Am I just the one asking this question? I'm feeling helpless with the sales trend and changes in iStock and wonder if I should just drop my crown too and start selling everywhere else. Maybe some of the members here could share their experience?

I think it's hard to say without knowing anything about your portfolio.  You will most likely have a 75%+ drop in sales from iS which won't be balanced out by sales from the other sites for months.  Not sure how typical this is but I think dcdp dropped exclusivity and then just recently came back you can see what happened to earnings: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&page=3450

okay, I am now curious on what a typical exclusive makes from IS? Is there a large percentage that make from say 60k to 200k range? I figure most folks that are making below $50k wouldn't mind dropping out of the exclusive to spread their pics to the other sites. I assume that IS paid the exclusives very handsomely until the last two years?

http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/

I think there are a lot of exclusives that are exclusive precisely because they don't want their images spread over many sites, especially subscription sites.

I would say that exclusivity is digging your own grave.
Simple.
If you get 5 times the earning as that of independants.

You get 5 times the lazier.

It will not take many years before you cannot compete anymore.
Its like those birds on islands, that cannot fly.

Dunno 'bout the rest of you but earn more work less sounds pretty appealing 

Quote from: JPSDK on May 14, 2012, 10:03

I would say that exclusivity is digging your own grave.
Simple.
If you get 5 times the earning as that of independants.

You get 5 times the lazier.

It will not take many years before you cannot compete anymore.
Its like those birds on islands, that cannot fly.

That's an interesting argument.  Make more money work less or make less money and work more, if that's anywhere near true what path are you suggesting?

I would say. It is wise to look after your own interests, and not mix them up with those of the agency.
I can only see one who benifits for exclusive content, and that is the agency, when it wants to sell the pool.

and yes of course the contributer, when he is in the nutured ground and protected.
when that ends, he has lost his wings like the dodo.

I would say that exclusivity is digging your own grave.
Simple.
If you get 5 times the earning as that of independants.

You get 5 times the lazier.

It will not take many years before you cannot compete anymore.
Its like those birds on islands, that cannot fly.

Now I couldn't agree more... but, OUCH!

Quote from: tab62 on May 14, 2012, 10:22

$60,000 to $200,000 per year. I am sure there are some folks making $60k to $200k per month right Leaf?  

Well, I was a junior in that group back in 2009-2010... not anymore :-(

You were making over $60,000 a MONTH in 2009-2010?   

Unless your name is Yuri Arcurs (and he was never Istock exclusive) I am quite skeptical of what you're claiming. 

Tough question. I don't think iStock will ever be what it was again. That said, I don't think Shutterstock will ever be what iStock was either. I'd say go with your gut and what you think will be the best option for your future.

Exactly. You have to look at your data and think where the money might be in two, three, four or more years from now. I can't see Istock ever recovering their lost ground either. They've ditched staff and new initiatives to save money and have now become H&F's cash cow, to be constantly milked harder and harder until it runs dry.

For me personally, I am fairly certain that to drop the crown will mean a long term revenue decrease. However, I like to be in control of my own destiny, and feel there is huge value in that alone. There may come a point in time, where I can no longer withstand the emotional brutality. Regardless of revenue to be lost, that will be the day I remove my crown.

I think that there is no such thing as the "typical exclusive" mentioned a few posts back.

There's a large number of contributors who don't have very large portfolios, don't submit a lot and whose sales got them over the hurdle to be exclusive but not much more. It's essentially a hobby.

Then there are a small number of very active exclusives with large portfolios, some of whom do stock full time, and who aim to have shots in the Vetta/Agency collection and on Getty. We've never had any data from iStock, but from DT (in the past, before they took away the stats that gave access to this) a huge portion of the total sales on the site came from a very small percentage of the contributors. I'm assuming the same is true for this small group of active & successful exclusives.

Then there's what I used to be part of - the iStock middle class. Successful, but not a star; active but part time. Sales are solid and regular (or they were before H&F started looting and pillaging).

I dropped my crown in June 2011 because I'd seen things decline for me - 2010 was a wonderful year for me and I was looking at 2011 go downhill with the anticipation of further declines. So I was looking at not only spreading the risk but taking the income hit sooner rather than later so I could work on rebuilding my presence on other sites. Even though I knew my income would drop as an independent, that was contrasted with drops instead of growth as an exclusive, so it made the medicine a little easier to take.

I should also mention that I'm married and my husband's income means that even if my stock income went to zero overnight, my kids would still eat, so it made the decision to leave easier for me than for those earning a full time income from iStock.

I have been full time since 2007, and my revenue is 99% from istock alone. That is why I have gritted my teeth for this long.  But, there may come a time when I simply cannot do it any longer.

I never quite know how to feel about such cases. I want to feel sympathetic but at the same time I blame exclusives for their ridiculous and undeserved loyalty by which they essentially engineered Istock to feel empowered enough to screw us all.

The sooner they take their medicine, accept the short-term hit to their earnings and move on to become independent contributors the better for all of us.

Quote from: runeer on May 14, 2012, 10:30

Quote from: tab62 on May 14, 2012, 10:22

$60,000 to $200,000 per year. I am sure there are some folks making $60k to $200k per month right Leaf?  

Well, I was a junior in that group back in 2009-2010... not anymore :-(

You were making over $60,000 a MONTH in 2009-2010?   

Unless your name is Yuri Arcurs (and he was never Istock exclusive) I am quite skeptical of what you're claiming. 

I mean per year

Quote from: jbryson on May 14, 2012, 18:12

I have been full time since 2007, and my revenue is 99% from istock alone. That is why I have gritted my teeth for this long.  But, there may come a time when I simply cannot do it any longer.

I never quite know how to feel about such cases. I want to feel sympathetic but at the same time I blame exclusives for their ridiculous and undeserved loyalty by which they essentially engineered Istock to feel empowered enough to screw us all.

The sooner they take their medicine, accept the short-term hit to their earnings and move on to become independent contributors the better for all of us.

That's a humorous outlook...    I'm not sure I disagree today. Although back when I first became exclusive in 2004 or 2005, they did deserve my loyalty. It was a mutually beneficial partnership.