iStock exclusivity

[NCHANT]

Hey guys,

I have been contributing to iStock for 12 months now and reached over 250 downloads (95% acceptance rate) and considering going exclusive, but have a few questions:

Maybe people who have just recently gone exclusive can help:

My current DL rate is averaging just over a DL a day, has anyone experienced the DL rate climb?
Has going exclusive increased your royalties to offset losing PP sales?
How fast are the review rates? Mine are currently around 7 days
How will going exclusive effect my 1000 files already for sale on iStock?
If you were contributing to Shutterstock as well, was it worth going exclusive?

My main reason for going exclusive is to save time uploading to just 1 site (and another for RM images) and also the higher royalty rates, but just not sure if it would be worth it just yet? I have been contributing to SS for 6 weeks now and just about to get my first payout, so deactivating my files will be pretty straight forward with no loss.

Cheers

[ShadySue]

Bear in mind that although you will earn more per download, indies will be undercutting you, and are often favoured in best match nowadays. However if you feel you have little to lose, why not suck it and see. AFAIK, if you already have files in the PP, they will stay there unless you opt them out; it's interesting to speculate what their plans are for TS now that they have subs.

[PixelBytes]

Most people who are indie average much more than 1 DL/day on SS, DT, FT etc.  I don't see why to go exclusive with numbers like that.

[Jo Ann Snover]

If you're thinking about having a long term future selling stock (photos? answer might vary a bit depending on your medium or media) I honestly think you'd do better to stay independent.

Long time iStock exclusives are (for the most part) experiencing huge drops in downloads, and in many cases income as well. There is only so long you can put up prices to counter falling downloads and decreasing royalty percentages (you only get 20% on Getty). Not only is iStock not doing well at the moment but Getty is struggling a bit too (you can read up about the two private equity funds who've burdened them with debt as they took massive amounts of money out of the business to pay themselves "dividends")

If you keep selling through Shutterstock and other sites that raise your royalty rate the more you sell, I think you'll do better than gambling that iStock can pull out of its current nosedive.

I'm an indie-exclusive-indie so I did see the really, really good side of iStock exclusivity, but that was then...

I'll give you the opposing point of view from the July sales thread on iStock (I just went to have a look and it is something you should read as you consider exclusivity). Most of the entries are very gloomy, but there is this very upbeat comment from one exclusive:

"Small port, but absolutely thrilled with being a new exclusive. In July 2013, revenues were $1.54 for 4 non-exclusive iStock only sales. In July 2014, revenues were $26.48 for 5 exclusive iStock only sales. It's the same trend for year-to-date. Very inspiring, at least so far. Honestly, I can't believe anyone would question the benefits of exclusivity."

This is a contributor with 385 images and between 300 and 400 sales. If 5 sales a month seems good to you (it isn't) then I guess exclusivity might be for you too

[NCHANT]

Thanks guys, interesting points raised!

I'm still a relative newbie in selling stock and it will only ever be a hobby/sideline/lunch (and lens) money thing for me. My sales are increasing about 30% a month now on IS which is great, maybe I experiment with exclusive and see how it goes, and just sign off Shutterstock � other libraries for me aren't doing as well and it's a pain having to upload to 6 or so sites so they will be shut down anyway...

If it fails, then I just keep with Getty (started with the Flickr initiative), iStock and Shutterstock.

[bunhill]

"Small port, but absolutely thrilled with being a new exclusive. In July 2013, revenues were $1.54 for 4 non-exclusive iStock only sales. In July 2014, revenues were $26.48 for 5 exclusive iStock only sales. It's the same trend for year-to-date. Very inspiring, at least so far. Honestly, I can't believe anyone would question the benefits of exclusivity."

This is a contributor with 385 images and between 300 and 400 sales. If 5 sales a month seems good to you (it isn't) then I guess exclusivity might be for you too

Averaged - that would work out at appx 82c per image per year. A person would need north of 14,000 images to make $1000 per month at the rate.

And, because of the way the numbers work, getting to 14,000 images they would find that they now needed many many more than that. Because the more content in the collection the less each image will pay on average.

The only way of escaping this cycle is for a collection to restrict access. Or for a contributor to start producing much more saleable work. But the same calculations also apply to saleable work ultimately - the more of it there is, the less it pays.

The more of a thing there is, the less it pays. A small collection with fewer customers has the potential to be more profitable per contributor than a big collection with many more customers (and contributors).

A contributor's downloads should surely considerably exceed their uploads after a few years IMO. Else the model is not working.

[Sean Locke Photography]

This is a contributor with 385 images and between 300 and 400 sales. If 5 sales a month seems good to you (it isn't) then I guess exclusivity might be for you too

The OP is in the same-ish boat with 1000 images and around 25 sales a month...
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2411778

Honestly, just read the July thread and notice the only happy people are the ones who are going from 0 dls a day to 1.

[NCHANT]

This is a contributor with 385 images and between 300 and 400 sales. If 5 sales a month seems good to you (it isn't) then I guess exclusivity might be for you too

The OP is in the same-ish boat with 1000 images and around 25 sales a month...
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2411778

Honestly, just read the July thread and notice the only happy people are the ones who are going from 0 dls a day to 1.

Seems I'm doing better than most of those people, although I think their earnings would be better

[ShadySue]

Agree with all said above. Read the July thread but also look at the available stats of those who are pleased with the month - that's where the real info is.

FWIW, I started at iS in late Dec 2006, and my July dls were the worst, bar none, since Feb 2007, i.e. second full month, and $$ second-lowest since Sepember 2007. In my case, I'm pretty sure it's at least partly because of an indie in my genre undercutting by quite some factor with thousands of near-similar (even identical) images (back in the day, we were told to submit only our best from each shoot).

OTOH, SS doesn't sell well for everyone, and if you know your material doesn't sell well there, it's an easier decision. When iS implodes, you can always try there again, though there would presumably be an influx of 'a fair proportion' of any remaining iS exclusives.

If you do lifestyle and have a big fanbase on social media, you could try Stocksy.

[bunhill]

FWIW, I started at iS in late Dec 2006, and my July dls were the worst, bar none, since Feb 2007

I started uploading there in Jan 2006. This was my worst July since 2007.

2009,2010 and 2011 my July averages were $1 per image per month iS only - just the blue bit - i.e. not including GI or extended licences.

[ShadySue]

Seems I'm doing better than most of those people, although I think their earnings would be better

Remember that if you're exclusive, a buyer can hide all/most of your images at one move of the slider.

[Difydave]

FWIW, I started at iS in late Dec 2006, and my July dls were the worst, bar none, since Feb 2007

I started uploading there in Jan 2006. This was my worst July since 2007.

2009,2010 and 2011 my July averages were $1 per image per month iS only - just the blue bit - i.e. not including GI or extended licences.

I really started uploading there towards the end of 2005. So about the same time as bunhill.
And guess what? This July is my worst for $$ since 2007. At that time I had something like a third the images online I have now, and of course the amounts per sale were much smaller.

Seems to me that the only exclusives doing well there are bronze and possibly silver. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions of the possible reasons for that, and where things might be going there.
 

[cobalt]

That thread is really depressing to read. So having gone indie I am earning more than people who are fully istock exclusive? And I still have less than 1000 images on the micros....

The exclusive number on the poll seems to be in free fall as well. They should at least let them nominate files for getty, if that is where all the attention and marketing money is going.

[Difydave]

That thread is really depressing to read. So having gone indie I am earning more then people who are fully istock exclusive? And I still have less than 1000 images on the micros....

The exclusive number on the poll seems to be in free fall as well. They should at least let them nominate files for getty, if that is where all the attention and marketing money is going.

Getty nominations are possibly the answer. If it was done in the right way it would be a powerful incentive to stay exclusive.
TBH as it is at present I can't see that they care at all about exclusives. They seem to have gone too far down the road of wanting people to be exclusive, but not accepting that there is some cost to them in having content which isn't elsewhere. They have also devalued the exclusive concept with other  "exclusive" material.
There seems to be increasingly less reason to be exclusive there every month.

[bunhill]

Seems to me that the only exclusives doing well there are bronze and possibly silver. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions of the possible reasons for that, and where things might be going there.

I wonder whether they are really doing well ? Some seem to have many many more uploads than downloads over many years. That's not doing well

The old volume based model was about contributors selling images in volume. Volume justified low prices. The new model seems to be the agencies sell in volume but most individual images sell in only very small numbers.

Perhaps this is an inevitable evolution.

[Difydave]

True enough about some having more ULs than DLs. The new standards aren't helping anyone there methinks.
Although obviously the model will, and has changed over time, the sudden changes (read drops) seen tend to point to intervention rather than evolution to me.

[heywoody]

So here's my RPI in IS since I started - "getting better" would not be the first description I'd use.  Also, if you don't submit somewhere where there is some sort of acceptance standard it will be difficult to grow / improve.

[MichaelJayFoto]

My current DL rate is averaging just over a DL a day, has anyone experienced the DL rate climb?
Has going exclusive increased your royalties to offset losing PP sales?

I went the other way (from exclusive to non-exclusive) last year and my DL rate climbed after that. No surprise, non-exclusive files are cheaper (and got even cheaper since). So I would expect the number of downloads rather to drop than climb when you go exclusive.

The higher image prices plus higher royalties compensate for that and the PP, of course. If you end up making more or less money at the end, probably depends heavily on the kind of images you have and how they compete against the cheap non-exclusive stuff. There are some exclusives who are making good money because they have unique images that customers are willing to pay a higher price for. If your main subject is apples on white background, the customer will have to choose between buying your apple for $30 or a non-exclusive apple for $5...

And as it sounds from other beginners, the PP seems to make an ever bigger part of their total income from iStock these days. I don't know how many PP downloads you get but if you make $20 from iStock and $50 from the PP each month, it's gonna be tough to make up for that.

Though, I believe there still is some value in going exclusive - mainly if you have limited time and want to focus on one agency. Financially it seems unlikely to pay off anymore unless you shoot high-end stuff (and even then...?).

[etudiante_rapide]

There are some exclusives who are making good money because they have unique images that customers are willing to pay a higher price for. If your main subject is apples on white background, the customer will have to choose between buying your apple for $30 or a non-exclusive apple for $5...

Though, I believe there still is some value in going exclusive - mainly if you have limited time and want to focus on one agency. Financially it seems unlikely to pay off anymore unless you shoot high-end stuff (and even then...?).

very clear explanation and helpful insight, cheers MichaelJay.
highlighting your points to note.

[heywoody]

There are some exclusives who are making good money because they have unique images that customers are willing to pay a higher price for. If your main subject is apples on white background, the customer will have to choose between buying your apple for $30 or a non-exclusive apple for $5...

Though, I believe there still is some value in going exclusive - mainly if you have limited time and want to focus on one agency. Financially it seems unlikely to pay off anymore unless you shoot high-end stuff (and even then...?).

very clear explanation and helpful insight, cheers MichaelJay.
highlighting your points to note.

Except that if you have limited time, it's a hell of a lot easier and quicker to submit to multiple agencies using ftp and iptc encoded images than to submit to is alone - even with deepmeta....

[MichaelJayFoto]

Except that if you have limited time, it's a hell of a lot easier and quicker to submit to multiple agencies using ftp and iptc encoded images than to submit to is alone - even with deepmeta....

Well, if you have limited time, you could also stop keywording and uploading overall and do something more valuable than shooting part time stock...

No, seriously: It isn't more efficient to upload non-exclusively because you'd still have to upload to iStock, Fotolia and Dreamstime to make the most out of your images, and all three are rather time consuming. So to save time you'd have to skip three of the top five earners...

[Digital66]

This is a contributor with 385 images and between 300 and 400 sales. If 5 sales a month seems good to you (it isn't) then I guess exclusivity might be for you too

The OP is in the same-ish boat with 1000 images and around 25 sales a month...
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2411778

Honestly, just read the July thread and notice the only happy people are the ones who are going from 0 dls a day to 1.

Yes! I noticed the same.  And it's so ridiculous when these people report their growing percentages, when the truth is they just sold one or two more images than the previous month...

[etudiante_rapide]

Well, if you have limited time, you could also stop keywording and uploading overall and do something more valuable than shooting part time stock...

No, seriously: It isn't more efficient to upload non-exclusively because you'd still have to upload to iStock, Fotolia and Dreamstime to make the most out of your images, and all three are rather time consuming. So to save time you'd have to skip three of the top five earners...

+1
cannibalizing your port, when the time saved could be out enjoying life.
really, basing it on the polls to the right , doing all the other sites with single digit returns,
why? some say combined i make xxx $. what's to say, if u had just 2, u make the same by not spreading urself that thinly.

[Digital66]

I have been contributing to iStock for 12 months now and reached over 250 downloads (95% acceptance rate) and considering going exclusive, but have a few questions:

Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays.  They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue.  So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

[NCHANT]

Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays.  They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue.  So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

Fair point well taken, before the new standards came in I had an 80% acceptance rate

I bit the bullet and going to try exclusive for a while, fingers crossed it works out. The time-saving factor alone will have the wife happy, so that will make me happy too I'm not in this game professionally and don't expect to make a living wage out of it, just a bit of fun at the end of the day

[Digital66]

Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays.  They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue.  So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

Fair point well taken, before the new standards came in I had an 80% acceptance rate

I bit the bullet and going to try exclusive for a while, fingers crossed it works out. The time-saving factor alone will have the wife happy, so that will make me happy too I'm not in this game professionally and don't expect to make a living wage out of it, just a bit of fun at the end of the day

I'm afraid you only have one image from the high standards time    That's why I don't believe much in percentages only.

[NCHANT]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

[KB]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

I've had a total of 15 DLs for the entire month of August, so congratulations, you're doing a lot better than me. You're off to a great start.

[BoBoBolinski]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

I noticed your positive comments in the July sales discussion, one of the very few positives in there. When this happens I always check to see what sort of level of sales people have who are doing well. I see you have been at IS for 7 years and have sold >200 files in that period. That's an average of about 3 sales a month. It doesn't take much to improve on that.

[enstoker]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

I noticed your positive comments in the July sales discussion, one of the very few positives in there. When this happens I always check to see what sort of level of sales people have who are doing well. I see you have been at IS for 7 years and have sold >200 files in that period. That's an average of about 3 sales a month. It doesn't take much to improve on that.

Ha ha ha, nchant

and you think that will somebody believe you?

[NCHANT]

Haha yes, I have been a stock buyer (I work in advertising) for 7 or so years, only contributed since June/July last year (check photo dates if you want). So yes, I am still a fresh contributor

Here's how this year is going so far:

[ShadySue]

will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

I was there for years; not now, though.

Notes:
1. January was already down from Jan 2013, and 2013 as a whole was down from 2012.
2. Note the steepening of the decline since subs were introduced in April - a trend noted in many posts in the July sales threads. No surprise there - again they lied to us (as they previously did with TS) that it would be a 'new market'.
3. There is a summer slump generally reported, but July/Aug have not always been my slowest months.

It's good that you feel you are doing well, and that exclusivity will be good for you.
Indeed, maybe it will, but I can't help remembering all the iS fanboys/girls who raved about them here for years, trashing all contrary comments (usually suggesting anyone who wasn't doing well there was a crap producer), and are now indie.

[Difydave]

will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

I was there for years; not now, though.

It's good that you feel you are doing well, and that exclusivity will be good for you.
Indeed, maybe it will, but I can't remembering all the iS fanboys/girls who raved about them here for years, trashing all contrary comments (usually suggesting anyone who wasn't doing well there was a crap producer), and are now indie.

Ditto as far as the "not now" goes. Had a couple of weeks lately where payout wasn't reached. (OK one was the week with the repayment, but even so that was only $16. . .) and that's with 5500 images which used to do reasonably well for me.
This week for instance I've had one sale since Sunday evening. Nothing for over 48 hours.
If this present situation goes on for long I won't be an exclusive there much longer.
They seem to forget that they offer a service to sell images for the contributors who upload there. That is the deal.
Once they stop selling your images, for whatever reason, there is no point in uploading any more.
And certainly no reason to be exclusive.

[shudderstok]

will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

I was there for years; not now, though.

Notes:
1. January was already down from Jan 2013, and 2013 as a whole was down from 2012.
2. Note the steepening of the decline since subs were introduced in April - a trend noted in many posts in the July sales threads. No surprise there - again they lied to us (as they previously did with TS) that it would be a 'new market'.
3. There is a summer slump generally reported, but July/Aug have not always been my slowest months.

It's good that you feel you are doing well, and that exclusivity will be good for you.
Indeed, maybe it will, but I can't help remembering all the iS fanboys/girls who raved about them here for years, trashing all contrary comments (usually suggesting anyone who wasn't doing well there was a crap producer), and are now indie.

rather entertaining watching them contradict with full conviction the full conviction they had in the past.

[heywoody]

Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays.  They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue.  So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

Fair point well taken, before the new standards came in I had an 80% acceptance rate

I bit the bullet and going to try exclusive for a while, fingers crossed it works out. The time-saving factor alone will have the wife happy, so that will make me happy too I'm not in this game professionally and don't expect to make a living wage out of it, just a bit of fun at the end of the day

The oldest images in your port seem to be mid 2013 - after the end of standards at IS

[NCHANT]

Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays.  They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue.  So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

Fair point well taken, before the new standards came in I had an 80% acceptance rate

I bit the bullet and going to try exclusive for a while, fingers crossed it works out. The time-saving factor alone will have the wife happy, so that will make me happy too I'm not in this game professionally and don't expect to make a living wage out of it, just a bit of fun at the end of the day

The oldest images in your port seem to be mid 2013 - after the end of standards at IS

That's not the point of this thread  I do however remember being in the the midst of the change when I was accepted as a contributor.
My images may suck as people are implying by the new standards vs old, but they are working for me and that's what I wanted to find out by going exclusive.

[etudiante_rapide]

This is a contributor with 385 images and between 300 and 400 sales. If 5 sales a month seems good to you (it isn't) then I guess exclusivity might be for you too

The OP is in the same-ish boat with 1000 images and around 25 sales a month...
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2411778

Honestly, just read the July thread and notice the only happy people are the ones who are going from 0 dls a day to 1.

nothing 2 say except to quote the above
 as it is a shame that it takes so little to suddenly think
success !
now let's go exclusive, wow !

something worth repeating
what Jo Ann and JSLocke point out.

speechless, really

[Digital66]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

You should curb your enthusiasm NCHANT...  Unless you don't mind to suddenly get extremely disappointed.   

[BoBoBolinski]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

You should curb your enthusiasm NCHANT...  Unless you don't mind to suddenly get extremely disappointed.   

He's still there in the IS forums boasting about his success...

How's it working out for you since dropping the crown? I've just gone exclusive and earned more in 6 days than I did last month! And I have only been exclusive for 6 days

[NCHANT]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

You should curb your enthusiasm NCHANT...  Unless you don't mind to suddenly get extremely disappointed.   

He's still there in the IS forums boasting about his success...

How's it working out for you since dropping the crown? I've just gone exclusive and earned more in 6 days than I did last month! And I have only been exclusive for 6 days

Seriously? Am I not allowed to be happy with a decision in life when it's paying off? All this doom and gloom everyone talks about and I get flamed for being positive  * can never win I guess.

[Holmes]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

You should curb your enthusiasm NCHANT...  Unless you don't mind to suddenly get extremely disappointed.   

He's still there in the IS forums boasting about his success...

How's it working out for you since dropping the crown? I've just gone exclusive and earned more in 6 days than I did last month! And I have only been exclusive for 6 days

Seriously? Am I not allowed to be happy with a decision in life when it's paying off? All this doom and gloom everyone talks about and I get flamed for being positive  * can never win I guess.

It is just that when a hobbyist comes along and sings praise to IS over their meager earnings that are not indicative of the reality all of us are facing... well, don't expect us to do a group hug with you. Take your beer money and enjoy it but don't bang the gong of success in our face. These are hard working people who are seeing years of effort and expense shrivel up and fade away.

Your seven days of exclusive bliss is a false reality.

[NCHANT]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

You should curb your enthusiasm NCHANT...  Unless you don't mind to suddenly get extremely disappointed.   

He's still there in the IS forums boasting about his success...

How's it working out for you since dropping the crown? I've just gone exclusive and earned more in 6 days than I did last month! And I have only been exclusive for 6 days

Seriously? Am I not allowed to be happy with a decision in life when it's paying off? All this doom and gloom everyone talks about and I get flamed for being positive  * can never win I guess.

It is just that when a hobbyist comes along and sings praise to IS over their meager earnings that are not indicative of the reality all of us are facing... well, don't expect us to do a group hug with you. Take your beer money and enjoy it but don't bang the gong of success in our face. These are hard working people who are seeing years of effort and expense shrivel up and fade away.

Your seven days of exclusive bliss is a false reality.

Nothing wrong with being happy with a boost of income, other peoples earnings going down is not my problem and never will be. Not after a group hug but sounds like you need one, no need to be so sour, if it's not working out then choose a different career! I'm not in this game to earn a living, but to buy more gear with the money coming in - hell I just bought a new lens today, woop woop for me! Oh sorry, didn't mean to rub that in.
I'm not just singing praise for IS, just answering my own questions on my original post.

My current DL rate is averaging just over a DL a day, has anyone experienced the DL rate climb?
Yes my DL rate has climbed.
Has going exclusive increased your royalties to offset losing PP sales?
So far so very good.
How fast are the review rates? Mine are currently around 7 days
From 2 hours to 2 days.
How will going exclusive effect my 1000 files already for sale on iStock?
They have now gone up in price, and having S+ files is a bonus.
If you were contributing to Shutterstock as well, was it worth going exclusive?
For me it definitely has, although SS was a good earner, I don;t need it anymore.

Maybe you old timers won't find this thread useful - but new guys like me might.

[BoBoBolinski]

Just an update on this, glad I wend exclusive have been exclusive for 7 days now, had 14 downloads which netted me more than the whole of last month if it stays like this then I will reach payout each week, which is more than I expected.

Excellent

You should curb your enthusiasm NCHANT...  Unless you don't mind to suddenly get extremely disappointed.   

He's still there in the IS forums boasting about his success...

How's it working out for you since dropping the crown? I've just gone exclusive and earned more in 6 days than I did last month! And I have only been exclusive for 6 days

Seriously? Am I not allowed to be happy with a decision in life when it's paying off? All this doom and gloom everyone talks about and I get flamed for being positive  * can never win I guess.

It is just that when a hobbyist comes along and sings praise to IS over their meager earnings that are not indicative of the reality all of us are facing... well, don't expect us to do a group hug with you. Take your beer money and enjoy it but don't bang the gong of success in our face. These are hard working people who are seeing years of effort and expense shrivel up and fade away.

Your seven days of exclusive bliss is a false reality.

Nothing wrong with being happy with a boost of income, other peoples earnings going down is not my problem and never will be. Not after a group hug but sounds like you need one, no need to be so sour, if it's not working out then choose a different career! I'm not in this game to earn a living, but to buy more gear with the money coming in - hell I just bought a new lens today, woop woop for me! Oh sorry, didn't mean to rub that in.
I'm not just singing praise for IS, just answering my own questions on my original post.

My current DL rate is averaging just over a DL a day, has anyone experienced the DL rate climb?
Yes my DL rate has climbed.
Has going exclusive increased your royalties to offset losing PP sales?
So far so very good.
How fast are the review rates? Mine are currently around 7 days
From 2 hours to 2 days.
How will going exclusive effect my 1000 files already for sale on iStock?
They have now gone up in price, and having S+ files is a bonus.
If you were contributing to Shutterstock as well, was it worth going exclusive?
For me it definitely has, although SS was a good earner, I don;t need it anymore.

Maybe you old timers won't find this thread useful - but new guys like me might.

There's nothing like a bit of insensitivity to make yourself feel good. Carry on, you'll make lots of friends here.

[NCHANT]

Hey I feel good, so what? If it works for me then sweet, works for other people too. No need to put a downer on everything, so many people complain, I feel it's good to add a positive note to it. But then people like you come along and try to steal it away? Come on man, that's not fair.
Let us small folk enjoy our wins, even if it only lasts a short while. We're all here to try selling stock and I've learned a shitload since I started thanks to people, kinda, like you. Now I see myself as a better photographer and can go out and shoot what I see, and how I see it. People are buying it, end result is win win.

Cheer up and have a beer

[BoBoBolinski]

Hey I feel good, so what? If it works for me then sweet, works for other people too. No need to put a downer on everything, so many people complain, I feel it's good to add a positive note to it. But then people like you come along and try to steal it away? Come on man, that's not fair.
Let us small folk enjoy our wins, even if it only lasts a short while. We're all here to try selling stock and I've learned a shitload since I started thanks to people, kinda, like you. Now I see myself as a better photographer and can go out and shoot what I see, and how I see it. People are buying it, end result is win win.

Cheer up and have a beer

Nothing wrong with positivity, most of us are up for a bit of that. What annoys people is that your boasting tone, written from a position of tiny sales compared to many here, is just irritating. That is all. If you are in advertising, and not just the art directors tea boy, you understand the psychology of selling. Try selling yourself in a way that is positive but sympathetic, rather than positive and gloating/boasting, which is how you come across. Plenty of people have been earning very good salaries here, probably much higher than you can achieve in your day job, supporting families, paying mortgages etc. Many have seen a severe erosion in that income, and when someone comes along saying 'whey hey, look at me I'm doing brilliantly, shut up you miserable so and so's, celebrate my success', and especially when that success, whilst laudable, is pretty small scale, then it just gets a bit tedious and people are a bit unhappy listening to it. Pretty simple really.

[NCHANT]

Fair enough, but still, gotta take it as it goes and so far it's worked out a great gamble. And yes, I am an Art Director.

On another note, BoBoBolinski, I see you are an illustrator, does iStock accept gradient mesh illustrations? I haven't checked criteria yet but I have a ton of vectors from over the years that could work, like this: http://www.creativeduck.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/apple-illustrator-mesh-tool.html

[ShadySue]

I have to say nchant, your tenacity is applaudable. Your sales are good for new files nowadays, that's how bad it's got there; but I'd probably have given up after six months if my sales had been that low when I started. I've all but stopped uploading now.

[NCHANT]

Thanks Sue, to be honest it was Flickr that has given me the boost to try this out, and it's not my day job so I don't need to rely on the income anyway. I'm not hiding either, so everything here is honest and me, so I apologise if I come across the wrong way.
Feel free to have a look at some of my work that isn't/won't all be available on iStock: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/

[shudderstok]

@NCHANT...
Good for you if it's working for you on IS. As you may have noticed now MSG is a breeding ground of negativity and contempt for anything remotely positive in regards to feeling happy with IS. Now you are into the gang rape mentality of how wrong you are and you won't make any friends here - oh boo hoo. Keep doing what makes you feel good and if the others need to live in a cesspool of bitterness towards another's choice and success with that decision, that is who and what they live with everyday. Carry on!!!

[BaldricksTrousers]

Feel free to have a look at some of my work that isn't/won't all be available on iStock: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/

You've got some nice stuff there.
PS: Don't worry about Shudderstock. He's just become all bitter about everybody here.

[shudderstok]

Feel free to have a look at some of my work that isn't/won't all be available on iStock: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/

You've got some nice stuff there.
PS: Don't worry about Shudderstock. He's just become all bitter about everybody here.

au contraire... just not a fan of the overwhelming negativity on offer or shall i say the herd mentality of dissaproval if you just happen to like and/or have success over at IS. it's the herd mentality that i find a bit silly. as a point of reference - this thread - there is no reason NCHANT should be so defensive in sharing that he is happy with IS. there is no shortage of negativity on MSG - especially if you really dig IS and have success. you can call that bitter about everybody if you want. just sayin.

[MxR]

Hey nchants!... wish luck to you!....!

Istock without PP o any Getty Sales is a 5% of my income... but i respect your decision!

[etudiante_rapide]

Hey nchants!... wish luck to you!....!

Istock without PP o any Getty Sales is a 5% of my income... but i respect your decision!

looking at it objectively,

during one of my trips, i met a group of ppl from another country who found out what the min. wage is on my side of the pond. they went, "wow... that's like one month income for a doctor or a manager of a big firm where we live".
so really, 5% may be peanuts for us , but to someone else, that could be like the talk of the town
yo, man... global photographer.
looking back, even here on this forum, a decade ago, i remember reading someone saying
after he made $100 a month with IS that he is planning to build a house .
naturally most ppl then, chided him saying even with $1000 a month we don't even talk about planning
to buy a car, never mind build a house.

this could well be the OP situation why champagnes are pouring .

[ShadySue]

I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

[etudiante_rapide]

I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

oh, is that where OP lives?
oh well, off with my objectivity theory

not being blant, but i guess OP is just someone who is easily satisfied.  sites like ss is ft ,etc
must adore having new contributors like OP .

[BaldricksTrousers]

I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

oh, is that where OP lives?
oh well, off with my objectivity theory

not being blant, but i guess OP is just someone who is easily satisfied.  sites like ss is ft ,etc
must adore having new contributors like OP .

He's not trying to make a living, he's just trying to get some pocket-money from his pictures. It's where an awful lot of us started from.

Thinking about it, the real old-timers like me, who started back in early 2004, were all easily satisfied. Then, after a few years the semi-pros and pros noticed that we were making very good money and jumped into the pool, trying to squeeze us out, now the pros/semi-pros are finding that it's just not worth the effort any more and a new generation of pocket-money hopefuls are popping up - though with far better skills than we had back at the beginning.

[etudiante_rapide]

Thinking about it, the real old-timers like me, who started back in early 2004, were all easily satisfied. Then, after a few years the semi-pros and pros noticed that we were making very good money and jumped into the pool, trying to squeeze us out, now the pros/semi-pros are finding that it's just not worth the effort any more and a new generation of pocket-money hopefuls are popping up - though with far better skills than we had back at the beginning.

Mr. Trouser, do u still believe OP is as good or better than this old-timer when she first started out?
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/162596/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1a9fde01
The Madame does not seem to be being "squeezed out". She is still very much up there .
(I am bias, because she is my long time favourite from IS).

i agree with those who say to OP, not to celebrate too soon, the first puff of opiate is always free.
but i also agree that  top performers will always do well because they keep ahead of the "better than when we started" newbies.
to cheers too soon is to encourage the sites like IS , SS, Getty,etc to continue to exploit the situation of over-supply and saturation of yoghurts, i mean, photos.

[shudderstok]

I've never heard that the cost of living is particularly low in NZ.

oh, is that where OP lives?
oh well, off with my objectivity theory

not being blant, but i guess OP is just someone who is easily satisfied.  sites like ss is ft ,etc
must adore having new contributors like OP .

He's not trying to make a living, he's just trying to get some pocket-money from his pictures. It's where an awful lot of us started from.

Thinking about it, the real old-timers like me, who started back in early 2004, were all easily satisfied. Then, after a few years the semi-pros and pros noticed that we were making very good money and jumped into the pool, trying to squeeze us out, now the pros/semi-pros are finding that it's just not worth the effort any more and a new generation of pocket-money hopefuls are popping up - though with far better skills than we had back at the beginning.

Food for thought Paul... Old timers like you in microstock I get, but for some of us microstock was the last resort as the newbies such as yourself at the time came into a very profitable industry that "was". I beg to differ from your suggestion - rather that it was the newbies who fell for selling images at micro prices (where it's considered the norm now) squeezed us old timers out. I was just digging through my old "Stone" and "Getty" statements from 1996-2006 and what an eye opener that was. My royalties from the "was" era were consistent at 4K-6K and by the time the micros came vogue circa 2006 my royalties from the same agents had plummeted to a consistent 1K-2K due to selling images for a pittance - impossible to compete with that. That is about the time I jumped in to microstock dumping all my "rejects" from a healthy editing system that was in place back in "was" land. Within two years I was making my original 4K-6K from rejects of "was" land on IS, and my other royalties hover to where they remain today at a paltry 300-500 per month with the original surprise from a RM sale that is rather the way it "was". I am really glad I started when I did, even if you "old timers" squeezed us geriatrics out. that all said, I am so glad I am not starting up today.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Ms Gagne was iStock's star turn right from the beginning etudiante_rapide, it is ridiculous to project her as being the average 2004 (or 2002) istocker.  I was the probably the average 2004 contributor. Unlike  you, I'm not particularly a fan of La Gagne because I have some concerns about the amount of "inspiration" she took from the work of established macro-stock photographers.

PS: If you read my earlier post you would see that I also suggested that the OP should not be too excited  by his first week's result.

[BaldricksTrousers]

@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide.  The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

[etudiante_rapide]

Ms Gagne was iStock's star turn right from the beginning etudiante_rapide, it is ridiculous to project her as being the average 2004 (or 2002) istocker.  I was the probably the average 2004 contributor. Unlike  you, I'm not particularly a fan of La Gagne because I have some concerns about the amount of "inspiration" she took from the work of established macro-stock photographers.

Trousers, who in business of art, photo (gagnon<macro), music(beatles, stone<chuck berry),etc were not "inspired" by those who were established at that time?  Madame Gagne stardom was because she was shrewd enough to know that was what clients want. no one invented the wheel in stock photography.

but, i do get what u mean, "the average Istocker".  point taken.

my point is like in the other thread on dt (poor sales), where one of other MSG-er say,
:lower expectation: so happy camper faster ,
or something like that.

so long as we let them persists, the lower expectation will be no lower than free. don't u agree,
that it's not wise to bring out the champagne with such expectations?
tomorrow, he will bring out the champagne for getting many taking the freebies.
ie. don't encourage the agencies to drop the lid off the bottom

[heywoody]

Acceptance rate at iStock means nothing nowadays.  They take whatever crappy image you upload, except when there is a copyright issue.  So, no reason to be proud about a high acceptance rate (I don't mean to be rude, but that's the ugly truth!).

Fair point well taken, before the new standards came in I had an 80% acceptance rate

I bit the bullet and going to try exclusive for a while, fingers crossed it works out. The time-saving factor alone will have the wife happy, so that will make me happy too I'm not in this game professionally and don't expect to make a living wage out of it, just a bit of fun at the end of the day

The oldest images in your port seem to be mid 2013 - after the end of standards at IS

That's not the point of this thread  I do however remember being in the the midst of the change when I was accepted as a contributor.
My images may suck as people are implying by the new standards vs old, but they are working for me and that's what I wanted to find out by going exclusive.

Just to be clear, I never said yours or anyone else�s work sucks � just pointing out that you haven�t actually been subject to the old standards OR the old levels of revenue.  If you make double or more as an exclusive it might make up for not selling on SS and the others at the moment but the trend does appear to be going in one direction with a result that a lot of established exclusives are jumping or have jumped ship.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Trousers, who in business of art, photo (gagnon<macro), music(beatles, stone<chuck berry),etc were not "inspired" by those who were established at that time?  Madame Gagne stardom was because she was shrewd enough to know that was what clients want. no one invented the wheel in stock photography.

I wasn't.  Not intentionally, anyway, ever... unless you count one or two deliberate large format experiments mimicking early 20th Century photographers, which aren't stock anyway. 

I think there is a line in a certain place and crossing it descends from inspiration to plagiarism. I suppose different people find it in different places. But, of course, we are all part of the culture we live in.

[ShadySue]

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/162596/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1a9fde01
The Madame does not seem to be being "squeezed out". She is still very much up there .

I see she has cranked up her work rate considerably, but like most, she's struggling to sell her newer images. Time was her stuff sold as soon as it went up.

[shudderstok]

@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide.  The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

It wasn't just talent, there were a host of requirements agencies set down, in some cases requiring photographers to be available for assignments worldwide. Others were closed to new applications, no doubt for practical reasons concerned with handling submissions etc. I think at least one elite agency was invitation only.

[NCHANT]

Awesome, thanks everyone for keeping this thread constructive, and yes fascinating reading for me as a newbie, thanks

I was happy to get a hundred bucks in my pocket a month, but now my goal is to get a couple hundred, and so far my expectations have been rewarded, and then some.

The way I see it, let's say someone's out there looking for a photo of a 'road' to use in their layout, there's thousands of road images out there so someone will definitely be making a sale sooner or later, regardless if one of our images is available or not. I would like my image to be available for that sale. otherwise I wouldn't have a chance.

And then there's the new standards, as a buyer as well as a contributor, sometimes you just don't need that top notch $3000 shot, but a nice simple $20 image that does the job it's intended for. It will also be retouched, cropped, scaled etc etc so the end product isn't usually the same. But looking at the trends, these 'lower quality' images are selling like pancakes, why not get in the game? it's a buyers world at the end of the day. I sold a shot of GRASS the other day and made $20, they could have easily gone and shot it but no, they'd rather spend a total of $80 for some grass. 

[Shelma1]

If you're the typical art director you probably don't have the time or equipment to go shoot grass, especially when you can find a nicely lit shot taken by a pro in a couple of minutes online.

[PixelBytes]

@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide.  The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

You are right that most microstockers never made it into trads at the time.  This support BTs saying it was a closed shop.  Many top selling micro artist have said they were reject by trads before trying micro.  This includes people who has each made millions in micro as top sellers.  Its a closed shop if the Lise, Seans, Andres, Yuris etc. Could not get accepted.

[shudderstok]

@ Shudderstock

Very interesting info there. Of course, we early microstockers were much hated by the trad lads and with good reason. But it wasn't our fault - times had changed and microstock was going to take off, the whinging on the trad forums was like Canute trying to hold back the tide.  The trad agencies had effectively operated a closed shop, that was supported by the difficulty and expense of using film (a process I still enjoy, by the way). Digital changed everything. As did the Internet. Put the two together and microstock was inevitable. It's not so much that microstock devalued stock photography, it's the ease of creation that devalued it.

Now the easy microstock money is over. Some people who are really willing to work will still make a lot from it, but it will probably be the young and hungry who make that effort rather than the likes of me (neither young nor hungry), and the balance will be the good amateurs who a happy to stick a hundred bucks or so in their pocket once a month.

Completely agree with the exception it was not a closed shop. It was open to those who had talent and could prove it by showing a good consistent folio. Most microstockers would have never made it into any trad agency based on merit alone - and that is fact.

You are right that most microstockers never made it into trads at the time.  This support BTs saying it was a closed shop.  Many top selling micro artist have said they were reject by trads before trying micro.  This includes people who has each made millions in micro as top sellers.  Its a closed shop if the Lise, Seans, Andres, Yuris etc. Could not get accepted.

I rest my case. Some of those names (won't say who) did not qualify cause they did not make the grade at that point in time and it really shows in their early work - which is not to say they have not improved to very high standards later in time, they just did not have the mojo at the time they got rejected. I also got rejected on my first go by TIB and a few years later I got much much better and finally got into the trads. But it was not closed shop by any means. You either had it or you did not, and only time and lot's of practice gets us all there potentially if you keep self improving.

[PixelBytes]

I rest my case. Some of those names (won't say who) did not qualify cause they did not make the grade at that point in time and it really shows in their early work - which is not to say they have not improved to very high standards later in time, they just did not have the mojo at the time they got rejected. I also got rejected on my first go by TIB and a few years later I got much much better and finally got into the trads. But it was not closed shop by any means. You either had it or you did not, and only time and lot's of practice gets us all there potentially if you keep self improving.

That exclusive policy work great for the trads.  I bet their real happy with the result.

[shudderstok]

I rest my case. Some of those names (won't say who) did not qualify cause they did not make the grade at that point in time and it really shows in their early work - which is not to say they have not improved to very high standards later in time, they just did not have the mojo at the time they got rejected. I also got rejected on my first go by TIB and a few years later I got much much better and finally got into the trads. But it was not closed shop by any means. You either had it or you did not, and only time and lot's of practice gets us all there potentially if you keep self improving.

That exclusive policy work great for the trads.  I bet their real happy with the result.

it was not an exclusive policy. you either had the talent or you did not. simple as that. if you had game on you got in, if you were close to game on they said no. not too hard to comprehend. microstock took almost everyone regardless of game on. simple as that.

[BaldricksTrousers]

That exclusive policy work great for the trads.  I bet their real happy with the result.

It worked brilliantly for 10 or 20 years at the end of the 20th Century. The agencies controlled the market - they were effectively a price-fixing cartel who monopolised the supply and sale of stock images. The price had to be a bit less than hiring a photographer to take the shot, but if you didn't hire someone the only way to get quality, released pictures was via an agency. The price limited demand: only the big boys could afford to put photos in their adverts and publishers would limit the number of images in cookery books and travel guides because of the costs. I was in newspapers back then and shops and service businesses relied on black and white text for adverts or maybe made use of crummy line art to promote themselves.

The arrival of digital created a big pool of images able to meet the pent-up demand and this came shortly after computers took over from cameras in the creation of colour separations. The cost of separations used to be huge, we paid hundreds of pounds to get the separations made just for the cover of our annual A4 magazine back in 85, the internal content was all black and white - today I could scan and separate that slide in minutes on the scanner and computer I have at home - a digital image is even easier, of course. It was a "black swan moment" for the trads - suddenly the trade they had controlled slithered through their fingers and there wasn't much they could do except try to adjust to the new market reality.

It wasn't just photography that was changing in the publishing industry during last decades of the century.  During my time in papers we went from letterpress to offset lithography, from B&W printing to the regular use of colour, from camera-made colour separations to digital ones, from compositor-set text to journalist-set text, from hot-metal to cold film, we said goodbye to flongs and chases, galley proofs and the hiss and clang and smell of the linotypes and hello to resin-coated aluminium plates. We went from hard copy that clattered out of telex machines hours after an event to instant transmission via satellite. We no longer lost stories because someone had forgotten to put a new reel of paper in the telex machines overnight.  In the 'togs section the Rolleis got thrown out and Nikon Fs became de-rigeur, then they got thrown out, too. Exciting times, but I suppose it was much the same in most industries during the last quarter of the 20th Century

[shudderstok]

That exclusive policy work great for the trads.  I bet their real happy with the result.

It worked brilliantly for 10 or 20 years at the end of the 20th Century. The agencies controlled the market - they were effectively a price-fixing cartel who monopolised the supply and sale of stock images. The price had to be a bit less than hiring a photographer to take the shot, but if you didn't hire someone the only way to get quality, released pictures was via an agency. The price limited demand: only the big boys could afford to put photos in their adverts and publishers would limit the number of images in cookery books and travel guides because of the costs. I was in newspapers back then and shops and service businesses relied on black and white text for adverts or maybe made use of crummy line art to promote themselves.

The arrival of digital created a big pool of images able to meet the pent-up demand and this came shortly after computers took over from cameras in the creation of colour separations. The cost of separations used to be huge, we paid hundreds of pounds to get the separations made just for the cover of our annual A4 magazine back in 85, the internal content was all black and white - today I could scan and separate that slide in minutes on the scanner and computer I have at home - a digital image is even easier, of course. It was a "black swan moment" for the trads - suddenly the trade they had controlled slithered through their fingers and there wasn't much they could do except try to adjust to the new market reality.

It wasn't just photography that was changing in the publishing industry during last decades of the century.  During my time in papers we went from letterpress to offset lithography, from B&W printing to the regular use of colour, from camera-made colour separations to digital ones, from compositor-set text to journalist-set text, from hot-metal to cold film, we said goodbye to flongs and chases, galley proofs and the hiss and clang and smell of the linotypes and hello to resin-coated aluminium plates. We went from hard copy that clattered out of telex machines hours after an event to instant transmission via satellite. We no longer lost stories because someone had forgotten to put a new reel of paper in the telex machines overnight.  In the 'togs section the Rolleis got thrown out and Nikon Fs became de-rigeur, then they got thrown out, too. Exciting times, but I suppose it was much the same in most industries during the last quarter of the 20th Century

that is a nice theory, but agencies were around for much longer than 10 or 20 years and they did not control the market, it was a market and many agencies were in it. that all said, most agencies of the time charged for the usage of an image and/or space rate so a magazine cover was worth what it was worth roughly $1000 for an in flight magazine and the photographer got his 50% cut, whereas now you guys are happy to sell a photo for much much less than it costs to produce and get 0.38 royalty for the same cover 20 years later (as recently happened to a good friend of mine from SS). when RF first came out for the first time that cover then dropped to about $350. digital or not, microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it and try to accept it and the agencies that now run the industry could not give a hoot about the suppliers as we are now sadly called "liabilities" at the AGM's. i am so glad i invested my earnings in some other lucrative investments years ago, cause the ship in photography sailed long ago.

[BaldricksTrousers]

microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it

I agree. It's just a phase the industry is going through. It started off (yeah, a lot earlier than the 80s, I know, but I didn't want to start talking about Magnum and the 1940s/50s) as a sideline for shooters allowing them to complement their main source of income and I suppose it is going back to that.

Change is constant.

[etudiante_rapide]

microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it

I agree. It's just a phase the industry is going through. It started off (yeah, a lot earlier than the 80s, I know, but I didn't want to start talking about Magnum and the 1940s/50s) as a sideline for shooters allowing them to complement their main source of income and I suppose it is going back to that.

Change is constant.

that may be so, change .
but i don't think u can equate it to the 80s... and far less to Magnum 40,50s...
where not every tom, prick & hairy  has a DSLR.
no one just picked up the view camera or Rolleiflex SL, or l8er on, even then, not everyone could own a Leica or a Nik . even if everyone could afford to own one, it still did not mean that everyone knew how to use the camera at manual.

today it's not like that, anyone can pick up a DSLR , even a chimp is able to start a port for microstock. so even if u meant it that we go back to those days,
the supply still is not the same.

 the analogy is with music and movies...
even if u can shoot with the standard of those days, the buyer is not looking for that sort of standard
in the same way that today's music is not looking for miles or coltrane, but lady gaga
and films, well... we won't go into that. but i think u get my gist.

[robhainer]

That exclusive policy work great for the trads.  I bet their real happy with the result.

It worked brilliantly for 10 or 20 years at the end of the 20th Century. The agencies controlled the market - they were effectively a price-fixing cartel who monopolised the supply and sale of stock images. The price had to be a bit less than hiring a photographer to take the shot, but if you didn't hire someone the only way to get quality, released pictures was via an agency. The price limited demand: only the big boys could afford to put photos in their adverts and publishers would limit the number of images in cookery books and travel guides because of the costs. I was in newspapers back then and shops and service businesses relied on black and white text for adverts or maybe made use of crummy line art to promote themselves.

The arrival of digital created a big pool of images able to meet the pent-up demand and this came shortly after computers took over from cameras in the creation of colour separations. The cost of separations used to be huge, we paid hundreds of pounds to get the separations made just for the cover of our annual A4 magazine back in 85, the internal content was all black and white - today I could scan and separate that slide in minutes on the scanner and computer I have at home - a digital image is even easier, of course. It was a "black swan moment" for the trads - suddenly the trade they had controlled slithered through their fingers and there wasn't much they could do except try to adjust to the new market reality.

It wasn't just photography that was changing in the publishing industry during last decades of the century.  During my time in papers we went from letterpress to offset lithography, from B&W printing to the regular use of colour, from camera-made colour separations to digital ones, from compositor-set text to journalist-set text, from hot-metal to cold film, we said goodbye to flongs and chases, galley proofs and the hiss and clang and smell of the linotypes and hello to resin-coated aluminium plates. We went from hard copy that clattered out of telex machines hours after an event to instant transmission via satellite. We no longer lost stories because someone had forgotten to put a new reel of paper in the telex machines overnight.  In the 'togs section the Rolleis got thrown out and Nikon Fs became de-rigeur, then they got thrown out, too. Exciting times, but I suppose it was much the same in most industries during the last quarter of the 20th Century

that is a nice theory, but agencies were around for much longer than 10 or 20 years and they did not control the market, it was a market and many agencies were in it. that all said, most agencies of the time charged for the usage of an image and/or space rate so a magazine cover was worth what it was worth roughly $1000 for an in flight magazine and the photographer got his 50% cut, whereas now you guys are happy to sell a photo for much much less than it costs to produce and get 0.38 royalty for the same cover 20 years later (as recently happened to a good friend of mine from SS). when RF first came out for the first time that cover then dropped to about $350. digital or not, microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it and try to accept it and the agencies that now run the industry could not give a hoot about the suppliers as we are now sadly called "liabilities" at the AGM's. i am so glad i invested my earnings in some other lucrative investments years ago, cause the ship in photography sailed long ago.

Seems a little pessimistic and not quite true. I have photos that I've taken in the front yard (read zero cost) that have been sold between 1,500 and 2,000 times earning me roughly $1,000 each, thanks to microstock. And they're still selling. If it wasn't for microstock, I wouldn't earn anything at stock photography. Instead, I get $24K a year and rising. Sure, it's not a full time income, and I don't do stock full time, but it's a nice addition.

[robhainer]

Back to the topic. To the original poster, I think it would be too soon to go exclusive. It looks like you're fairly new. I would continue to build your portfolio at all the sites, especially Shutterstock, for about another year, see what your earnings are like, and then consider whether exclusivity would be better. I don't see how it would be, but it might.

[BaldricksTrousers]

It's a bit late, Rob, he's already jumped and is very happy at the moment.
Etudiante - you seem to be making much the same point as me. what I was talking about "going back to" was a time when commercial stock was just a small additional income, not a living.  Obviously the skills and pool of providers and market are now quite different (though, oddly, some film shots are among my better sellers)

[etudiante_rapide]

Etudiante - you seem to be making much the same point as me. what I was talking about "going back to" was a time when commercial stock was just a small additional income, not a living.  Obviously the skills and pool of providers and market are now quite different (though, oddly, some film shots are among my better sellers)

Trousers (i could type BT, but i prefer trousers, as BT sounds like bachmanturneroverdrive  )
maybe it is not that film shots sell better. but bcos film shooters had composition down packed b4 they even consider going out to shoot for money.
...but really, what do i know??? nfa 

[NCHANT]

Just an update, I know it's still the honeymoon period  and iStock has some big changes coming over the next few days, but going exclusive has changed my income drastically.

Last month was my BME, nearly 300% increase from the month before. And this month is starting off pretty * good as well.

Be interesting to see what the new changes to iStock credits will do, who knows, might be better or worse we will soon find out.

[Valo]

1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

[NCHANT]

1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

I wasn't going to give monetary values, but I'm talking a few hundred a month now

[Gannet77]

Just an update, I know it's still the honeymoon period  and iStock has some big changes coming over the next few days, but going exclusive has changed my income drastically.

Last month was my BME, nearly 300% increase from the month before. And this month is starting off pretty * good as well.

Be interesting to see what the new changes to iStock credits will do, who knows, might be better or worse we will soon find out.

Assuming you're referring to iStock earnings only, you would expect to be making at least 3 to 4 times as much after going Exclusive - see the figures on the right - otherwise it could hardly be worth doing.

The question is, how well can you do as Exclusive compared to being an independent on multiple sites?

Unfortunately, there's no way to tell that in advance, and afterwards you can't be sure either... as always, it's a decision you have to make for yourself, taking your own portfolio and circumstances into account.

Still works for me, but we'll see how the changes affect things in the next few months.

[Freedom]

Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?

[Valo]

1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

I wasn't going to give monetary values, but I'm talking a few hundred a month now

Thats what I mean, you went from 50 dollar to 200 dollar. Great result, but not hard to accomplish. Try going from 500 to 2000.

[KB]

Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?

Exactly the opposite in my port. Very few sales, almost all of which are S.

[NCHANT]

1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

I wasn't going to give monetary values, but I'm talking a few hundred a month now

Thats what I mean, you went from 50 dollar to 200 dollar. Great result, but not hard to accomplish. Try going from 500 to 2000.

Try more than 200�
500 to 2000 isn't a reality for me - yet. Who know what will happen over the next year or so.

I have tried going through other stock sites as well, but uploading to multiple sites is an absolute PITA, and for little reward with all the time spent uploading. Shutterstock was doing well for me, but I'd rather have less downloads for higher royalties. Also keeping to one site is just right for me

[Freedom]

Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?

Exactly the opposite in my port. Very few sales, almost all of which are S.

Interesting. I am definitely having a good week. DLs have been of all sizes and collections.

[KB]

Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?

Exactly the opposite in my port. Very few sales, almost all of which are S.

Interesting. I am definitely having a good week. DLs have been of all sizes and collections.

Well, enjoy it while it lasts, and good luck next week after the Big Change. I fear the worst, but hope for the best.