MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Considering Exclusivity  (Read 26727 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: June 28, 2009, 15:46 »
0
I never thought I'd ever seriously consider iStock exclusivity, but since my relationship with Fotolia is going sour, I'm seriously considering it. Fotolia was my second highest earning site, but I actually prefer the management at iStock. I'm a diamond level contributor at iStock, so my earnings would increase by 45%. Without Fotolia, it might make financial sense. My biggest frustration at iStock has been the senseless rejections, but that problem is mitigated to large extent by the Scout program.  I also appreciate the fact that they are the only site that allows you to correct problems and resubmit.

But I'm concerned that that if things go sour with iStock, I'm done for. Has anyone gone exclusive and then regretted it? Were the benefits what you expected? I haven't made any decisions yet, I'm just exploring my options.

Linda B


« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2009, 15:56 »
0
As a Diamond contributor, would your earnings at iStock not double?

I thought the payout at Diamond level was 40%...

« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2009, 16:01 »
0
I also appreciate the fact that they are the only site that allows you to correct problems and resubmit.

At least DT, StockXpert and Shutter allow you to do that as well.

bittersweet

« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2009, 16:07 »
0
I also appreciate the fact that they are the only site that allows you to correct problems and resubmit.

At least DT, StockXpert and Shutter allow you to do that as well.

As does Veer MP.

« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2009, 16:48 »
0
As an independent contributor I'd be delighted if you chose exclusivity __ makes my life so much easier everywhere else!

I would warn you though that it's a easy road to travel down but much more difficult and costly to reverse. Apart from all the re-uploading you'd be back at the bottom rankings on commissions at SS & FT and Level 1 for all your images at DT. What a horrible thought.

FT, for all their many faults, appear to be the most aggressive and fastest growing agency out there. They've come from virtually nowhere to being the 3rd biggest agency in little more than three years. With the newly-recruited management team and the rumoured vast funding it doesn't look like they're happy to sit there either. I reckon they'll be up there jostling for position with IS before too long.

« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2009, 16:54 »
0
Apart from all the re-uploading you'd be back at the bottom rankings on commissions at SS & FT and Level 1 for all your images at DT.

Why would you? Can't you keep your account and "just" delete all your files? That would keep your level in FT and your total earnings at SS wouldn't be lost as well...
For DT obviously that would not work...

« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2009, 17:13 »
0
As a Diamond contributor, would your earnings at iStock not double?

I thought the payout at Diamond level was 40%...

My mistake, I meant to say that my commission will rise from 20% to 45%. At least I thought it was 45%, maybe I'm wrong.

« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2009, 17:30 »
0
As an independent contributor I'd be delighted if you chose exclusivity __ makes my life so much easier everywhere else!

I would warn you though that it's a easy road to travel down but much more difficult and costly to reverse. Apart from all the re-uploading you'd be back at the bottom rankings on commissions at SS & FT and Level 1 for all your images at DT. What a horrible thought.

FT, for all their many faults, appear to be the most aggressive and fastest growing agency out there. They've come from virtually nowhere to being the 3rd biggest agency in little more than three years. With the newly-recruited management team and the rumoured vast funding it doesn't look like they're happy to sit there either. I reckon they'll be up there jostling for position with IS before too long.

 I've been doing great at IS lately -  Meanwhile my FT portfolio is frozen, my account may be deleted and I'm not making any money there at all. I have no idea how long this situation will continue, and I lose more money each day that it drags on. Meanwhile, IS exclusivity is looking more attractive all the time.

RT


« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2009, 17:34 »
0
Meanwhile my FT portfolio is frozen, my account may be deleted and I'm not making any money there at all. I have no idea how long this situation will continue, and I lose more money each day that it drags on.

If you're able to could you explain why your account is frozen there?

« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2009, 17:53 »
0
Meanwhile my FT portfolio is frozen, my account may be deleted and I'm not making any money there at all. I have no idea how long this situation will continue, and I lose more money each day that it drags on.

If you're able to could you explain why your account is frozen there?

They are having trouble with the fact that I purchased most of the models I use in my 3D renders, instead of creating the models myself. I thought I could clear everything up when I proved to them that my use of the models was permitted under the vendor's license agreement, but as of yet they are not satisfied with this and my account remains frozen.

« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2009, 19:47 »
0
your choice, it doesn't work for me :)

Maybe I way off here but I would say that IS is less one for being able to resubmit.  Once they mark as this is not stock or whatever and flag as noresubmit you cannot resubmit and apparently resubmitting as a new image is big no-no as far as they are concerned (havent had a problem there myself though).  The other sites you just fix and submit as a new image.

personally if fotolia has this issue I would be much more worried about going to only agency in case the same thing happened there. if someone competing with you flags it to admin and you go through the whole thing again with istock you lose all your income. (and I thought istock were the strongest on trying to control these type of issues).

« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2009, 20:19 »
0
your choice, it doesn't work for me :)

Maybe I way off here but I would say that IS is less one for being able to resubmit.  Once they mark as this is not stock or whatever and flag as noresubmit you cannot resubmit and apparently resubmitting as a new image is big no-no as far as they are concerned (havent had a problem there myself though).  The other sites you just fix and submit as a new image.

personally if fotolia has this issue I would be much more worried about going to only agency in case the same thing happened there. if someone competing with you flags it to admin and you go through the whole thing again with istock you lose all your income. (and I thought istock were the strongest on trying to control these type of issues).

I agree with you, exclusivity is very risky, and probably a bad choice for me. I just want to know what, if any, alternatives there are out there for me. I've never had a site threaten to drop my entire portfolio before, and I'm so discouraged I'm even considering options that would have been unthinkable not too long ago. I'm still in shock that this would happen. But I won't make any decisions until I'm able to consider the situation calmly and rationally.

« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2009, 00:58 »
0
They are having trouble with the fact that I purchased most of the models I use in my 3D renders, instead of creating the models myself. I thought I could clear everything up when I proved to them that my use of the models was permitted under the vendor's license agreement, but as of yet they are not satisfied with this and my account remains frozen.

istockphoto does not allow to use 3d models that you purchased too

Dook

« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2009, 02:21 »
0
I had similar experience, but as a photographer. Loosing your number 1 or number 2 earner cuts your income to almost a half. In that case going Istock exclusive is good choice and the only logical one. But, first you have to make sure all your work is legal. Dont give up, work hard.

michealo

« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2009, 04:39 »
0
I never thought I'd ever seriously consider iStock exclusivity, but since my relationship with Fotolia is going sour, I'm seriously considering it. Fotolia was my second highest earning site, but I actually prefer the management at iStock. I'm a diamond level contributor at iStock, so my earnings would increase by 45%. Without Fotolia, it might make financial sense. My biggest frustration at iStock has been the senseless rejections, but that problem is mitigated to large extent by the Scout program.  I also appreciate the fact that they are the only site that allows you to correct problems and resubmit.

But I'm concerned that that if things go sour with iStock, I'm done for. Has anyone gone exclusive and then regretted it? Were the benefits what you expected? I haven't made any decisions yet, I'm just exploring my options.

Linda B

I would pick up the phone and talk to someone in Calgary and get clarification on use of models etc. Don't know if you have images suitable for Vetta (guessing at diamond you do), you may want to get some clarification on adding some of these.


« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2009, 05:08 »
0
Don't forget that if you have images on Dreamstime you have to wait 6 months from when they went online before you can deactivate them. Don't close other accounts until that time is up, if you do decide to go exclusive on istock.

michealo

« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2009, 06:18 »
0
Don't forget that if you have images on Dreamstime you have to wait 6 months from when they went online before you can deactivate them. Don't close other accounts until that time is up, if you do decide to go exclusive on istock.

correction - one can delete 30% of them

« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2009, 07:44 »
0
They are having trouble with the fact that I purchased most of the models I use in my 3D renders, instead of creating the models myself. I thought I could clear everything up when I proved to them that my use of the models was permitted under the vendor's license agreement, but as of yet they are not satisfied with this and my account remains frozen.

istockphoto does not allow to use 3d models that you purchased too

This isn't true - I went through the same thing with iStock a few years ago. Someone discovered that I had used a purchased model, and they reported it to iStock. iStock disabled the image in question, and I had to prove that it's usage was legal. I even had to solicit help from the company I bought the model from. At one point, by some miracle, I was able to get Bruce Livingstone on the phone! (Bet that would never happen today ;)). The thing dragged on for a month, but finally iStock was assured that my usage of the model wasn't going to open them up to any legal liability, and they relented and the image was returned to my portfolio.

But iStock never disabled my ENTIRE portfolio! Fotolia disabled the two images in question - I had no problem with that - but then they disabled my entire portfolio ...and they are thinking about deleting it entirely. I even had a representative of the company I bought the model from email FT and assure them that this sort of usage is perfectly legal under their EULA. He also answered their questions, yet in spite of that FT is still thinking about deleting my portfolio, it is still offline.

« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2009, 08:23 »
0
Hi, I sometimes consider exlusivity at Istock as well (nowhere near you standard as I am a mere silver contributer) as Fotolia is really getting worse by the day and shutterstock is also not such a winner anymore but I am very afraid that I lose control over my own images. One exclusive I understand you are not allowed to sell or use your images by yourself (I don't mean via stock) Even images which has been rejected are no go. And all your eggs in one basket still seems to me is not very businesswise. But I hope some exlusive or ex exlusive will answer your question. That would really help.
Good luck with your decision.
Patricia

« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2009, 09:27 »
0
Hi, I sometimes consider exlusivity at Istock as well (nowhere near you standard as I am a mere silver contributer) as Fotolia is really getting worse by the day and shutterstock is also not such a winner anymore but I am very afraid that I lose control over my own images. One exclusive I understand you are not allowed to sell or use your images by yourself (I don't mean via stock) Even images which has been rejected are no go. And all your eggs in one basket still seems to me is not very businesswise. But I hope some exlusive or ex exlusive will answer your question. That would really help.
Good luck with your decision.
Patricia

I have the same concerns about exclusivity that you do. I enjoy being an independent, I like seeing how different types of images sell on different sites, and if an image is rejected by one agency, it will be accepted by others, so the illustration still has a chance and doesn't go to waste. I never imagined that I'd ever consider exclusivity with iStock or any other agency, but then I never considered the possibility of getting kicked out of Fotolia, either.

« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2009, 09:44 »
0
I see you have als artwork on your website. Isn't it true that you cannot sell this either once exclusive? I don't know how many sites you contribute to but maybe you can consider adding some other ones? There are now many more like Veer or Panthermedia http://www.panthermedia.net/?aff=125267
and I have no idea how Veer will work out but I am selling at Panthermedia (although not so much but sales do tend to be high and in euros).

« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2009, 10:25 »
0
If you are diamond, I have no idea why you are taking so long to decide or why you have waited this long.

I am now after 1 month of exclusivity exactly where I was in terms of revenue per month when I was with 5 sites, and I have a much better upload pattern.  One site is so much easier to handle, and if I'm making the same amount of money with less management and hassle, why not?

Go for it, and do it quickly.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2009, 10:39 »
0
I see you have als artwork on your website. Isn't it true that you cannot sell this either once exclusive? I don't know how many sites you contribute to but maybe you can consider adding some other ones? There are now many more like Veer or Panthermedia http://www.panthermedia.net/?aff=125267
and I have no idea how Veer will work out but I am selling at Panthermedia (although not so much but sales do tend to be high and in euros).


You can sell prints, from your website, or elsewhere. You can sell RM images anywhere. Basically it's your copyright and you can do just about anything with your images except sell, or allow them to be sold, RF anywhere else. That includes iStock rejects.

« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2009, 12:40 »
0

You can sell prints, from your website, or elsewhere. You can sell RM images anywhere. Basically it's your copyright and you can do just about anything with your images except sell, or allow them to be sold, RF anywhere else. That includes iStock rejects.
[/quote]

So can you sell rejected images on IS elsewhere as RM?

helix7

« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2009, 12:46 »
0
If you are diamond, I have no idea why you are taking so long to decide or why you have waited this long.

I am now after 1 month of exclusivity exactly where I was in terms of revenue per month when I was with 5 sites, and I have a much better upload pattern.  One site is so much easier to handle, and if I'm making the same amount of money with less management and hassle, why not?

Go for it, and do it quickly.

Some people make a lot less money at istock than at other sites, and going exclusive could be a costly move. It's not so simple for everyone.


« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2009, 13:11 »
0
If you are diamond, I have no idea why you are taking so long to decide or why you have waited this long.

I am now after 1 month of exclusivity exactly where I was in terms of revenue per month when I was with 5 sites, and I have a much better upload pattern.  One site is so much easier to handle, and if I'm making the same amount of money with less management and hassle, why not?

Go for it, and do it quickly.

Glad exclusivity has worked out so well for you.  I have heard other high cannister people who went exclusive mention that they weren't able to make up the revenue they lost by going exclusive.  One went exclusive a year ago and still isn't back to the revenue levels they had as independent.

I also know several diamond independents and I think istock is mostly in the 30 - 40% range of their micro income.  If you double that for a diamond you are still only going to get 60 - 80%

Of course there are many other reasons to go exclusive and the ones I know who did are mostly glad they did, but higher revenue isn't guaranteed at all.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 13:12 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2009, 13:13 »
0
I'm diamond and IS earnings are anywhere from 2nd to 4th position in any given month.  So taking into account all 7 sites that I upload to it would be very foolish financially to go exclusive.  Exclusivity is definitely not the obvious answer for everybody.
Especially as IS in the future could do exactly the same thing as Fotolia are doing to you now.
 
If you are diamond, I have no idea why you are taking so long to decide or why you have waited this long.


« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 13:16 by fotografer »

« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2009, 13:15 »
0
Exactly my point.  IS is just over 20% of my overall takings.



I also know several diamond independents and I think istock is mostly in the 30 - 40% range of their micro income.  If you double that for a diamond you are still only going to get 60 - 80%





« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2009, 14:10 »
0
If you are diamond, I have no idea why you are taking so long to decide or why you have waited this long.

I am now after 1 month of exclusivity exactly where I was in terms of revenue per month when I was with 5 sites, and I have a much better upload pattern.  One site is so much easier to handle, and if I'm making the same amount of money with less management and hassle, why not?

Go for it, and do it quickly.

Some people make a lot less money at istock than at other sites, and going exclusive could be a costly move. It's not so simple for everyone.



I'm not saying its for everyone, but if you are a diamond contributor, you most likely know what you are doing, so you won't lose that much.

And the time you save and the aggrevation you save is priceless

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2009, 14:45 »
0

You can sell prints, from your website, or elsewhere. You can sell RM images anywhere. Basically it's your copyright and you can do just about anything with your images except sell, or allow them to be sold, RF anywhere else. That includes iStock rejects.

So can you sell rejected images on IS elsewhere as RM?
[/quote]
The agreement says:
"You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties."
I've only noticed one post, when the poster said they got permission easily. I haven't heard of anyone else trying.

« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2009, 15:30 »
0

I also know several diamond independents and I think istock is mostly in the 30 - 40% range of their micro income.  If you double that for a diamond you are still only going to get 60 - 80%

Of course there are many other reasons to go exclusive and the ones I know who did are mostly glad they did, but higher revenue isn't guaranteed at all.



True, but if I lose Fotolia, it would probably make sense for me financially. I would much rather stay independent and I don't mind uploading to multiple sites. I do mostly illustration, so the volume of uploads is small in my case.


« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2009, 19:01 »
0
Quote
I am now after 1 month of exclusivity exactly where I was in terms of revenue per month when I was with 5 sites, and I have a much better upload pattern.  One site is so much easier to handle, and if I'm making the same amount of money with less management and hassle, why not?

I've been seriously considering it as well since IS consistently accounts for nearly 2/3 of my total earnings among 4 sites. I have to wait until December though since my last accepted files at DT were early June.  I'm also going to give Veer a try in the meantime and see how they do this fall.  I like the idea of just submitting to one site. 

« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2009, 19:15 »
0
I'm not saying its for everyone, but if you are a diamond contributor, you most likely know what you are doing, so you won't lose that much.

And the time you save and the aggrevation you save is priceless

Utter nonsense __ as usual!

helix7

« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2009, 19:53 »
0

I'm not saying its for everyone, but if you are a diamond contributor, you most likely know what you are doing, so you won't lose that much.

And the time you save and the aggrevation you save is priceless

I don't understand how a canister level is any indicator of how successful someone would or wouldn't be as an exclusive.

And the time savings thing is almost a non-factor. istock has the most complicated upload system of any site, and most others are very quick and easy to upload to. It isn't hard to streamline the upload process across multiple sites and make it easy. There's also some software available to speed things up. The time you save being exclusive comes at a cost.


« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2009, 08:01 »
0
You can't streamline a process where everyone has different keyword expectations and to get the proper results and the most of the process you need to go in and keyword for each individual site.  As well, dealing with ridiculous processes for Fotolia (random rejections and such) and SS's hormonal swings is annoying.  I used to spend a lot of time uploading and my processes were fairly streamlined.  Now I focus on producing images that will sell (and my iStock revenue is up x3 from April), and I have more time to do other things.

Time is always a factor, and if you only get marginal returns for your time investment in extra sites, whats the point?  Also, iStock has software that can help to steamline that process too.  I upload the old fashioned way and I have no issues.

« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2009, 10:36 »
0
You can't streamline a process where everyone has different keyword expectations and to get the proper results and the most of the process you need to go in and keyword for each individual site. 

Really?  You were keywording separately for each individual site?  I can see how that would eat up a lot of time. 

I add keywords to the IPTC using photoshop and use the exact same keywords for every site except istock.   That seems to work fine for me.

Istock is the only site that requires special attention to keywords. 

« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2009, 10:44 »
0
You can't streamline a process where everyone has different keyword expectations and to get the proper results and the most of the process you need to go in and keyword for each individual site. 

Really?  You were keywording separately for each individual site?  I can see how that would eat up a lot of time. 

I add keywords to the IPTC using photoshop and use the exact same keywords for every site except istock.   That seems to work fine for me.

Istock is the only site that requires special attention to keywords. 


No I was doing the same, but then you have to go through and fix it for iStock, or fix it for SS, and the results are not as good as if you put in the best keywords for each system.  But thats my opinion.  And I'm of the same opinion that I don't want to put unnecessary pressure on myself to have to feed the SS machine to keep sales up.  Or to deal with issues such as those mentioned at Fotolia.  DT was my favourite place outside of iStock because they have a good model and a clean site.  SS still looks a bit like a scam site with "make money with your photos" or $$$ and it may be great but looks so tacky.


helix7

« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2009, 11:25 »
0
No I was doing the same, but then you have to go through and fix it for iStock, or fix it for SS, and the results are not as good as if you put in the best keywords for each system.  But thats my opinion.  And I'm of the same opinion that I don't want to put unnecessary pressure on myself to have to feed the SS machine to keep sales up.  Or to deal with issues such as those mentioned at Fotolia.  DT was my favourite place outside of iStock because they have a good model and a clean site.  SS still looks a bit like a scam site with "make money with your photos" or $$$ and it may be great but looks so tacky.

istock is the bottleneck in uploading, not SS or any other site. istock by far takes the longest amount of time to upload to. If we were talking about going exclusive at 123rf or some other site where uploading is fast and easy, then you'd have a valid argument for time savings. But when we're talking about the site that takes about as long to upload to as all of the other sites combined, time savings is not a real factor.

SS is definitely more "simple" looking, and maybe that does hurt the site in some ways. But I think simple is also what some buyers want. SS is never broken, search always works, and the site is very reliable. For some people, that's the priority. Tacky or not, it works and it sells.

...Time is always a factor, and if you only get marginal returns for your time investment in extra sites, whats the point?

You're right, time is a factor. I figure I earn about 30% more by being non-exclusive than I would if I were exclusive. I wouldn't call that marginal, and to me that little bit of extra time spent uploading to other sites is worth the extra income.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2009, 11:28 by helix7 »

« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2009, 12:25 »
0
Its not a bottleneck if you keyword specifically for iStock, and now all my keywords in lightroom are designed to mimic their system.   But if you do that, you can't keyword for the other sites.  Lose-lose. 

The really big fault I have with your reasoning is that you may experience better growth than you'd expect when going exclusive because of extra exposure and better search results.  But hey, if you enjoy uploading to 7 sites, go for it.  I know I'm enjoying the perks of not having to worry about rejections and processing for the tastes of different sites, but thats me.


« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2009, 12:35 »
0

The really big fault I have with your reasoning is that you may experience better growth than you'd expect when going exclusive because of extra exposure and better search results.  But hey, if you enjoy uploading to 7 sites, go for it.  I know I'm enjoying the perks of not having to worry about rejections and processing for the tastes of different sites, but thats me.



But your rejected images go to waste - doesn't that frustrate you?

« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2009, 12:53 »
0
No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  And lately I don't have many rejected images.  iStock sells well for me, and I know what works there.  The task at hand is to produce images that work with iStock.

« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2009, 13:04 »
0
I would need to earn 5x more than I do now at IS to make it worth while for me.  I don't believe that is in any way possible.

« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2009, 13:16 »
0
Its not a bottleneck if you keyword specifically for iStock, and now all my keywords in lightroom are designed to mimic their system.   But if you do that, you can't keyword for the other sites.  Lose-lose. 

The really big fault I have with your reasoning is that you may experience better growth than you'd expect when going exclusive because of extra exposure and better search results.  But hey, if you enjoy uploading to 7 sites, go for it.  I know I'm enjoying the perks of not having to worry about rejections and processing for the tastes of different sites, but thats me.



I do use some istock specific keywords when I prepare files. But I do not change them for other agencies and it seems to work.

« Reply #43 on: June 30, 2009, 14:10 »
0
Other people's experiences can certainly be a guide, but ultimately it's down to individual circumstances and your choice.

Seems to me that if you put the extra effort in, you probably will make more income by being non-exclusive, but maybe you prefer to concentrate on just iStock, as ichiro7 does, and indeed as I do.

The figures though show that some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible to be exclusive have elected to become so.  Presumably it works for them.

« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2009, 14:24 »
0
They are having trouble with the fact that I purchased most of the models I use in my 3D renders, instead of creating the models myself. I thought I could clear everything up when I proved to them that my use of the models was permitted under the vendor's license agreement, but as of yet they are not satisfied with this and my account remains frozen.

istockphoto does not allow to use 3d models that you purchased too

Sure you can.

helix7

« Reply #45 on: June 30, 2009, 15:25 »
0
...The really big fault I have with your reasoning is that you may experience better growth than you'd expect when going exclusive because of extra exposure and better search results.  But hey, if you enjoy uploading to 7 sites, go for it.  I know I'm enjoying the perks of not having to worry about rejections and processing for the tastes of different sites, but thats me.

I agree I'd probably get a boost from better placement and best match ranking. Even at the diamond level, where my royalty rate would double, I'd also need an additional 33% minimum on top of that just to break even. To do better as an exclusive than as a non-exclusive, my sales volume would need to increase by a similar amount, which I've never heard was possible just by going exclusive. At best, maybe I'd see a 10% jump in sales volume. In all, I'd be losing 20% or more of my earnings by going exclusive.

All for what... to get back 10 minutes of my time per image for uploading? No thanks.

It doesn't add up for me. Probably never will. Exclusivity is a losing proposition for me, financially speaking. But that's just me. If it's working for you, then good for you and stick with it.


« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2009, 15:53 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 01:08 by Phil »

« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2009, 18:16 »
0
Anybody feel Vetta is a big extra incentive to go exclusive? 

I have to admit I would like to try some files in there, but won't ever get the chance unless they allow independents to upload exclusive images to it. 

« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2009, 20:19 »
0
Anybody feel Vetta is a big extra incentive to go exclusive? 

I have to admit I would like to try some files in there, but won't ever get the chance unless they allow independents to upload exclusive images to it. 

Dont 123rf and fotolia have similar collections???

Personally, there is some wonderful stuff there.  Stuff that I personally would put into the macro libraries.

« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2009, 20:19 »
0
I like ISTOCK very much. But how do you know that you will not encounter an egocentric individual who will frustrate you just as much as Fotolia?

helix7

« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2009, 22:32 »
0
Anybody feel Vetta is a big extra incentive to go exclusive? 

I have to admit I would like to try some files in there, but won't ever get the chance unless they allow independents to upload exclusive images to it. 
I have a hard time believing that buyers will embrace Vetta prices. I guess only time will tell, but I have serious doubts about whether buyers will really pay that much more for the Vetta collection. Until the collection proves to be successful, I don't think it can be considered an added perk.

« Reply #51 on: July 01, 2009, 00:03 »
0
This is so not true.  My best seller on DT which has made over 500$ just there and also sold 100s of times over multi sites was rejected by IS.
No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 00:12 by fotografer »

« Reply #52 on: July 01, 2009, 01:26 »
0

No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  


what utter garbage

« Reply #53 on: July 01, 2009, 02:09 »
0
I like ISTOCK very much. But how do you know that you will not encounter an egocentric individual who will frustrate you just as much as Fotolia?

Well, I would say iStock has multiple ways of dealing with complaints. From my personal experience (and those issues of other contributors that I had to deal with), you will always find more than one person willing and able to (re-)consider a problem. I really don't think that "an egocentric individual" will be able to cause problems. Though, honestly, I also doubt that this is the case very often at other professional agencies.

However, there are cases where the policy just says "no" and no matter how good you think your arguments are (including the often heard "but other similar images are online...") and how irrational you judge the decision, you will find most agencies to be pretty strict on those matters.

With regards to the "using bought 3D models" issue: I would recommend NOT basing a decision to go exclusive on iStock solely on the assumption that iStock will accept all 3D renders built on bought models forever. 3D rendering still is in a pretty early stage compared to the photo and vector illustration parts and you see changes to policies all the time in those areas as well. So at any point in the future, iStock might change their policies in this regard as well (as they did with using public domain NASA images last year, for example)

« Reply #54 on: July 01, 2009, 02:20 »
0
This is a very pertinent point Michael. As one who is entering the 3D arena I'm increasingly aware of how fuzzy the rules are, and that they might change at any time. One step removed from purchased models is using a parametric modelling app to generate models. Hard to provide a MR for that, and istock will probably require one if it looks like it could be based on a real person (as any such model obviously will). As I'm on the verge of going exclusive on istock (except that they have stopped selling my images) I really have to reconsider.

BTW Michael, when are you available for a tie-breaker?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 02:24 by averil »

« Reply #55 on: July 01, 2009, 03:05 »
0
BTW Michael, when are you available for a tie-breaker?

Two lypses ahead and a relocation in September... I'd say ask me again end of October.  ;D

« Reply #56 on: July 01, 2009, 03:39 »
0
BTW Michael, when are you available for a tie-breaker?

Two lypses ahead and a relocation in September... I'd say ask me again end of October.  ;D
I'll make a note in my diary. Suemack is about to crush me at the moment. But one more win and I have the mask of El Platano de Oro Loco which my son (who speaks Spanish) says has something to do with crazy bananas.

« Reply #57 on: July 01, 2009, 09:07 »
0

No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  


what utter garbage

If the rejected file were any good and you were exclusive, the likelihood of it getting rejected is a lot less than if you weren't exclusive.  Don't forget that the iStock system is built to foster exclusive content, thats how they justify prices and such

I'm not saying that its always the case, and I've had files rejected by IS that made good money on other sites, but honestly, I'm not feeling the pinch after exclusivity.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: July 01, 2009, 12:00 »
0

If the rejected file were any good and you were exclusive, the likelihood of it getting rejected is a lot less than if you weren't exclusive. 


I see nothing from my own experience (pre and post exclusivity) which backs up that assertion.

« Reply #59 on: July 01, 2009, 14:46 »
0

If the rejected file were any good and you were exclusive, the likelihood of it getting rejected is a lot less than if you weren't exclusive.


I see nothing from my own experience (pre and post exclusivity) which backs up that assertion.

I agree - my acceptance rate has varied from month to month but I see no significant difference between pre and post exclusivity, nor would I expect there to be any.

« Reply #60 on: July 01, 2009, 17:58 »
0


I agree - my acceptance rate has varied from month to month but I see no significant difference between pre and post exclusivity, nor would I expect there to be any.

This is what I have heard from exclusives on my CN.  That exclusivity does not affect acceptance rates. 

Now I am confused because Ichiro17 seems to be saying that exclusives get higher acceptance. 

Wonder if an IS admin or inspector could weigh in?  Pieman?

« Reply #61 on: July 01, 2009, 18:38 »
0
Maybe I'm wrong then and I just became awesome when I got accepted into exclusivity and/or my files were just better.

Hopefully I am wrong, but in the end, I'm enjoying myself now a lot more and I at most lost $150 US to the switch, just due to complications and such in the month of May. 

What doesn't really matter to me is what anyone else does, whether they believe me or not, or whether anyone cares what I do.  So good luck to you all, and if you like what you are doing, keep doing it!

« Reply #62 on: July 01, 2009, 18:53 »
0
Maybe I'm wrong then ...

Well, that would follow a regular and consistent pattern to date.

Maybe you could try basing your future 'findings' on some actual, real, genuine data rather than just the ridiculous musings that seem to be generated adhock in your head without any basis on fact.

« Reply #63 on: July 01, 2009, 21:37 »
0
He probably knows what his acceptance rate is (and was).

« Reply #64 on: July 01, 2009, 21:42 »
0
He probably knows what his acceptance rate is (and was).
Yes, should anyone be criticized for commenting about his own experience?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #65 on: July 02, 2009, 07:07 »
0
He probably knows what his acceptance rate is (and was).
Yes, should anyone be criticized for commenting about his own experience?
Not if they state it as their own experience and not state it as a general fact.
My experience is that my acceptance rate has shot up, but that was to do with a bad initial month when I didn't realise that USM was causing most of my rejections. After that, and before I went exclusive, my acceptance rate went up. But there's no room for complacency: after a good run of acceptances I recently had three rejections in a row, all different shoots/three different reasons (one I've sent to Scout, one I redid (an isolation) and it was accepted this morning and one I accept fully).

« Reply #66 on: July 02, 2009, 07:36 »
0
Edited because I don't feel like publicly saying things to gostwyck.  I'm sick of his attitude, but I guess you attract those types of "people" when you have a popular forum.  Its just one of the things you need to live with (unfortunately)
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 07:41 by ichiro17 »

nruboc

« Reply #67 on: July 02, 2009, 14:41 »
0

No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  


what utter garbage

Yup, that has to be the single most idiotic statement I have ever read on these boards, bar none.

« Reply #68 on: July 02, 2009, 17:46 »
0

No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  


what utter garbage

Yup, that has to be the single most idiotic statement I have ever read on these boards, bar none.

really? then either you can't read very well or you haven't been on the forum lately.  however worthless your opinion actually is, i'm glad that that there is a place that you can write it

perhaps that there are rejections for files on every site even though the file might have some value, however, IN MY EXPERIENCE (to satisfy those idiots here who hate when people try to generalize or will interpret everything as a generalization) my rejected files on ISTOCK, apart from technical blunders, have been files that were not good and I've moved on...i'm not going to be some whiny bitch about that stuff anymore... and if you really think your precious files are all that, then re-submit again and see what happens

i would say something about artifacting rejections and them disappearing, but i would have to prove through calculus and some derivative formulas to some people here that this is the case.  Or perhaps I've become technically awesome...who knows...

I do know that if it wasn't for me being bored at work, I would probably never come to this forum anymore because its a far cry from where it was when I joined up many years ago, and thats disappointing.

« Reply #69 on: July 02, 2009, 18:49 »
0

No because if they were rejected, they most likely aren't any good.  


what utter garbage

Yup, that has to be the single most idiotic statement I have ever read on these boards, bar none.

really? then either you can't read very well or you haven't been on the forum lately.  however worthless your opinion actually is, i'm glad that that there is a place that you can write it

perhaps that there are rejections for files on every site even though the file might have some value, however, IN MY EXPERIENCE (to satisfy those idiots here who hate when people try to generalize or will interpret everything as a generalization) my rejected files on ISTOCK, apart from technical blunders, have been files that were not good and I've moved on...i'm not going to be some whiny bitch about that stuff anymore... and if you really think your precious files are all that, then re-submit again and see what happens

i would say something about artifacting rejections and them disappearing, but i would have to prove through calculus and some derivative formulas to some people here that this is the case.  Or perhaps I've become technically awesome...who knows...

I do know that if it wasn't for me being bored at work, I would probably never come to this forum anymore because its a far cry from where it was when I joined up many years ago, and thats disappointing.

In case you hadn't noticed, your opinions and absurd generalisations appear to generate almost unanimous derison and hostility. Maybe the problem is not with everyone else, as you seem to think, but possibly with that bloke you see in your mirror?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6400 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 17:51
by yingyang0
9 Replies
4041 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 12:11
by stokfoto
Alamy + IS exclusivity

Started by yecatsdoherty « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

28 Replies
9738 Views
Last post June 09, 2008, 01:25
by Adeptris
24 Replies
14215 Views
Last post October 29, 2010, 22:54
by PaulieWalnuts
79 Replies
28288 Views
Last post July 11, 2009, 22:21
by bittersweet

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors