Author Topic: Where do YOU think we should send buyers and why? (Read 29246 times)

No Longer Cares · « **on:** September 09, 2010, 10:42 »

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.

disorderly · « **Reply #1 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.

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #2 on:** September 09, 2010, 10:52 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #3 on:** September 09, 2010, 10:59 »

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #4 on:** September 09, 2010, 11:49 »

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** September 09, 2010, 11:57 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 09, 2010, 11:49

(...) and it isn't mainly a subs site.

Not for me. FT and DT sell too much in subs, DT however has some nice surprises once in a while, given the level pricing.

Xalanx · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2010, 12:17 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 10:59

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

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2010, 12:23 »

That is why its hard for me to say Shutterstock is my number one pick (although they are my best earner and I really like them).

With Dreamstime I do get a lot of sub purchases, but those nice 50% level 5 credit purchases really make up for it. Also I like the fact that upper level files get higher sub returns.

If Dreamstime did not pull that % drop on us a while back, I think it would be easier to figure out. I do not see that past move really as "bad" since they did some positive changes with it, but it lets me know they are open to dropping our %.

Eireann · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2010, 12:30 »

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.

FD · « **Reply #9 on:** September 10, 2010, 01:09 »

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.

Xalanx · « **Reply #10 on:** September 10, 2010, 01:29 »

Quote from: FD-regular on September 10, 2010, 01:09

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?

grp_photo · « **Reply #11 on:** September 10, 2010, 01:34 »

I voted for Alamy but yesterday I send a buyer to Dreamstime and Veer also because I'm pretty sure that they are not willing to pay traditional prices (though they would have the money - greed as always). But I must say Dreamstime also had the best pictures in the niche that they are looking for (istock got the same but I would never ever one direct to them same goes to fotolia)

FD · « **Reply #12 on:** September 10, 2010, 02:40 »

Quote from: Xalanx on September 10, 2010, 01:29

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.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #13 on:** September 10, 2010, 02:41 »

I think you lot are kidding yourselves. Most istock buyers will continue where they're happiest with the images and just generally what they're used to. When people start saying "I'm telling all my clients to shop elsewhere" and then you look at their profiles they're people with about 500 sales, or they've been on IS for 5 years and have about 2000."My clients", my arse basically. I'm a fairly big seller on IS and I've had contact with about 20 buyers in the last 4 years, none of whom would probably take any notice if I told them to go elsewhere anyway. 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.

FD · « **Reply #14 on:** September 10, 2010, 02:57 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 02:41

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.

diego_cervo · « **Reply #15 on:** September 10, 2010, 03:32 »

I would say Veer because it's Corbis

Getty would get a double slap and it's unlikely that Corbis will ever sell Veer to its main competitor.
AFAIK Veer has a good reputation among designers and the search engine is not bad. I'm well aware of its limits when it comes to reviewing time and keywords but at least Brian comes here to listen concerns from contributors.

DT, SS and FT are all ok and I have good feeling about Stockfresh too. However I'm scared of acquisitions that may take place in the future and I think we need some other players in the top tier list. What we have learnt here is that Getty is good at planning how to screw contributors and knows how to play its cards. Who knows if some negotiations are going on right now....hey, I'm getting paranoid

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** September 10, 2010, 03:57 »

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #17 on:** September 10, 2010, 04:23 »

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 03:57

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.

Im with you 100% on this one.

Nordlys · « **Reply #18 on:** September 10, 2010, 04:44 »

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #19 on:** September 10, 2010, 04:54 »

Dreamstime. Better commission rates, lower prices and a long record of being pretty fair to contributors. Not shutterstock because although they are fair the switch to subscriptions from PPD would work against us. Not Fotolia because they pioneered the crap that iStock is throwing at us.

You also have to think about the quality of the collections that the buyers will see. It's useless sending them somewhere where they will not find the sort of images they want.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #20 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:00 »

Quote

I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?

grp_photo · « **Reply #21 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:29 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:00

Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?

If all Artists refer buyers elsewhere for sure it wouldn't be more than 5% of the buyers, so the majority of buyers are not reachable for contributors at all, but a few buyers (even small) are reachable and should referred to the sites with the fairest deal for photographers (IMHO). I guess no one with a common sense will ever expect that this will have a major impact it is more a matter of principle.

sharpshot · « **Reply #22 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:30 »

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 03:57

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?

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #23 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:31 »

Quote

it is more a matter of principle.

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

grp_photo · « **Reply #24 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:41 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:31

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.

Nordlys · « **Reply #25 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:45 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:31

Quote
it is more a matter of principle.

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

Vlad - the impaler - go hunt some gosts somewhere else.

It's not our responsebility that IS exclusives made a bad business desition - it has been clear for years, that IS was going to screw you exclusives sooner or later. But most of you were brainwashed to a degree that defies description

FD · « **Reply #26 on:** September 10, 2010, 05:52 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:00

Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy
What, your Mom and Pop?

No need to be abusive. We all know by now you're the best. Let me fart in your general direction (Monty Python) and put you asleep with the other useless posters. Ploink.

RT · « **Reply #27 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:16 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 10, 2010, 05:30

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?

You need to ignore the term 'commission percentage' and concentrate on the nett amount per download, you sell an XL image on SS for 38c or $2.85 (less for some people), an XL download on iStock will nett you twice that amount, and yet there are people who would encourage buyers to move to SS!

DT pays a better commission on some images dependent on it's popularity, but then they don't do as much to sell our work, and as has been previously reported the image selection process can be bizarre at times, I recently had a selection of images rejected on DT for being too similar, I appealed trying to point out that they are not what would be deemed similar, the appeal goes back to the original reviewer who (no disrespect intended) doesn't understand the stock industry, these same images have sold 177 times on iS alone, why would I encourage a buyer to go to a site that rejects high value images.

Trying to persuade a buyer to use a site because it's better for the contributor is IMO completely futile, you'll get the odd one or two that may support the cause, but the serious buyers will go to the site that best suits them because it's a business and in business emotions and morals are not as important as economics, iStock understand the stock industry better than any other site, it's why they're No.1 and why buyers go there, unfortunately they are ultimately controlled by bankers who only understand one thing and that is greed, these bankers also understand how business works which is why and how they bought iStock in the first place.

iStock have and will screw us and it will get worse, you just need to make the decision as to how that fits into your business module and adjust accordingly.

Ask yourself this question in response to your comment
"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?"
Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?

skvoor · « **Reply #28 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:28 »

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 06:16

Ask yourself this question in response to your comment
"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?"
Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?

Maybe buyers don't know these sites..

Nordlys · « **Reply #29 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:28 »

I belive that IS main advantage was better marketing towards the market, and also to some extent better content.

But at some point, business or not, when factoring everything in, the time to produce, kryword, upload etc. IS was simply not profitable for me anymore with a 15% royalty in view.

Business is also about values, and my values didn't any longer fit with the "new" IS values - so I quitted - simple as that.

And many more will follow, but many will also stay behind in the sweatshop - well - that's their desition - quitting was mine.

RT · « **Reply #30 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:45 »

Quote from: skvoor on September 10, 2010, 06:28

Maybe buyers don't know these sites..

So tell me, why do you commission these sites to sell your work?

Blammo · « **Reply #31 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:53 »

Veer because it's Corbis would really be a slap in the face for Getty

dirkr · « **Reply #32 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:54 »

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 03:57

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.

Looks a little bit like a vicious circle to me.
IS has the sales volume because the spend so much on marketing. That's why their costs are so high that they have to cut our commissions to stay sustainable (pretending for a moment that there is a bit of truth in their argumentation).
If other sites want to compete seriously, what can they do? Spend more on marketing to win back customers from Istock. And finance that by cutting our commissions...

To break that circle we will have to stop licencing images for too low (whatever that is) commissions. Easy to say (and easy to do for people like me who don't depend on their stock income) but a lot harder to implement.

But in the long run, if a majority of contributors now accepts these reductions, the circle will simply continue...

Microbius · « **Reply #33 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:09 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:00

Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?

If you're such a big deal I guess it's time you started negotiating with some of the other agencies to see if they'll let you in at a canister level

Nordlys · « **Reply #34 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:20 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 10, 2010, 07:09

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:00
Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?
If you're such a big deal I guess it's time you started negotiating with some of the other agencies to see if they'll let you in at a canister level

I'm allready well established with some hight prices trads on some of my work, some go to micros, most go to Alamy.
Alamy + trads renevue is 4x micro, but on far fewer DL's.

Diversify on your shooting and your outlet's - this protect your income.

RT · « **Reply #35 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:22 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 10, 2010, 06:54

To break that circle we will have to stop licencing images for too low (whatever that is) commissions. Easy to say (and easy to do for people like me who don't depend on their stock income) but a lot harder to implement.

Exactly (well almost), to break the circle you could stop licensing certain images for too low commissions, diversify and sell some at the traditional agencies (which I appreciate for some is easier said than done), it's a business and like any business you have to decide how, where and for how much to sell your product to a level that satisfies you, if one revenue source drops down move up, sideways or whatever you need to do, then if the original revenue stream picks up again move back.

skvoor · « **Reply #36 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:24 »

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 06:45

Quote from: skvoor on September 10, 2010, 06:28
Maybe buyers don't know these sites..

So tell me, why do you commission these sites to sell your work?

Every business needs time to growth. No one is successful over night..

Phil · « **Reply #37 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:35 »

my referrals are minimal but alamy 60% on higher prices and full portfolio. If micro then DT and canstock. I have never even thought to refer someone to istock, why would I when they pay 20% and only have a fifth of my portfolio?

ayzek · « **Reply #38 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:47 »

This is my dreamed agency. it names is: OTHER
- 1-20 Credit for image prices
- 25% for non exclusives and %50 for exclusives
- 4 canister levels should be base on performans level but that must be acceptable amount of percentage not any given number (for example %1 of most seller should gain 50% then rest should be ordered till 30% for exclusives and from 25% to 20% for non exclusive..
- exclusive image option
- A business model that can sustainable with this rates for long time.
- More defined and fair inspecting ( comp and suitable for stock photography things should leave customers.)
- upload limits according to performans.
- Clear/Open statistics
- No subscription.
- Stability on policies.
these are the things that i found in 5 minutes, i am sure we can find more.

i will give my vote to OTHER.

Microbius · « **Reply #39 on:** September 10, 2010, 08:48 »

Quote from: Nordlys on September 10, 2010, 07:20

Quote from: Microbius on September 10, 2010, 07:09
Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 10, 2010, 05:00
Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?
If you're such a big deal I guess it's time you started negotiating with some of the other agencies to see if they'll let you in at a canister level

I'm allready well established with some hight prices trads on some of my work, some go to micros, most go to Alamy.
Alamy + trads renevue is 4x micro, but on far fewer DL's.

Diversify on your shooting and your outlet's - this protect your income.

Sorry Nordlys my post was intended for Vlad

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:27 »

I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime. Probably both.

I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.

borg · « **Reply #41 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:40 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 10, 2010, 09:27

I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime. Probably both.

I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.

Honestly Fotolia did something similar in near past...

disorderly · « **Reply #42 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:43 »

Quote from: borg on September 10, 2010, 09:40

Quote from: lisafx on September 10, 2010, 09:27
I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime. Probably both.

I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.

Honestly Fotolia did something similar in near past...

Even worse, after dropping my commission for the second time, they (Chad) sent me an email offering me a one time bump in levels that would restore my lost commission. All I had to do was give them 100 of my better sellers to their free pool. Needless to say, I declined their kind offer.

Artemis · « **Reply #43 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:45 »

Veer, imho they have spunk, are doing a pretty good job with their marketing and for me are showing a lot of potential.
I will NOT send them to the FT*ssholes.

Pixart · « **Reply #44 on:** September 10, 2010, 10:21 »

Serban, I am sure you are following this messs. I really really wish your little agency hadn't introduced the limited similars position, because you really could have come out the big winner in all of this.

The best customer service I have received from any site is from Canstock and that is reason enough for me to recommend them. BUT, my heart is with Dreamstime. They have a decent database and fair price structure. Yes, there was a big commission change but my own revenue hasn't actually taken a hit. DT appears to consider the artists with every decision they make, and don't squeeze us when they want to gold plate their toilets. They have a fair price structure and if we really are thinking of the customers - they have those dirty subs packages as well, but at least the return is a bit higher for the artists. Customer service has always been above average as well.

But still... DT's database is becoming severely limited because they have taken the whole similar thing way too far. I think it has been about a year now? Buyers will want to move with but won't be able to find the photos in their IS lightboxes at DT, so the emotion of the moment will pass and they will just stay at Istock.

I think Veer might be next on my list.

Although my earnings have been growing at FT, I will never forgive them for past hurts - so no, I will not send a single buyer to FT.

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** September 10, 2010, 11:01 »

"Anywhere but Istock" would be my answer right now __ I'm still fuming over their cheek and their greed.

I don't particularly care that they have historically produced the most revenue from my portfolio because they've done it largely by exploitation of their contributors (by paying ridiculously low commissions). Of course that meant that they had more money to spend on marketing but you can bet that their profitability has been pretty extreme too. What I find amazing is that even that level of profit did not satisfy them. Each and every month my images generate about $5000 for Istock's coffers and that's after my commissions have been paid. I would take some persuading that their 'costs' to market and manage my port are anything more than a tiny bit of that money.

Don't forget that Istock was actually a very profitable company back in 2005 when images were being sold for a fraction of what they are now __ that's why Getty bought them.

Microbius · « **Reply #46 on:** September 10, 2010, 11:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 10, 2010, 11:01

"Anywhere but Istock" would be my answer right now __ I'm still fuming over their cheek and their greed.

I don't particularly care that they have historically produced the most revenue from my portfolio because they've done it largely by exploitation of their contributors (by paying ridiculously low commissions). Of course that meant that they had more money to spend on marketing but you can bet that their profitability has been pretty extreme too. What I find amazing is that even that level of profit did not satisfy them. Each and every month my images generate about $5000 for Istock's coffers and that's after my commissions have been paid. I would take some persuading that their 'costs' to market and manage my port are anything more than a tiny bit of that money.

Don't forget that Istock was actually a very profitable company back in 2005 when images were being sold for a fraction of what they are now __ that's why Getty bought them.

Totally agree with this ^^^

donding · « **Reply #47 on:** September 10, 2010, 11:47 »

I voted for Dreamstime. I think their pay scale is much better than most. I make more money with Shutterstock but if the volume was the same at Dreamstime then the income there would be greater. I would never recommend Fotolia. I dropped them after their "little" pay cut. Dare say they'll also do it again.

dirkr · « **Reply #48 on:** September 10, 2010, 12:04 »

Zoonar.

They pay from 50% to 80% commissions.
According to one of their owners they are profitable with that - although their volume is very low compared to any of the big 4. Nice showcase what kind of commission can be "sustainable".

pancaketom · « **Reply #49 on:** September 10, 2010, 12:23 »

tough one, I would have said Dreamstime for sure except for their odd similars position and their lowering our percentage earlier.
FT - no way, they pull similar crap and don't even tell us about it.

SS - They have been reasonably honest w/ us and haven't dropped anything (except sales in my case)...

oh well, anyone but IS right now.

--=Tom

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #50 on:** September 10, 2010, 14:06 »

For me the point of this thread/poll was for us contributors to "think" about what we want and where that is. If we have a good list of sites we "recommend" for buyers, we can make some educated decisions when issues like this arise.

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #51 on:** September 10, 2010, 14:45 »

Also I think this poll shows what we stand for and what we are looking to get out of our time. It shows how "unified" we are and what we want. If we are all looking for something different, we will probably not be able to agree on anything.

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about. Maybe percentages don’t matter if you still get paid more than other sites. Maybe 10% is ok because you still make the most there. Is that wrong? Maybe not. It’s a personal choice.

Some sites provide more money, some more trust/honesty, some better percentages.

For me, some will NEVER get my referral because they have been too dishonest in the past. I will hold back these names, but we all know who these are. Some just can't get their act together (make payments, reply to emails, approve images, …). Others just do not do their job which is to sell our images. Why refer buyers to an agency that does not even do its core function; which is to sell our images. If I want to sell them all myself, then I will keep all the commission.

Dreamstime and Shutterstock will both get my referrals. Each in their own way.

If I had to pick only one, Dreamstime would be it. They pretty much offer any type of payment/packages, they also allow editorial, they offer image exclusivity, they offer the best % of any major site, they have a great level model for contributors, …. This could go on forever. And although they are not the highest earner on the list, they are in the “Big 4”. If you look at what you get for the % you give to them, they are on top.

Remember, this content is your intellectual property, not theirs. They do not pay you; you pay them.

Luckily we independents have multiple sites to choose from. I am not looking for iStock to burn in the pits of h*ll, but they have stated loud and clear where they stand and who they care about (or sort of care about).

Nordlys · « **Reply #52 on:** September 10, 2010, 14:55 »

Wery well put.....

But You've got to add Alamy. Because Alamy offers you freedom to shoot and upload what you find important.

What makes Alamy unique, is that every special stuff you ever could think of is there. If you cant find it else where, it will be on Alamy. A lot of crap too, but hey - the crap also sells - again and again...

It continue to amaze me what sells at Alamy - never the ones you would thin would sell (well somtimes those too) but often the - ok I'll upload that one just in case photo - sells and sells again.

Alamy allows you to diversify - RF - RM - special interest arears - general stock etc.

On top of that - the give you one of the best deals in royalty.

To make regular monthly payouts there, one does need a portfolio of about 2 - 3500 pics, depending of your subjects and shooting style.

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #53 on:** September 10, 2010, 22:31 »

Anyone want to change their vote to iStock?

travelstock · « **Reply #54 on:** September 11, 2010, 05:34 »

I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2. pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #55 on:** September 11, 2010, 05:44 »

Quote from: holgs on September 11, 2010, 05:34

I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2. pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

How much?? How much is the start-up? How much is the advertising?

I guess it isn't that much once there are agencies like Graphicleftovers owned by a 40's and a 20's person, maybe have a lot of money don't know.. it is a very interesting idea, I guess that money for creating this agency should be equal between investors or I guess will bring a lot of problems..

travelstock · « **Reply #56 on:** September 11, 2010, 06:19 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 11, 2010, 05:44

Quote from: holgs on September 11, 2010, 05:34
I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2. pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

How much?? How much is the start-up? How much is the advertising?

I guess it isn't that much once there are agencies like Graphicleftovers owned by a 40's and a 20's person, maybe have a lot of money don't know.. it is a very interesting idea, I guess that money for creating this agency should be equal between investors or I guess will bring a lot of problems..

MichaelDB's post in the union thread is the one that keeps resonating in my head: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/we-need-a-union!/50/ basically a $1000 investment from half of the top 2% of contributors would be a pretty decent start. To me $1000 is about the price of a half-decent new lens. Its significant enough that you'd want to make it work, but not so much that it would break the bank. For most of the top 2000 contributors it should be significantly less than a months photo income.

Depending on how you count the numbers this gives you somewhere between $500,000 to $2 mil. The main benefit though is that you would start with a community and wouldn't have an entity that could be easily bought out by a corporate.

I think a key would be that any new agency could have a large proportion of exclusive content, but that contributors do not need to be exclusive there.

fotografer · « **Reply #57 on:** September 11, 2010, 07:02 »

I make more at Fotolia but voted for Dreamstime as I trust them a lot more than Fotolia. Fotolia have proved themselves to be untrustworthy in the past.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #58 on:** September 11, 2010, 11:06 »

Quote from: holgs on September 11, 2010, 06:19

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 11, 2010, 05:44
Quote from: holgs on September 11, 2010, 05:34
I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2. pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

How much?? How much is the start-up? How much is the advertising?

I guess it isn't that much once there are agencies like Graphicleftovers owned by a 40's and a 20's person, maybe have a lot of money don't know.. it is a very interesting idea, I guess that money for creating this agency should be equal between investors or I guess will bring a lot of problems..

MichaelDB's post in the union thread is the one that keeps resonating in my head: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/we-need-a-union!/50/ basically a $1000 investment from half of the top 2% of contributors would be a pretty decent start. To me $1000 is about the price of a half-decent new lens. Its significant enough that you'd want to make it work, but not so much that it would break the bank. For most of the top 2000 contributors it should be significantly less than a months photo income.

Depending on how you count the numbers this gives you somewhere between $500,000 to $2 mil. The main benefit though is that you would start with a community and wouldn't have an entity that could be easily bought out by a corporate.

I think a key would be that any new agency could have a large proportion of exclusive content, but that contributors do not need to be exclusive there.

Has anyone considered that we already have the foundation for a great microstock site right here on this website, microstockgroup.com? Think about it for a while. Say, Leaf, are you busy?.......

madelaide · « **Reply #59 on:** September 11, 2010, 11:17 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on September 11, 2010, 11:06

Has anyone considered that we already have the foundation for a great microstock site right here on this website, microstockgroup.com? Think about it for a while. Say, Leaf, are you busy?.......

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/we-need-a-union!/

madelaide · « **Reply #60 on:** September 11, 2010, 11:19 »

Probably DT, but if it's a huge buyer I don't want him buying images cheap at subs prices. Therefore I voted FP, just because I like them, the commission is fair and their subs is only for small images. If there is one site I would like to see growing, that's FP.

UncleGene · « **Reply #61 on:** September 11, 2010, 11:23 »

My vote is for Cutcaster. I removed my port from there long ago, but it will be the first site I return to if it becomes more profitable (and directing buyers there will make it)

ann · « **Reply #62 on:** September 11, 2010, 11:36 »

Alamy. That's where much of my strongest work is, and I've heard and read the same from others time and again.

arquiplay77 · « **Reply #63 on:** September 11, 2010, 13:14 »

i vote for DT just because i think they have a nice system for the prices, and if they would have more traffic it could be my best seller site, so taht´s why i would sent buyer there.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #64 on:** September 11, 2010, 13:45 »

I still think you guys have this whole thing completely wrong. Trying to send buyers elsewhere will have little or no effect. The right to change the way business is done is not in your hands. Jump up and down scream all you want nothing will change. This is hardly Getty's first time through this. The expertise is there. They sell stuff. Remove the stuff and there is nothing to sell. Then you say we'd like X for our stuff, then you can negotiate. Ain't no other way. This is of course impossible so nothing will change, except of course the length of time between payouts.

lisafx · « **Reply #65 on:** September 11, 2010, 13:57 »

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 10, 2010, 14:45

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about.

Well Brandon, I thought this poll was looking for honest answers. If you are going to get all judgmental at people for voting for a different site than you chose it isn't really a very objective poll, is it?

Besides, you only allowed us one option each. Surely most of us will be referring to multiple sites (other than istock), won't we? I already stated I will be referring to both DT and Fotolia. And FWIW if someone wants a subscription model I would add SS to that list I would recommend.

Lets remember that if we are referring buyers, we want to consider not only what we get paid by the sites, which yes, is a primary consideration, but also the variety of content and pricing for the buyer we are referring. I think that is why smaller or newer agencies aren't getting more votes. They may give us a great %, but they probably don't have a big selection of the best content for the buyer, unlike the bigger sites.

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #66 on:** September 11, 2010, 18:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 11, 2010, 13:57

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 10, 2010, 14:45

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about.

Well Brandon, I thought this poll was looking for honest answers. If you are going to get all judgmental at people for voting for a different site than you chose it isn't really a very objective poll, is it?

Besides, you only allowed us one option each. Surely most of us will be referring to multiple sites (other than istock), won't we? I already stated I will be referring to both DT and Fotolia. And FWIW if someone wants a subscription model I would add SS to that list I would recommend.

Lets remember that if we are referring buyers, we want to consider not only what we get paid by the sites, which yes, is a primary consideration, but also the variety of content and pricing for the buyer we are referring. I think that is why smaller or newer agencies aren't getting more votes. They may give us a great %, but they probably don't have a big selection of the best content for the buyer, unlike the bigger sites.

Hmm, I see you took personal offense to that comment. It was not directed at you specifically; but your site choices do relate to that comment so I can see why you got defensive. I am not looking for others to agree with me, I just want to know where we stand. If you look at the poll, you are not the only person that says they would support a site that has pulled a fast one on contributors. The post was about unity and agreement.

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 10, 2010, 14:45

Also I think this poll shows what we stand for and what we are looking to get out of our time. It shows how "unified" we are and what we want. If we are all looking for something different, we will probably not be able to agree on anything.

Every time a site pulls a fast one on its contributors there is mass calling for unions, coops, support for other sites, and for major players to stand up for the little guys. We all grab our torches and pitch forks then go running to the gates. The gates stay closed and we slowly put out the fires and go home. Then some walk right back in once the gates reopen.

There is a reason there is no union or coop for microstock, and we know what it is. No one can agree nor take a stand and stick with it.

So, to your point; yes I was looking for honest answers and yes my comment was judgmental. Again, I am not looking for everyone or anyone to agree with me; I just wanted open discussion so I could figure out where we stand as a whole (or not as a whole). Everyone wants the mighty iStock and Getty to fall today, but what about tomorrow. If I offended you, sorry. But not sorry as in I take that back, sorry as in this is a discussion board and many will disagree. I am not looking to troll or offend anyone, its just a discussion.

I think one major reason we do not see (most of) the big guns in on these issues is because they take a moment and really look at the situation. If someone like Yuri came in and supported the riot, then a week later went back to work with the site that was of issue, the mob would start running his direction.

We all have different reason to do what we do; some for the enjoyment and extra money, some for pretty much just the money. Either way, we need to be honest with our goals. If not to others, at least with ourselves.

The single option was on purpose; to pick a site we all feel we could back and know why we would. If we feel we would like to answer multiple sites, I can add that. I just felt that would dilute the answer.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #67 on:** September 11, 2010, 18:49 »

Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS. Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** September 11, 2010, 18:56 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 11, 2010, 18:49

Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS. Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

Alamy is not a realistic choice for most buyers looking for microstock images at microstock prices.

Brandon - I am not deeply offended. Just think it's better if the originator of a poll lets people respond openly without posting personal judgments about them based on their choices. Obviously you disagree. It's your poll so you can run the thread how you like.

BTW, if anyone knows of a successful microstock agency that hasn't lowered rates, or changed terms, or sells mainly subs, but still has a vast and appealing collection good enough to compete with IS for buyers, I will be happy to change my vote and direct buyers there

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #69 on:** September 11, 2010, 19:05 »

Very well; noted. I will leave the judgment to all the other threads.

As for the sites, I think it goes: Successful, Trustworthy, Low Agency Commissions. Pick 2.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 11, 2010, 19:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 11, 2010, 18:56

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 11, 2010, 18:49
Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS. Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

Alamy is not a realistic choice for most buyers looking for microstock images at microstock prices.

Brandon - I am not deeply offended. Just think it's better if the originator of a poll lets people respond openly without posting personal judgments about them based on their choices. Obviously you disagree. It's your poll so you can run the thread how you like.

BTW, if anyone knows of a successful microstock agency that hasn't lowered rates, or changed terms, or sells mainly subs, but still has a vast and appealing collection good enough to compete with IS for buyers, I will be happy to change my vote and direct buyers there

I'm hopeful that my images aren't microstock then, the next three months will be devoted to building a 1000 image plus library on Alamy. I hope it works but I can't send anymore travel photos to IS knowing that they are not there to support me in the long run. I feel like I can add value to IS by putting images from remote and very under represented places on the site but the changes there have caused me to reevaluate my position.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 11, 2010, 19:25 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 11, 2010, 19:06

Quote from: lisafx on September 11, 2010, 18:56
Quote from: traveler1116 on September 11, 2010, 18:49
Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS. Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

Alamy is not a realistic choice for most buyers looking for microstock images at microstock prices.

Brandon - I am not deeply offended. Just think it's better if the originator of a poll lets people respond openly without posting personal judgments about them based on their choices. Obviously you disagree. It's your poll so you can run the thread how you like.

BTW, if anyone knows of a successful microstock agency that hasn't lowered rates, or changed terms, or sells mainly subs, but still has a vast and appealing collection good enough to compete with IS for buyers, I will be happy to change my vote and direct buyers there

I'm hopeful that my images aren't microstock then, the next three months will be devoted to building a 1000 image plus library on Alamy. I hope it works but I can't send anymore travel photos to IS knowing that they are not there to support me in the long run. I feel like I can add value to IS by putting images from remote and very under represented places on the site but the changes there have caused me to reevaluate my position.

As I heard from a lot of Alamy contibutors sales there take time to happen, year or so but then a few nice ones might bring some value!

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #72 on:** September 12, 2010, 11:36 »

“If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.” - Lewis Carroll

ShadySue · « **Reply #73 on:** September 12, 2010, 13:02 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 11, 2010, 19:06

I'm hopeful that my images aren't microstock then, the next three months will be devoted to building a 1000 image plus library on Alamy. I hope it works but I can't send anymore travel photos to IS knowing that they are not there to support me in the long run. I feel like I can add value to IS by putting images from remote and very under represented places on the site but the changes there have caused me to reevaluate my position.

One thing I've learned is that unusual locations and subjects seldom do well on iStock (low supply, but low demand). That was the first type of image I started to send to Alamy, then broadened out.

sharpshot · « **Reply #74 on:** September 13, 2010, 06:44 »

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 06:16

...iStock have and will screw us and it will get worse, you just need to make the decision as to how that fits into your business module and adjust accordingly.

My decision is 20% is as low as I will go and I wasn't going to put up with that forever. I have no confidence in istock now, how low will commissions be in the future? There's just too much uncertainty.

Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 06:16

Ask yourself this question in response to your comment
"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?"
Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?

I don't think its a coincidence that the oldest site is No.1 and the newer sites aren't doing well but the internet can change. Istock seem very complacent and I don't think its impossible for one of their rivals to leapfrog them.

fotografer · « **Reply #75 on:** September 13, 2010, 07:16 »

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 10, 2010, 14:45

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about. Maybe percentages don’t matter if you still get paid more than other sites.

I'm not ashamed to admit that the money in my account at the end of the month is what I care about. IS is only my 4th best earner for the last year or so but I still earn enough money with them to not be able to afford to leave because of the way they treat us. That's not to say that I agree with things that they are doing but what is most important to me is having the money to pay my bills.

sharpshot · « **Reply #76 on:** September 13, 2010, 10:15 »

I also care about the money in my account at the end of the month and I don't see how allowing sites to continually cut commissions is going to maintain that. Something has to change or it just wont be worth doing this anymore.

lisafx · « **Reply #77 on:** September 13, 2010, 10:46 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 13, 2010, 10:15

I also care about the money in my account at the end of the month and I don't see how allowing sites to continually cut commissions is going to maintain that. Something has to change or it just wont be worth doing this anymore.

Exactly! FWIW, there has been less money in my account at the end of each month for over a year now. In that same time royalties have been cut at three sites. You can't disconnect the royalty cuts from what's in the bank. The royalty cuts affect the bottom line.

sharpshot · « **Reply #78 on:** September 13, 2010, 12:24 »

I hope the istock video and audio buyers go to Pond5. Higher commissions, we can choose our own prices, much quicker reviews, less rejections, less technical problems with uploads and they sell more of my clips.

I wonder if they are already bigger than istock for video clips?

lightscribe · « **Reply #79 on:** January 24, 2011, 23:54 »

Didn't see this thread the first time around, thought it might be good to revive it in lieu of the recent threads regarding fair commissions and cuts by fotolia and istock . Some of us do have a few chances to direct clients to a particular site, we should choose wisely where we send buyers and we should choose our words wisely in public forums since a lot of times that is where buyers learn about new sites. I voted along with the huge majority that dreamstime was the best place as it has the highest pay per download, hence the best place to send a buyer. (with the exception of Alamy, but many who are used to the low prices will not go there anyway) so I hope we are all in some sort of agreement to send buyers to where it will benefit us the most, if we can't ever get it together to form a union at least we can collectively drive traffic to the place that earns the most per download....that is Dreamstime at this point...may change in the future but for now that is where I will send clients.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #80 on:** January 25, 2011, 00:09 »

Apparently I don't understand the question.

If I was sending someone to buy images, for a project, what site?

or If I wanted someone to buy MY images, where would I send them?

Also from that big list, there are probably only 5 or 6 sites that have the collections and quality that a buyer would want. That's diversity, good searches, good quality images... I wasn't thinking the question asked how much I made or sold at these sites?

Or did I miss the lead on this and it's supposed to be a popularity contest for microstock, in which case Alamy doesn't belong at all. And you pretty much could have saved a bunch of typing by just showing the top six as being relevant.

Do "we" send buyers or do they find sites on their own. I don't get it?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

If you had to pick one stock photo site to send buyers to, who would it be? (Please also post why)

Author Topic: Where do YOU think we should send buyers and why? (Read 29246 times)

Xalanx

Xalanx

grp_photo

vlad_the_imp

lagereek

vlad_the_imp

grp_photo

vlad_the_imp

grp_photo

Microbius

ayzek

Microbius

lisafx

Microbius

lisafx

traveler1116

lisafx

traveler1116

lisafx

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors