any good. Maybe they're part-owned by FT.

emblem · « **Reply #785 on:** May 06, 2014, 19:38 »

To the people who haven't opted out and are waiting for changes to DPC....doesn't it make any difference about the unethical and immoral way that Fotolia has gone about creating this aberration. If it wasn't for people rebelling against this, it would be too late now and the damage already done.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #786 on:** May 06, 2014, 20:28 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2014, 14:23

Well, since there's so much speculation about what I intend to do, I will chime in.

First, I have not received ANY special inducement to stay opted in to DPC.

Second, I understand that there are improvements to the program that are imminent and should alleviate a lot of the concern about cannibalization of credit sales.

And Third, I am struggling to understand why .37 per download for an emerald on DPC is so much worse than .28 per download for every single non-exclusive on Istock subs and PP. Not to mention most of my credit sales on FT are small and yield the same price as a sub.

I am not saying that I like the way things are going in stock. It is obviously a race to the bottom at this point, however I struggle to understand why this one initiative is so much worse than everything else that's happened in the past couple of years.

I reserve the right to opt out if there are not improvements or the improvements are not sufficient, but I don't plan to be goaded into it. This is an individual business decision and I plan to make it myself based on the best information available and not based on a feeding frenzy in a forum.

Lisa, yes the difference is in the amount a customer is required to spend upfront, as other people mentioned before. Subscription model is very popular with businesses - it simplifies accounting greatly, no approvals per image, just one yearly (or monthly) fee to deal with. And of course they download a lot of images for their design and other needs, even though many images never even make it to final product. So sub system is here to stay, and, looking at everyone's earnings at SS is quite sustainable for photographers. What Fotolia is doing is different - their 10 images for $10 dollars deal is not aimed at big or medium businesses, but rather at individuals or small design shops. These customers would not bring a significant volume of sales - they would just get our work really cheap, while in many cases their budgets allow for at least $50 per image. And I am still to meet an individual who actually pays for images for personal use - even if they are self-employed professionals. They will keep downloading free images because it's practically impossible to police.
Fotolia is not the only agency that tries to get ahead of competition by slashing prices, but I don't think it will work, partly because you can only push contributors so far, and partly because prices at the level they are now are not really a problem. SS is successful because of their advanced technology and marketing strategies, and they have never actually reduced prices. That's my take on this, but of course participation in DPC is everyone's personal decision, and no pressure should be applied to anyone.

lisafx · « **Reply #787 on:** May 06, 2014, 21:57 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on May 06, 2014, 20:28

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2014, 14:23
Well, since there's so much speculation about what I intend to do, I will chime in.

First, I have not received ANY special inducement to stay opted in to DPC.

Second, I understand that there are improvements to the program that are imminent and should alleviate a lot of the concern about cannibalization of credit sales.

And Third, I am struggling to understand why .37 per download for an emerald on DPC is so much worse than .28 per download for every single non-exclusive on Istock subs and PP. Not to mention most of my credit sales on FT are small and yield the same price as a sub.

I am not saying that I like the way things are going in stock. It is obviously a race to the bottom at this point, however I struggle to understand why this one initiative is so much worse than everything else that's happened in the past couple of years.

I reserve the right to opt out if there are not improvements or the improvements are not sufficient, but I don't plan to be goaded into it. This is an individual business decision and I plan to make it myself based on the best information available and not based on a feeding frenzy in a forum.

Lisa, yes the difference is in the amount a customer is required to spend upfront, as other people mentioned before. Subscription model is very popular with businesses - it simplifies accounting greatly, no approvals per image, just one yearly (or monthly) fee to deal with. And of course they download a lot of images for their design and other needs, even though many images never even make it to final product. So sub system is here to stay, and, looking at everyone's earnings at SS is quite sustainable for photographers. What Fotolia is doing is different - their 10 images for $10 dollars deal is not aimed at big or medium businesses, but rather at individuals or small design shops. These customers would not bring a significant volume of sales - they would just get our work really cheap, while in many cases their budgets allow for at least $50 per image. And I am still to meet an individual who actually pays for images for personal use - even if they are self-employed professionals. They will keep downloading free images because it's practically impossible to police.
Fotolia is not the only agency that tries to get ahead of competition by slashing prices, but I don't think it will work, partly because you can only push contributors so far, and partly because prices at the level they are now are not really a problem. SS is successful because of their advanced technology and marketing strategies, and they have never actually reduced prices. That's my take on this, but of course participation in DPC is everyone's personal decision, and no pressure should be applied to anyone.

Great post Elena and definitely food for thought.

disorderly · « **Reply #788 on:** May 06, 2014, 22:45 »

To put some numbers to Elena's remarks, I can get 10 images for $10 on DPC. That's one heck of a cheap deal if I only need a few images. How many do I really need before it looks like a steal? One at $10? Two at $5 each? Three at $3.33? Even if I only need a few, it's amazingly cheap.

Contrast that with Shutterstock, where two images in a Pay As You Go plan cost $14.50 each. If I need three, they'll be $16.33 each (using the 5 image pack). Four will be $12.25 each. Five will be $9.80 each. And things don't get cheaper until I buy a 25 image pack, which is $9.16 each, assuming of course I need all 25.

Subscriptions get you cheap images, but only if you need and download a lot over the course of your agreement. Most clients download a small fraction of their monthly maximum, so each download isn't nearly as cheap as it seems. And clients grab a lot of images they wouldn't take if they were paying by the download. It's not a coincidence that I often see a lot of downloads from the same shoot. I'm not the only one who benefits from clients' "might as well - I've already paid for them" attitude.

Problem is that DPC is the ideal subscription for the client who only needs a few images, and who wants the cheapest possible deal. And even worse for us, it's not a subscription at all; it's a Pay As You Go credit model for those incredibly cheap images. It's undercutting the competition by more than half, and that's why I opted out as soon as I could. Oh, and I'm still slowly removing the last few images from Fotolia's main site. Might as well get one or two more payouts on my way out the door.

dirkr · « **Reply #789 on:** May 07, 2014, 03:42 »

To add a few more numbers:

The smallest credit package on FT is 10 Credits, in Europe that costs 14€ (can't see $ prices here).
That will buy you 1 (ONE!) XXL file (of white or bronze level contributor).

14€ is roughly $19,30.

On DPC that buys you 19 XXL files (even those where the contributor has raised prices and that cost 36 credits on FT).

All they need to do is one mass e-mail to all their buyers and the credit business on FT will be dead almost instantly.
There is no case where buying with credits on FT will make (financial) sense to a buyer anymore.
Assuming the content is on DPC.

And that's not even considering the repercussions on the other agencies.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #790 on:** May 07, 2014, 03:54 »

Quote from: dirkr on May 07, 2014, 03:42

To add a few more numbers:

The smallest credit package on FT is 10 Credits, in Europe that costs 14€ (can't see $ prices here).
That will buy you 1 (ONE!) XXL file (of white or bronze level contributor).

14€ is roughly $19,30.

On DPC that buys you 19 XXL files (even those where the contributor has raised prices and that cost 36 credits on FT).

All they need to do is one mass e-mail to all their buyers and the credit business on FT will be dead almost instantly.
There is no case where buying with credits on FT will make (financial) sense to a buyer anymore.
Assuming the content is on DPC.

And that's not even considering the repercussions on the other agencies.

Exactly. And the strange thing is, that Fotolia recently raised prices. XXL is 12 credits now. Which is good. And they seem to be going well, quite big percentage of my Fotolia sales are those 8-10-12 credit ones, I like getting them. It's shame that they've tricked our images into this DPC scheme.

(by the way, you mention white and bronze contributors.. it's the same for silver and gold, one have to get to emerald for raising prices)

MxR · « **Reply #791 on:** May 07, 2014, 03:54 »

Quote from: dirkr on May 07, 2014, 03:42

To add a few more numbers:

The smallest credit package on FT is 10 Credits, in Europe that costs 14€ (can't see $ prices here).
That will buy you 1 (ONE!) XXL file (of white or bronze level contributor).

14€ is roughly $19,30.

On DPC that buys you 19 XXL files (even those where the contributor has raised prices and that cost 36 credits on FT).

All they need to do is one mass e-mail to all their buyers and the credit business on FT will be dead almost instantly.
There is no case where buying with credits on FT will make (financial) sense to a buyer anymore.
Assuming the content is on DPC.

And that's not even considering the repercussions on the other agencies.

And my silver % of 19,30 is 2,50 (25% of 10 credit)... less than hateful IStock indie 15%

luissantos84 · « **Reply #792 on:** May 07, 2014, 03:58 »

maths from the other day

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 27, 2014, 18:32

at DPC
contributor gets from 0.2$ to 0.46$ (non exclusive)
FT 0.44$ to 0.8$ per file

at FT
XXL size Silver ranking - 12 credits - (contributor gets 3$, FT 9$)
XXL size can go up to 36$ (contributor gets 14.4$, FT 21.6$)

dirkr · « **Reply #793 on:** May 07, 2014, 04:14 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on May 07, 2014, 03:54

(by the way, you mention white and bronze contributors.. it's the same for silver and gold, one have to get to emerald for raising prices)

Yes, I know, but for white and bronze the XXL price is still 10 Credits, from silver onwards is 12.
So to buy a silver XXL you need to buy the next credit package, which is showing as 26 credits for €28 (including some bonus credit promotion they are currently running...).
Even less incentive to buy via credits...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #794 on:** May 07, 2014, 04:54 »

Lisa - to add to what has been said, the traditional subscription offers - what? - 20 a day for a month? A person who only needs five images one week will download those 5 and then maybe another 50 to have a look or hoard for possible later use. Benefit to contributors 55 x 25c+ = $13.75. A person with a $10, 10-image pack who needs 5 images will probably download almost all 10, and if that is paying 25c per sale the benefit to contributors is $2.50 (for an emerald you could substitute in 38c for SS and 37c for DPC, which makes things marginally worse).

That is an 80% drop in the overall payouts to contributors from subscriptions, even though in this example the payout per sale is the same. The destruction of contributor earnings is achieved by persuading buyers to change their behaviour.

In addition, encouraging small users to switch from credits packs to this supposed subscription model (which isn't really a subscription, except in so far as they will probably try to catch people with automatic renewals charged to their cards) means that the value of all your current credit pack sales will fall to subsciption sales levels. That will wipe a few more percent off your earnings.

If Fotolia pulls this off, I would not be surprised to see a 75% drop in contributor earnings within three or four years. And your pictures and your permission to use them are the ammunition Fotolia is using to destroy your own earnings.

Fotolia probably isn't at all interested in whether this is good or bad for contributors. Its only interest will be in how bad it is for rival agencies. Do you really want to join a campaign which has as its ultimate aim the complete destruction of SS, DT and iS and all the sales you get there, leaving you with DPC as your only source of sales? Do you trust Fotolia enough to participate in that?

There is a huge difference between this and the creation of microstock over a decade ago. Microstock was an inevitable consequence of digital replacing film as the photographic medium, and the possibilities that created for the likes of us. Microstock's target market was the untapped demand for cheap not very brilliant photos, it wasn't initially seen as posing a threat to the quality of good professionals supplying traditional stock site. This is not about technology and it's not about new markets; it is purely and simply about commercial manouevring to grab sales from rival companies - and companies that have been a lot better to us than this one.

What they have done is take the most attractive features of the two models and remix them in a way that is very harmful to suppliers
Subscription = high volume sales for every contract x very low unit prices
Credit packs = low volume sales per contract x high unit prices
DPC = low volume sales per contract x very low prices

The DPC model can only work if it grabs a large part of the market share from the other models, and that means we get a lot fewer subscription sales and have credit-level commissions replaced by subscription level commissions, as explained above.

The only way DPC can be a success is by using our images to destroy our earnings.

stocked · « **Reply #795 on:** May 07, 2014, 05:22 »

Quote from: MxR on May 07, 2014, 03:54

Quote from: dirkr on May 07, 2014, 03:42
To add a few more numbers:

The smallest credit package on FT is 10 Credits, in Europe that costs 14€ (can't see $ prices here).
That will buy you 1 (ONE!) XXL file (of white or bronze level contributor).

14€ is roughly $19,30.

On DPC that buys you 19 XXL files (even those where the contributor has raised prices and that cost 36 credits on FT).

All they need to do is one mass e-mail to all their buyers and the credit business on FT will be dead almost instantly.
There is no case where buying with credits on FT will make (financial) sense to a buyer anymore.
Assuming the content is on DPC.

And that's not even considering the repercussions on the other agencies.

And my silver % of 19,30 is 2,50 (25% of 10 credit)... less than hateful IStock indie 15%

You have to consider the mini-subpackage at Fotolia 5 XXL-Downloads for 25,- € at saphire you get 0.37 per Download assuming the buyer uses its subpackage to its full extend than it results to 5x0.37= 1.85 that is only 7.5% commission assuming you are saphire and you are getting paid in € otherwise it's even worse.
iStock is bad regarding artists commission but Fotolia is much worse!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #796 on:** May 07, 2014, 05:28 »

well said Paul, it's a pity they don't use the free advice always written by you and a few other here at MSG

pictureman75 · « **Reply #797 on:** May 07, 2014, 05:49 »

With all this informations given here about DPC (and other FT related things) I can't believe that there are a lot of contributors that didn't opt-out of DPC! And I don't mean that ones, who are not informed yet ... I mean people (and especially a lot of big players!), who are really and for sure well informed about DPC! It's a shame what they are doing, not only undermine their own business but our's and that of the whole microstockers too!!!

In german FT-forum there are some big players which normally are active there (e.g. complaining about decreasing RPD, etc.) and since the activity against DPC here, they are quiet!!! As I read in a former post I suppose too, that FT has contacted them and they have special deals with them ... it's really a shame!!!

fujiko · « **Reply #798 on:** May 07, 2014, 06:41 »

In short, DPC is subscription royalties for on demand model.

DPC is more expensive than a full subscription model where the buyer uses full quota of downloads. DPC is not trying to target those high volume buyers. They would be crazy to jump to a more expensive model.
DPC targets on demand buyers that don't want or need a full subscription and offers them a lower price than existing on demand plans.

DPC is a threat to the existing on demand market as it lowers the perceived value of on demand downloads but offers no volume in return when compared to existing subscription plans.

In the end the contributor will get subscription royalties with on demand volume.

Mantis · « **Reply #799 on:** May 07, 2014, 07:52 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 07, 2014, 04:54

Lisa - to add to what has been said, the traditional subscription offers - what? - 20 a day for a month? A person who only needs five images one week will download those 5 and then maybe another 50 to have a look or hoard for possible later use. Benefit to contributors 55 x 25c+ = $13.75. A person with a $10, 10-image pack who needs 5 images will probably download almost all 10, and if that is paying 25c per sale the benefit to contributors is $2.50 (for an emerald you could substitute in 38c for SS and 37c for DPC, which makes things marginally worse).

That is an 80% drop in the overall payouts to contributors from subscriptions, even though in this example the payout per sale is the same. The destruction of contributor earnings is achieved by persuading buyers to change their behaviour.

In addition, encouraging small users to switch from credits packs to this supposed subscription model (which isn't really a subscription, except in so far as they will probably try to catch people with automatic renewals charged to their cards) means that the value of all your current credit pack sales will fall to subsciption sales levels. That will wipe a few more percent off your earnings.

If Fotolia pulls this off, I would not be surprised to see a 75% drop in contributor earnings within three or four years. And your pictures and your permission to use them are the ammunition Fotolia is using to destroy your own earnings.

Fotolia probably isn't at all interested in whether this is good or bad for contributors. Its only interest will be in how bad it is for rival agencies. Do you really want to join a campaign which has as its ultimate aim the complete destruction of SS, DT and iS and all the sales you get there, leaving you with DPC as your only source of sales? Do you trust Fotolia enough to participate in that?

There is a huge difference between this and the creation of microstock over a decade ago. Microstock was an inevitable consequence of digital replacing film as the photographic medium, and the possibilities that created for the likes of us. Microstock's target market was the untapped demand for cheap not very brilliant photos, it wasn't initially seen as posing a threat to the quality of good professionals supplying traditional stock site. This is not about technology and it's not about new markets; it is purely and simply about commercial manouevring to grab sales from rival companies - and companies that have been a lot better to us than this one.

What they have done is take the most attractive features of the two models and remix them in a way that is very harmful to suppliers
Subscription = high volume sales for every contract x very low unit prices
Credit packs = low volume sales per contract x high unit prices
DPC = low volume sales per contract x very low prices

The DPC model can only work if it grabs a large part of the market share from the other models, and that means we get a lot fewer subscription sales and have credit-level commissions replaced by subscription level commissions, as explained above.

The only way DPC can be a success is by using our images to destroy our earnings.

Spot on. While I've opted 2800 images out of DPC I am seriously considering closing my FT account at the same time I close my Deposit Photos account. I suspect opting out will be meaningless in the coming months or year. I believe that the only reason FT gave us an opt out is because DPC and FT will merge in some way and an opt out is their way to keep our opted out images in the FT collection so that they are available when they merge.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May,1 (Read 340024 times)

Desintegrator

Dook

Photobomb

Red Dove

DF_Studios

Jo Ann Snover

EmberMike

H2O

bpepz

OM

emblem

Elenathewise

lisafx

disorderly

dirkr

Desintegrator

MxR

luissantos84

dirkr

BaldricksTrousers

stocked

luissantos84

pictureman75

fujiko

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors