Author Topic: Dropping DT exclusivity? (Read 6983 times)

Twist · « **on:** August 19, 2008, 16:36 »

Hi-

Im new to these forums. But I had a question. I have had advice from one or two people, but I want to see what the majority says.

I am an exclusive contributor at DT. I have been thinking about branching out to other sites. Up until now (and this kind of still applies) I haven't really had the time to spend shooting stock and uploading, keywording, etc. As of right now I have 283 uploads and 168 sales, so I was thinking about moving on to another site. SS was suggested as well as Istock. (Of course, the big two). Long ago I was rejected from one of them (I honestly cant remember which one it was)...it was a long time ago and I think I could get in this time around.

What I want to know is...is it worth it for me to drop the dt exclusivity and try selling other places? If I stick to dt and keep my exclusivity, is it possible to do just fine there?

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2008, 16:50 »

well i think this is going to be pretty unanimous...

but my opinion: i think you could be making a lot more if you spread yourself out over all the sites. I don't think it is 'really' that profitable (right now anyhow) submitting to anything below the top 6 or 7 sites - especially if you are concerned about time spent uploading, but for sure you should submit to the top 4

Most people earn around 10-20% of their income on dreamstime.. so you are missing 80% of what you could potentially be making.

Istock is a pain to upload to but their earnings potential is really good.

Shutterstock takes no time to upload to, and neither does stockxpert or 123RF so those three should be a high priority

Fotolia I find to be really good as well but uploading is a little cumbersome having to choose categories.

if you need some referral links.. here you go

shutterstock

Fotolia

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2008, 17:21 »

Depending on how many quality images you can produce per month, you might want to consider just dropping the exclusive contributor status.

You can keep what you have exclusive at DT and start with fresher images at the other sites.

You've already made an impact on Dreamstime, don't dillute it by spreading those images everywhere else.

Good luck to you!! And remember, the top four have strict applications, it may take you a few weeks to get in, DO NOT GIVE UP!!!!

yingyang0 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2008, 00:39 »

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on August 19, 2008, 17:21

You've already made an impact on Dreamstime, don't dillute it by spreading those images everywhere else.

If you're going to upload to more than one site, then it makes no sense to keep some images exclusive unless you're obligated to. The $0.20 bonus for that image being exclusive at dreamstime doesn't offset the lost income from not having it on all of the sites.

jmich, I think you should try as many of the big names as possible and see how your images sell. Each site has different clients and what works on some doesn't on others. You can always go back to being exclusive, and who knows, it might be at a different site. Also, it doesn't take two much extra time if you make sure to keyword the images using a metadata tool (I use Adobe Bridge to keyword) that all the sites can read.

DanP68 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2008, 01:00 »

Yingyang is correct on making more money across all sites rather than keeping images exclusive with anyone. However it isn't $0.20. That is the one time bonus given to exclusive photographers for each accepted image. The 60% commission will remain for each exclusive image at DT, which is a healthy 20% (60/50) bonus over the standard.

That in itself is still not enough to warrant exclusive images, because just a few sites should more than make up for the 20% differential.

However I have many exclusive images with Dreamstime. Some are exclusive because they are editorial shots which I do not wish to offer to a pure subscription site or a start-up. A few others are exclusive because, for whatever reason, they seem to do well at Dreamstime but not elsewhere. I think there may be a "slight" search advantage to exclusive images too. Nothing like Istock, but an advantage nonetheless.

If you can get into either Shutterstock or iStock, you are likely to be floored by the earnings. I'll be surprised if your earnings are not at least 25% higher there than at Dreamstime. Don't be shocked if it is much more than 25%. I make good money with DT, and I love that agency. But I make 60% more at IS, and 150% more at SS. Yeah, it's worth getting in to those sites.

Jimi King · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2008, 03:52 »

You are seriously restricting your earnings if you remain exclusive at Dreamstime. Your earnings at iStock and Shutterstock alone would probably triple your current income, if not more. The only realistic possibility for exclusivity to one agency would be iStock, and even then there are plenty who feel that it's not the way to go.

I think it's worth having an exclusive image or two here and there, to take advantage of the better commission incentive for them. If you have a shoot where you end up with a lot of similar looking shots, then send the best shot to everybody and then upload a few individual "next bests" exclusively to agencies where they'll give you a better exclusive rate. I did this with a few shots of the Statue of Liberty that I took a couple of years back. I took loads of shots from the water, all at slightly different angles and gave Creamstime and Fotolia an exclusive shot each.

But as for exclusivity to any one agency, I wouldn't do it.

Fran · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2008, 04:30 »

Quote from: DanP68 on August 20, 2008, 01:00

I think there may be a "slight" search advantage to exclusive images too.

I remember Achilles confirmed a small advantage for exclusive images, which is fair in my opinion.

scrappinstacy · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2008, 08:54 »

I'm in agreement with everyone else. Branch out. You won't regret it!

rene · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2008, 09:03 »

Go ahead. You're loosing money.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2008, 11:27 »

Agree, if you go for the money you should go with all the big agencies.
If you want to go exclusive with one I would choose iStock not DT.

jsnover · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2008, 11:38 »

I don't see why anyone - other than admins or employees or others affiliated with a site - would go exclusive at DT or FT. They just don't have the sales to justify it.

The issue of exclusive vs. independent is a bit involved, but the issue of exclusive at DT vs. not is a no brainer. Upload to other sites and start with IS and SS where the bulk of the income (for most people, most of the time, YMMV) comes from. FT and DT have been much more variable (good for some, lousy for others), but FT would be worth a try.

Once you're independent, go for the sites where there's a decent number of people making good monthly payouts. I'd forget 123rf as they've never really done anything much for me, and BigStock has a 90 day hold on images and variable performance results (some people do OK, others never seem to gain traction there). The rest aren't worth the time and effort of uploading, IMHO.

Twist · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2008, 20:40 »

I had a feeling this would be unanimous among posters. Thanks everybody for the advice. I think I will just try to get into shutterstock and istock and see what happens for now.

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2008, 00:59 »

just watch out for noise when submitting your shutterstock application.

Twist · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2008, 22:00 »

Will do! Thanks for the heads up. (They super picky about it there?)

DanP68 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2008, 00:07 »

Super picky? That would be an understatement, especially on the application. Try to give them a varied set of images, and make sure they are stock worthy and not a bunch of nature shots of a duck.

Some have said they did better on the application by concentrating on over-white objects/people. The idea being that you won't find background noise if it is pure white.

captain · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2010, 20:45 »

you all guys give me a good suggestion.I am thinkg to terminate the exclusivity with DT now.

csproductions · « **Reply #16 on:** October 22, 2010, 22:04 »

I see no real advantage of being exclusive, either. From what I've observed, the higher percentages on the sites don't equal the income from multiple sources. Furthermore, my experience has been that the inspectors differ quite a bit on the various sites. For example, the inspectors on DT will see noise and technical problems, just as they will on other sites, but not on the same photos! It never ceases to amaze me how I can see no noise at all in a group of photos, the inspectors on one site will see noise on some of them while approving the rest of them, and another site will see noise in some of the photos approved by the first site, and see no noise in the others. If you're exclusive with one of them, you're stuck with whatever they "see."

I've tried in vain a few times to get on as a photo contributor with istock (I do have several video clips there), but when they changed the deal, I stopped trying. I don't see that it's worth the effort to get approved, to say nothing of the incredibly cumbersome and time-consuming upload / keywording process. I do upload to Fotolia, Dreamstime, CanStockPhoto, DepositPhotos, FoxHoundPhotos, BigStockPhoto, IsignStock, MostPhotos, Snapixel, and MediaStock.ca. I have videos on Pond5 and Shutterstock, and I'm still trying to get approved as a photo contributor on Shutterstock. That's another post altogether!

nruboc · « **Reply #17 on:** October 22, 2010, 22:39 »

Quote from: csproductions on October 22, 2010, 22:04

I see no real advantage of being exclusive, either. From what I've observed, the higher percentages on the sites don't equal the income from multiple sources. Furthermore, my experience has been that the inspectors differ quite a bit on the various sites. For example, the inspectors on DT will see noise and technical problems, just as they will on other sites, but not on the same photos! It never ceases to amaze me how I can see no noise at all in a group of photos, the inspectors on one site will see noise on some of them while approving the rest of them, and another site will see noise in some of the photos approved by the first site, and see no noise in the others. If you're exclusive with one of them, you're stuck with whatever they "see."

I've tried in vain a few times to get on as a photo contributor with istock (I do have several video clips there), but when they changed the deal, I stopped trying. I don't see that it's worth the effort to get approved, to say nothing of the incredibly cumbersome and time-consuming upload / keywording process. I do upload to Fotolia, Dreamstime, CanStockPhoto, DepositPhotos, FoxHoundPhotos, BigStockPhoto, IsignStock, MostPhotos, Snapixel, and MediaStock.ca. I have videos on Pond5 and Shutterstock, and I'm still trying to get approved as a photo contributor on Shutterstock. That's another post altogether!

FoxHoundPhotos? Really? Please tell me you snuck that one in there because you're the site owner

cclapper · « **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2010, 07:58 »

OLD THREAD ALERT

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2010, 12:26 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 23, 2010, 07:58

OLD THREAD ALERT

What is it lately? Are we running out of new things?

Two year old threads brought back from the dead.

Maybe it does work?

FD · « **Reply #20 on:** October 26, 2010, 01:07 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 23, 2010, 12:26

Nice logo for a new stock site.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2010, 00:59 »

Quote from: FD-regular on October 26, 2010, 01:07

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 23, 2010, 12:26
Nice logo for a new stock site.

I'm keeping this very professional and current hot version for my site.

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2010, 16:12 »

Very nice Pete. Love the brown square. Really reinforces the name.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2010, 22:52 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 29, 2010, 00:59

Quote from: FD-regular on October 26, 2010, 01:07
Quote from: RacePhoto on October 23, 2010, 12:26
Nice logo for a new stock site.

I'm keeping this very professional and current hot version for my site.

Hey, watch it. That looks aweful close to the new Crap, er I mean Gap, logo.