MicrostockGroup

I know someone in a similar position, she gave up exclusivity ( medium to high ranking seller), she's now back as an exclusive. 'Nuff said, although I'm sure you'll find different experiences as well, in fact I'd be interested to hear more positive experiences.

I'm not exclusive, never was, never will be. So take my opinion on this topic lightly.

I don't know how I'd do if I were ever an istock exclusive illustrator. Here's what I do know: istock currently is one of 14 agencies that I sell illustrations with, and they account for about 10% of my monthly earnings with pretty much identical portfolios across all of those agencies (except for a half dozen EPS10 files that istock would never accept). My earnings at istock are slipping every month, and within 6 months I expect istock to represent less than 10% of my monthly microstock earnings.

I highly doubt that I could have ever earned more in an exclusive capacity. I can't imagine that all of the perks of being exclusive (increased royalty, best match placement, etc) would result in 10x my current earnings at istock. Some people see double their earnings when they go exclusive, some see triple, I'd even venture a guess that 4 or 5-times your non-exclusive earnings is possible. But 10-times? No way.

So looking at this from a reverse point of view, if I had ever been exclusive at istock and dropped the crown to become independent, I'm extremely confident that I would have seen a significant jump in earnings and stayed independent. My personal experience tells me that exclusivity would be a losing proposition for me.

But that's just me. Experiences vary, and there are undoubtedly some people who would do worse as independent artists. So it is extremely tough to say how one person would do over another. I think independent illustrators may have an edge over independent photographers, having a few additional agencies to choose from that tend to do better for illustrators than photographers (GL, GR, VS). But in general, it all comes down to your personal portfolio and you can't really tell from someone else's experience how you'd do by comparison.

I'm a gold exclusive. Like the OP i feel the same. A few years ago I tried out being independent and 6 months later was exclusive again. It was alot of extra work I wasn't accustom to doing and my returns were about half (my situation at least). Returns have been diminishing, but I have been trying to focus on other freelance areas.

you are 'gold exclusive' but is your royalty still at the same level under the new system?  Having a split portfolio I dropped from what would used to be considered "gold" (35%) to what used to be considered "bronze" level (25% - but now 16% since I went Independent).

I'm a gold member since 07. My downloads have plummeted. Contemplating dropping exclusitivity as well.

What macro agencies are there for illustrations? I know only very few, and it seems questionable whether they do better than iStock.

I hope my article can help you to decide.

http://sellingvector.blogspot.com/2010/12/istockphoto-exclusive-or-not.html

It all depends on your skills.

the problem with GR IS ONLY 25% commission on non exclusive .They want exclusive rights on photos to get 50 to 70% commission

About the Blog, it's an interesting articles. But I would add one to the one mentionned to selling vector:
123rf and Bigstock gives me a small income each year, but last month I submitted my vectors (VERY easily and in 4-5 minutes to submit them after upload), I had some very nice sales in the 1 month that I have beend there. 5.00$, 2.50$, 19.80$ etc. is great sales when I am used to the 0.33 or 2.48 of Shutterstock (which is my main earner). I think Canstockphoto can be good. This is only 1 month, but if it sticks this way it might surpass Dreamstime in my yearly income.

      5426733    Feb 08, 2011 01:44PM    Regular    
Vector
    $5.00    history
 2       5293164    Feb 07, 2011 05:02PM    Regular    
Vector
    $2.50    history
 3       5293004    Feb 07, 2011 06:49AM    Distribution
Regular    
X-Large
    $19.80    history
 4       5292935    Feb 05, 2011 06:40AM    Regular    
Vector
    $5.00    history
 5       5292937    Feb 04, 2011 09:58PM    Regular    
Vector
    $5.00    history
 6       5293030    Feb 03, 2011 06:07PM    Subscription    
Large
    $0.25    history
 7       5293480    Jan 31, 2011 04:57PM    Regular    
Medium
    $1.50    history
 8       5292943    Jan 31, 2011 06:58AM    Subscription    
Medium
    $0.25    history
 9       5293376    Jan 27, 2011 08:00AM    Regular    
Medium
    $1.50    history
 10       5292940    Jan 25, 2011 07:40AM    Subscription    
Large
    $0.25    history
 11       5293022    Jan 24, 2011 10:36AM    Regular    
Vector
    $5.00    history
 12       5293004    Jan 11, 2011 07:38PM    Regular    
Small
    $1.00    history
 13       5293004    Jan 11, 2011 09:43AM    Regular    
Vector
    $2.50    history
 14       5293458    Jan 09, 2011 06:47PM    Subscription    
Large
    $0.25    history

ooh, this should be good. Let me get my popcorn.  

Good question. I am always surprised at how many of us fail to understand what business we are in.

Microstock sites are not art galleries. Superior images are those which sell more.

Some sites (e.g. Vectorstock, Fotolia) pay more credits for vectors which are 'complex'. Why? Is there any evidence that 'complex' vectors earn more money?

DT on the other hand, pays more for images which have sold more. This makes sense.

Even in 'art' virtuosity is not the same thing as beauty, as Morphart points out. Microstock is a business. The products which succeed are those which sell more. Nothing else should matter. If you want to make photorealistic images, go buy a camera.