MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Go exclusive and come back  (Read 12554 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: July 27, 2009, 03:04 »
0
I'm a little bit tired to upload to many sites. IS is my best earner (about 40% of all RF income). So with exclusive commission, in theory, I'll not lose so much.
I really like Vetta. I already have some files, sleeping on my hd, that could go there. I'm ready to invest money to make more creative shoots - these kind of photos that I'll never sell for pathetic subscription price.
What makes me hesitate  go exclusive is that IS can change. So I'm thinking about not cancel accounts and keeping possibility to come back. At some sites we can just 'hide' files without deleting. It seems that at
- SS we can keep all files and deactivate them with one click. Then reactivate wit one click
- DT - deactivate one by one, then reactivate one by one
- FT only delete
- StockXpert - only delete. StockXpert will be probably dead before the end of the year so no big lose
- BigStock - only delete. 1-2% of my income. Can live without.
Any thoughts about multi-sites come back (after canceling IS exclusivity)? Thanks


Dook

« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2009, 03:38 »
0
I think that DT keeps your files able for reactivation for three moths. After that you have to upload them again.
Be aware that many of your pictures will not be approved again. Inspectors criteria changes by the time.

« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2009, 04:39 »
0
..I really like Vetta. I already have some files, sleeping on my hd, that could go there. I'm ready to invest money to make more creative shoots - these kind of photos that I'll never sell for pathetic subscription price.

Have you tried Alamy?  They sell for higher prices than the micros.  It takes a long time to get going there but I think it beats going exclusive and using vetta.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 04:43 by sharpshot »

« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2009, 08:07 »
0
If the possibility of IS making changes that could affect you is your main concern, you should do a little analysis on your IS portfolio.

I've seen some portfolios where a large proportion of sales seem to be dependent on just a few very popular images - if that's the case for you, be aware that all it takes is a slight change in the best match, or even just somebody else uploading something similar, to cause one or more of them to suddenly die on you.

While specialising does have its advantages, a larger and broader portfolio can often weather the ebbs and flows of iStock changes without the same sudden shocks...  just something to bear in mind.

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2009, 14:52 »
0
Your thinking makes a lot of sense to me.  In your shoes I might consider exclusivity too.

But if you are wondering if istock will change look at the recent past.  They are always changing something. 

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is definitely not the policy at istock.  Neither is K.I.S.S. 

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2009, 17:26 »
0
I think that DT keeps your files able for reactivation for three moths. After that you have to upload them again.
Be aware that many of your pictures will not be approved again. Inspectors criteria changes by the time.

Are you sure about that? I've reactivated files that were disabled for more than 3 months without a problem. The only condition I know is that the time you have to keep with DT re starts all over as Day 1 from the day you re activate your disabled files.

« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2009, 17:28 »
0
 Hi Rene,

 Have you thought about outsourcing your post production. There are companies that will do that for you so you can shoot more. More clicks more dollars.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2009, 17:40 »
0
I am not exclusive with IStock, but everytime someone ponders about worrying being exclusive with IStock, I keep asking the same questions:
1)Why is there still some people going exclusive eg. latest being ichiro.
2) I haven't heard that Sean has left exclusivity with IStock.

These two resounding questions make me think there is really more than meets the eye on being exclusive with IStock . Surely it  all depends highly on your images.

If my images are doing well with IStock  consistently, I would think there is very little to worry about quitting exclusivity, no matter how erratic and volatile IStock's mentality is.

My tuppenny's thoughts. As always !

« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2009, 17:49 »
0
If the possibility of IS making changes that could affect you is your main concern, you should do a little analysis on your IS portfolio.

I've seen some portfolios where a large proportion of sales seem to be dependent on just a few very popular images - if that's the case for you, be aware that all it takes is a slight change in the best match, or even just somebody else uploading something similar, to cause one or more of them to suddenly die on you.

While specialising does have its advantages, a larger and broader portfolio can often weather the ebbs and flows of iStock changes without the same sudden shocks...  just something to bear in mind.
Your thinking makes a lot of sense to me.  In your shoes I might consider exclusivity too.

But if you are wondering if istock will change look at the recent past.  They are always changing something. 

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is definitely not the policy at istock.  Neither is K.I.S.S. 

In response to both above comments,
to be fair to Istock, such incidents are not just the premise of Istock. Lately, if you're with Dreamstime, you know  the same thing happened recently with newly approved images.
Only that when it's Istock, there is usually more noise (no pun intended) made on this forum  8)

« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2009, 19:50 »
0


In response to both above comments,
to be fair to Istock, such incidents are not just the premise of Istock. Lately, if you're with Dreamstime, you know  the same thing happened recently with newly approved images.
Only that when it's Istock, there is usually more noise (no pun intended) made on this forum  8)

Sorry Perseus, but there is no comparing the stability of DT to the instability of IS.  Unfortunate that you are experiencing a sales drop of new images at DT, but overall sales there are still a lot more predictable than on IS. 

And stability is about sales, but also about more than sales.  Site outages and slowdowns, buggy infrastructure, "great new programs" that turn out to have unintended bad consequences for many people, etc. seem to have become normal operations for IS. 

If your portfolio is small you don't have anything to lose.  Try exclusivity at istock and see for yourself if you like it. 

« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2009, 20:34 »
0


In response to both above comments,
to be fair to Istock, such incidents are not just the premise of Istock. Lately, if you're with Dreamstime, you know  the same thing happened recently with newly approved images.
Only that when it's Istock, there is usually more noise (no pun intended) made on this forum  8)

Sorry Perseus, but there is no comparing the stability of DT to the instability of IS.  Unfortunate that you are experiencing a sales drop of new images at DT, but overall sales there are still a lot more predictable than on IS. 

And stability is about sales, but also about more than sales.  Site outages and slowdowns, buggy infrastructure, "great new programs" that turn out to have unintended bad consequences for many people, etc. seem to have become normal operations for IS. 

If your portfolio is small you don't have anything to lose.  Try exclusivity at istock and see for yourself if you like it. 

PixelBytes,
it's very easy to be swayed when we are subjective.
What I am looking for is objectivity.
In order for this to be objective, we need someone who is exclusive to give us their side of the story.
Failing that, regardless of whether you have a large or small portfolio, that's really a matter of opinion.
What I like to see now at this stage is both sides of the coin.
Not yours, not mine, but two objective evidence without historical accidents or incidence that have formed our subjective leanings.

« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2009, 22:23 »
0
Have you tried Alamy?  They sell for higher prices than the micros.  It takes a long time to get going there but I think it beats going exclusive and using vetta.
Thanks Sharpshot. I've completely forgotten Alamy. Yes, I've RF images there and I'm doing relatively good - Last year AL RF made more then BigStock+123rf+Creastock+CS  together. And my images are blocked here for 6 months.

« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2009, 22:37 »
0
Hi Rene,

 Have you thought about outsourcing your post production. There are companies that will do that for you so you can shoot more. More clicks more dollars.

Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
I can shoot more. Time and money is no problem for me. The problem is psychological. I don't like feel like an idiot investing much to get pennies back ;). The subscription system is not fair for contributors and not adapted for hi-level images.

« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2009, 04:21 »
0
Perseus asks "Why is there still some people going exclusive?"

Well, the answer is, they've considered the options and decided it suits them, at least at that time.  It's not purely a monetary calculation;  from what I've read posted by others, I would think you can normally expect to make more income by staying independent, at the cost of some extra time and effort, but maybe you'd prefer to put that effort into taking more pictures or just other aspects of your life or work.  And remember that once you're exclusive, the upload limits are much higher and your iStock portfolio (and hopefully your income) can grow much more rapidly.

Certainly that's why I'm exclusive, and I would assume it's one of the reasons why some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible have decided to be so as well.  It's down to the individual and their circumstances, and each must make their own decision.

It's not final - if you're already an established independent it could be a costly mistake as the time and cost of re-establishing multiple portfolios might be considerable, but if you're still at the early stages you can give it a try and if you find it doesn't suit you can always drop it later.

You need someone who is exclusive to give their side of the story?  Well, that's mine, but I'm only one of 4,312 (as of yesterday) and each has their own experience.  No one forces them to be exclusive.

« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2009, 09:04 »
0
Perseus asks "Why is there still some people going exclusive?"

Well, the answer is, they've considered the options and decided it suits them, at least at that time.  It's not purely a monetary calculation;  from what I've read posted by others, I would think you can normally expect to make more income by staying independent, at the cost of some extra time and effort, but maybe you'd prefer to put that effort into taking more pictures or just other aspects of your life or work.  And remember that once you're exclusive, the upload limits are much higher and your iStock portfolio (and hopefully your income) can grow much more rapidly.

Certainly that's why I'm exclusive, and I would assume it's one of the reasons why some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible have decided to be so as well.  It's down to the individual and their circumstances, and each must make their own decision.

It's not final - if you're already an established independent it could be a costly mistake as the time and cost of re-establishing multiple portfolios might be considerable, but if you're still at the early stages you can give it a try and if you find it doesn't suit you can always drop it later.

You need someone who is exclusive to give their side of the story?  Well, that's mine, but I'm only one of 4,312 (as of yesterday) and each has their own experience.  No one forces them to be exclusive.

Cheers Gannet77 for providing me with the insight from the other side of the coin.

Your  opening paragraph more or less sums up the feeling I've been having lately.
It's cool being indie but there is objectively an advantage to being exclusive .

Sure, the general argument is that it's risky to put all the eggs in one basket, and that xxx site is going to screw you or whatnot. Well, the way I see it, everyone else is not doing any better in this sense.
So the argument is moot.

Being exclusive can reap rewards too, that indie have not discovered. Much like we treat our "special clients" in the business world. We all , in reality, have exclusives ie. at the bank, your network,etc..
and it does pay off a larger bonus being treated exclusively , in being given better discounts,
better lending rates, etc.

No one forces us to be exclusive. You are right. And being in an early stage of the game, yes,
as pixelbytes, and you (Garnet77) say, give it a shot.

I will, in time  ;)

Cheers and regards.

« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2009, 09:07 »
0
One more question, though... and this is for the exclusives to answer.

If you are exclusive to Istock, can you still sell your own prints at the local gallery.
ie. as mentioned in the other thread. Entirely different portfolio that the ones you submit to Istock.

How restricted are you as an Exclusive?


« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2009, 09:25 »
0
One more question, though... and this is for the exclusives to answer.

If you are exclusive to Istock, can you still sell your own prints at the local gallery.
ie. as mentioned in the other thread. Entirely different portfolio that the ones you submit to Istock.

How restricted are you as an Exclusive?



You can always sell prints, either at a gallery or on line.  You can also do "Work for Hire", though I'm not quite sure exactly what the definition of that is, and you can sell Rights Managed, though selling your RF images as RM would be questionable so best keep them separate.

What you can't do is sell images elsewhere (including your own web site) as Royalty Free, any images, whether submitted to iStock or not, whether rejected or not.


« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2009, 09:30 »
0
From the iStock Exclusivity FAQs:

What does full Exclusivity require?

Full artist Exclusivity means no images, video or audio files may be sold on other royalty-free sites or businesses with the exception of Getty Images.


Does that cover all of my files?

Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:

    * Rights-managed files with other organizations
    * Personal portfolio sites
    * Work for hire/editorial work contracts
    * Prints for sale
    * Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com


Are there other restrictions?

    * Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
    * Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 09:31 by Gannet77 »

« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2009, 10:12 »
0
Gannet77 Cheers, much appreciated for your information. I will copy paste to keep them. 8)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
8215 Views
Last post March 03, 2008, 17:29
by litifeta
12 Replies
5205 Views
Last post June 02, 2008, 22:43
by ozbandit
2 Replies
4851 Views
Last post January 05, 2009, 13:32
by Read_My_Rights
3 Replies
6411 Views
Last post March 23, 2009, 02:04
by RaFaLe
1 Replies
10377 Views
Last post April 13, 2009, 11:53
by madelaide

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors