So we are now upset with iStock.

Problem is, other agencies have done this before also.  So who do you trust (or at least do not hate the most)?

Who really is looking out for the best interest of the agency AND its contributors?  Which site is going to sell to the sharks as soon as some money is tossed at them?

If we really are going to start telling buyers what agency is best; who is it?

Think about this before you vote.  We can maybe use this information to start some kind of movement or use as leverage.

For me, its between Shutterstock and Dreamstime.

Shutterstock for the same reasons posted above.  They have been drama free, they have a good/easy submission process, they have only raised prices, they have been upfront about pretty much everything and seem to be honest with us.

I like Dreamstime for their model, but they have done some things I am not so happy about.  I feel it was not intended to hurt the contributors, but it takes away from the trust factor.

I will place my vote when I know my answer.

I stopped recommending iStock a while ago because my portfolio is so much smaller there due to upload limits. I picked Dreamstime because it is has a larger collection of my work and it isn't mainly a subs site.

Quote from: disorderly on September 09, 2010, 10:46

Shutterstock is first on my list, both because they're my top earner (hey, I'm not entirely altruistic) and because they've never put the screws to their suppliers.  When the economy was good they'd adjust prices up and then adjust royalties to match.  When the economy turned bad they didn't take it out on us.  They've been remarkably free of drama over the years. 

Beautifully put. Agree with every word.

+1

I picked Dreamstime.
It's very easy to deal with, both buyers and contributors.
But I do like Shutterstock very much, Disorderly is right. It's a great agency.  
I like Veer as well. But they're not quite there yet.
 

I picked Dreamstime mainly thinking as a buyer. While SS is my best earner, their main market is subs and most customers there are high volume well-seasoned designers that know their way around microstock.

Dreamstime still has a lot of credit sales (I had a 50 credit sale yesterday) attracting random traffic of occasional buyers. Moreover, DT has it all: Editorial (not just News like SS) and Commercial. Most stuff on iStock is also on DT, plus DT has more.

I'm sorry, that's not true for all of us. At any given day SS dwarfs DT in terms of PPD sales for me. Also, these are my last 10 sales at DT. Can you spot a pattern?

I'm sorry, that's not true for all of us. At any given day SS dwarfs DT in terms of PPD sales for me. Also, these are my last 10 sales at DT. Can you spot a pattern?

I had periods just like that, both on SS and on DT. You just have to be lucky to be hit by an occasional (credit) buyer that wants your content - if it's niche. That makes it all so random. I asked payout on DT begin of September (for the tax rule) and I'm well on my way to a new payout soon. Although half of my port now is models, I still get most downloads from my niche on DT. There is just too much competition on models. At SS, it's opposite: models do relatively well. You really can't predict.

But I was talking from the buyer's point of view, which is totally different from the contributor's. I still think DT is a good compromise for an (occasional credit) buyer as it has the same content as IS of non-exclusives, plus Editorial (better than SS). It will also depend on the type of buyer. Somebody into design, templates, commercial work will find great content on IS. A media buyer will be better off at DT. SS is more for the well-seasoned buyers that need a large volume all the time.

To be honest if a lot of smaller sellers left IS it's probably what they (IS management) want anyway, get rid of the amateurs and ramp up the quality another notch or two.

I fit that profile - 5 years, 2000 sales (half of those the last year). Crap shots I have. So leaving IS would be a win-win situation and would both make IS and the exclusives happy. Never, achieving happiness has been so easy.  I'll stop uploading to do them a favor, but I won't leave though, sorry. As long as my crap images lead to payout at least twice a year, it's free money. 

I'm pissed with the iStock announcement as much as the next person and I am 100% sure it will hit me in the pocket, but for me the bottom line is nett revenue and even after the pay cut the nett revenue on iStock per image download is still higher than on their nearest microstock rival which is Shutterstock.

I like the DT pricing structure and I can make more per download on a like for like image size than any other microstock agency, however DT don't have anywhere near the sales volume that iStock do, and from what I've seen they do not market even to a fraction the amount iStock does.

This thread is a prime example of why I don't support canvassing buyers to go elsewhere, because nobody can agree where that should be, and a lot of people are suggesting they go to a site where we'd make less per download !

I'll support any viable and practical action to get iStock to rework this commission cut, but please excuse me if I don't jump on the knee jerk bandwagon that will in the end cost me more.

Well - I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy, where I over the years build a big portfolio with some nice images.
Also for those wanting the typical microstock image, I'll refer to Dreamstime.

DT has for MS the best pricingstructure I belive. And also has treatet suppliers Ok during the years. I joined DT form the very start.

IS succes so far, has been founded on their abaility to get buyers to pray more at IS, so that submitters in the end got a good pay, despite tha fact that IS royalti was the lowest.

Whith the new changes, this will no longer be the case, especially when they introduce the getty collection in to IS, and screw the search engine to show those first.

In the coming months / years - you sales at IS will plummet rapidly, for that reason, and beacuse the will keep on upping prices, keep on taking more fraom the contributor, and from simple oversaturation with files. Each contributer will suffer form fewer DL's.

I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?

I'm pissed with the iStock announcement as much as the next person and I am 100% sure it will hit me in the pocket, but for me the bottom line is nett revenue and even after the pay cut the nett revenue on iStock per image download is still higher than on their nearest microstock rival which is Shutterstock.

I like the DT pricing structure and I can make more per download on a like for like image size than any other microstock agency, however DT don't have anywhere near the sales volume that iStock do, and from what I've seen they do not market even to a fraction the amount iStock does.

This thread is a prime example of why I don't support canvassing buyers to go elsewhere, because nobody can agree where that should be, and a lot of people are suggesting they go to a site where we'd make less per download !

I'll support any viable and practical action to get iStock to rework this commission cut, but please excuse me if I don't jump on the knee jerk bandwagon that will in the end cost me more.

But if we put up with commission under 20%, they will just keep cutting and the other sites will do the same, costing us a lot more money.  I would like to see a list of contributor recommended sites, there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors.  If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?

Quote

it is more a matter of principle.

The principle being lets shaft our fellow exclusive artists on Istock? Yeah, thanks a bunch mate.

Well you made clear where are you coming from, by the way nonexclusive get shaft the most.