MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Considering Exclusivity  (Read 10446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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

« 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?

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
3003 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 17:51
by yingyang0
9 Replies
1952 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 12:11
by stokfoto
Alamy + IS exclusivity

Started by yecatsdoherty « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

28 Replies
4940 Views
Last post June 09, 2008, 01:25
by Adeptris
24 Replies
8276 Views
Last post October 29, 2010, 22:54
by PaulieWalnuts
79 Replies
12293 Views
Last post July 11, 2009, 22:21
by bittersweet

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors