Author Topic: how to be non-exclusive...for dummies (Read 20148 times)

yecatsdoherty · « **on:** February 22, 2009, 22:56 »

this is a question about the basics of being non-exclusive...let's say I have ten images. if I am non-exclusive, can I upload these same ten files to every agency for sale? or do non-exclusives have different images on different sites? do sites frown upon uploading the same images across the board?

my assumption about workflow for a non-exclusive accepted on three or four sites is to upload every image to every site and see what happens. I assume each site has its strengths, weaknesses and preferences. are these general assumption correct? thank you.

tubed · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2009, 23:04 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 22, 2009, 22:56

this is a question about the basics of being non-exclusive...let's say I have ten images. if I am non-exclusive, can I upload these same ten files to every agency for sale? or do non-exclusives have different images on different sites? do sites frown upon uploading the same images across the board?

my assumption about workflow for a non-exclusive accepted on three or four sites is to upload every image to every site and see what happens. I assume each site has its strengths, weaknesses and preferences. are these general assumption correct? thank you.

Yes, all images and all agencies.. Some accept different stuff so the ports will vary slightly but the general idea is spread your images out.. Are you starting to second guess your exclusivity?

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2009, 23:10 »

I'm like 'eighth' guessing it at this point. I started reconsidering exclusivity last year. and more and more I am drawn to non-exclusivity. but the decision will not be easy, I have to wrap my head around it. everything I have worked towards has been under the assumption of continued exclusivity with iStock. but things change. I used to feel being non-exclusive was shooting yourself in the foot. now I am starting to see that remaining exclusive is a questionable decision. not sure yet, but wanted to be sure I have my ducks in a row before jumping ship.

helix7 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2009, 23:49 »

I don't envy your decision, as it's a tougher one to make from your perspective. It's easy for me to add up everything I earn in a month, compare the total to my istock earnings, and make a decision about whether I would be winning or losing if I were exclusive. You don't have that option, and opting to go non-exclusive would be more of a leap of faith than a by-the-numbers decision.

You certainly wouldn't be the only one questioning your exclusivity in these slow economic times. I had a brief email exchange with a Black Diamond exclusive a few weeks ago asking me about my website and some other things related to selling independently, because they were thinking about jumping ship as well. It's a lot to think about, and not an easy thing to do if you do take the plunge (think about the time you'll spend uploading your entire portfolio to all those other sites), but it sounds like for some people it is becoming a more likely possibility.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:18 »

well, I am not intimidated with the workload at least. if I were to go non-exclusive, I am one of those energizer bunny types....the work uploading my ports to various sites doesn't bother me at all. nor the work required to manage them.

the daunting task for me is spreading my interests and taking the short-term hit on iStock royalties. right now seems like a good time because I am totally scr*wed on iStock right now anyways. my sales are awful. I am waiting to see what happens with best match 2.0. if they ever get their act together and actually implement the d*mn thing.

null · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:36 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 00:18

right now seems like a good time because I am totally scr*wed on iStock right now anyways. my sales are awful.

FYI: I upload all my shots (the same) to 8 sites. Istock makes 8% of my earnings. As a non-exclusive there, acceptance is much tougher though. They only have 1/4 of my port because of upload restrictions and stupid rejects for keywords etc. Workload is OK if you use FTP. That's a magic word not in the vocabulary of istock

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:43 »

I use DeepMeta for everything to do with managing my iStock port. it would be tough going back to 15 uploads per week, but it would also force me to be more selective. so not necessarily a bad thing. I need to be prepared for the month ro two that it will take me to establish myself elsewhere too.

as for keywords, I am already very clean with keywording. so I think I would be fine there. I use obvious, clean and applicable keywords only most of the time. sometimes after acceptance I add more after searching for my images and seeing keywords I missed.

I have a good acceptance rate at IS, so I am hoping my work is good enough for other sites too.

null · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2009, 00:52 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 00:43

I use DeepMeta for everything to do with managing my iStock port.

Fantastic program. I know the guy that made it.

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 00:43

it would be tough going back to 15 uploads per week, but it would also force me to be more selective. so not necessarily a bad thing. I need to be prepared for the month ro two that it will take me to establish myself elsewhere too.

Except for Shutterstock that emphasizes new contributors and images, you will have a lean couple of months. DT takes over a week to approve, and they only start to sell weeks later. SS takes long to approve, but you can use a "roommate" (other nick). I figure your IS port will stay as it is, so no worries there.

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 00:43

as for keywords, I am already very clean with keywording. so I think I would be fine there. I use obvious, clean and applicable keywords only most of the time. sometimes after acceptance I add more after searching for my images and seeing keywords I missed.

Keywording is less pain at other sites but I hope you put them in the IPTC.

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 00:43

I have a good acceptance rate at IS, so I am hoping my work is good enough for other sites too.

For sure. Istock is the most demanding, at least for non-exclusives.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2009, 01:41 »

does every site have its own model releases? or can I upload istock model releases to other sites?

which sites would you recommend I go to first?

ozbandit · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2009, 02:02 »

You need to make yourself a generic model release that can be used across all websites (see mine for example http://www.meder.net/files/MODEL-RELEASE-CM-BLANK.pdf ) Also I would recommend starting on Shutterstock and Dreamtime and then do the rest ie, FT, BigStock, 123 and SX.

shank_ali · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2009, 02:13 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 22, 2009, 22:56

this is a question about the basics of being non-exclusive...let's say I have ten images. if I am non-exclusive, can I upload these same ten files to every agency for sale? or do non-exclusives have different images on different sites? do sites frown upon uploading the same images across the board?

my assumption about workflow for a non-exclusive accepted on three or four sites is to upload every image to every site and see what happens. I assume each site has its strengths, weaknesses and preferences. are these general assumption correct? thank you.

Listen Mrs your not going to have your work on other sites.
The whole industry has expanded in the last couple of years and as a result the rewards are spread more.
Sure buyers of our work visit various micro sites but istock by far pays more to it's exclusives.
I would start being less productive and more selective on your work.Your current work will not attract sales IMO.
Have you ever applied to Getty.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:15 »

Stacey, at least you have the luxury of getting advice by the smartest person on the planet whose decades of microstock experience on virtually all sites of the planet he is willing to share with you.

You wouldn't have that on the iStock Forums because he's not allowed to post his crap over there.

michealo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:31 »

Stacey,

I think too that you will have to remove all your images that were accepted from IS during your exclusivity period. MichaelJay can correct me if I am wrong on that ...

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:47 »

Stacey, you have some nice images, but looking at your portfolio some of your images might have a hard time getting accepted, not because they are technically flawed, but because of the subject. My experience with iStock is, that they accept a lot as long as it passes the high technical standard. Rusty metal pipes have a harder time to be accepted at other agencies than at iStock. For example I am pretty sure Fotolia and Shutterstock would reject them. Dreamstime probably as well. Stockxpert I do not know.
I do not say your work is bad, its just that some of it is not what other agencies are looking for.

Altogether if you have the time, it is better to submit to several agencies, if you do not have a very good best match position. Thats my opinion and experience and probably of most non-exclusives. Thats why they are non-exclusive

If I were you and would do this bold step, I would try out Shutterstock, Fotolia and Stockxpert. If after 90 days it is not worth it or you see that it will become almost impossible to get to your former earnings, you can go back to be exclusive. For this reason I would not submit to Dreamstime, because you have to have your work there for at least 6 month.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:59 »

Quote from: michealo on February 23, 2009, 03:31

Stacey,

I think too that you will have to remove all your images that were accepted from IS during your exclusivity period. MichaelJay can correct me if I am wrong on that ...

Quote from: Rob Sylvan on February 02, 2009, 17:19

Quote from: sharply_done on January 31, 2009, 12:36
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract - see Section 12.a.(i))

This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc). After 90 days you can apply again to become exclusive if you wish.

I would encourage anyone with questions/concerns about the Artist Supply Agreement to contact iStock Contributor Relations directly.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/best-match-2-0/135/

michealo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2009, 04:30 »

Thanks Jan, I stand corrected

e-person · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2009, 04:44 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 22, 2009, 22:56

this is a question about the basics of being non-exclusive...let's say I have ten images. if I am non-exclusive, can I upload these same ten files to every agency for sale? or do non-exclusives have different images on different sites? do sites frown upon uploading the same images across the board?

my assumption about workflow for a non-exclusive accepted on three or four sites is to upload every image to every site and see what happens. I assume each site has its strengths, weaknesses and preferences. are these general assumption correct? thank you.

The assumptions are correct, although each site tends to accept a certain type of work, more than others, plus there are inconsistent reviewers. One week they might accept all your photos, the next they might reject them all. This is particularly true with SS and DT (disclaimer: I hate DT, so anything I say regarding them, will reflect that).

Also, coming from IS exclusivity, I think you will suffer rejections shock. SS, for example, is much much much much, more practical than IS. They mainly accept what they think it sells.

For your own good: stay exclusive. Don't jump back. I think you would get a shock if you do otherwise. Forget it. You are a natural born IS exclusive.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2009, 05:17 »

Another thing, if you do go non-exclusive - you'll be able to upload all those images rejected by iStock (for whatever obscure reason) to other sites - you do still have them on disk don't you?

If you go for it, let us know how you get on, I'm sure many folk here will be interested...

MichaelJay · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2009, 05:27 »

Quote from: michealo on February 23, 2009, 03:31

I think too that you will have to remove all your images that were accepted from IS during your exclusivity period. MichaelJay can correct me if I am wrong on that ...

Totally wrong, distributed information by some people.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2009, 05:38 »

Stacey, I have been exclusive from the point I was eligible and I have been reconsidering it every few months since then. I have submitted to a mid-price agency before and I had applied to other micro agencies and uploaded to a few as well. Sometimes I really miss splitting my risks as well. I don't like the changes of my income just like you don't.

Though, I keep saying to myself: There are many other markets that don't conflict with my IS exclusivity that I still can explore. I am now invited to upload to Getty through IS. I have a local RM agency I won't to challenge myself to get into this year. I will explore to do contract work locally. As long as I haven't tried those things, I don't think I will be serious about dropping exclusivity.

My main reason for not going to split the same images across agencies: What I really love is photography. I think post processing is okay but I don't like it too much. And I definitely don't like uploading, keywording, optimizing meta data, that's the boring part. I don't want to imagine spending more time doing search checks and keyword optimization for each site (and nobody can tell me that the same keywords work best for all sites). That's why I prefer to look for additional income from other sources where I can focus on shooting more and different images rather than working on the same images again.

TimAck · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2009, 06:22 »

Hi Stacey -

You've probably already done this but its worth looking at a few blogs of non exclusives to see how their royalties break down between agencies. Then you may be able to extrapolate some figures to see how well you could potentially do.
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/microstock-earnings-report-january-2009.html
http://microstock.pixelsaway.com/microstock-photography-earnings-january-2009/
http://www.niltomil.com/n2m/january-2009-earnings/

Like someone said... you can always go back to being exclusive later if it doesn't work out.

I'm fairly new at this microstock ballyhoo and still feeling my way but I think diversification is crucial as it smooths out your income, especially during these turbulent times.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2009, 06:39 »

Quote from: TimAck on February 23, 2009, 06:22

Then you may be able to extrapolate some figures to see how well you could potentially do.

I don't think it's so easy because you can't assume to stay at current levels at iStock when dropping exclusivity. It might work or might not work.

gostwyck · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2009, 06:49 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on February 23, 2009, 05:38

... and I have been reconsidering it every few months since then.

For me this is the crux of the matter. Exclusives always seem to have this 'buyer's remorse' gnawing away inside themselves on whether they have made the right decision or not. Independents on the other hand, at least all the ones I know (and that's quite a few), are happy and confident that they are much better off remaining so. We only have to visit the IS forums and read the shrieks of indignation everytime there's a best match-change to confirm our thoughts.

Yes, it is a little more work ... but then you also have more fun, make more money and have a much more stable income. It never fails to surprise me how if one agency has a bad month or two the slack is invariably picked up by a couple of others. We all like getting EL's too and you have many more chances with your images available to different buyers.

As has been said before IS's upload system takes about the same amount of time and trouble as uploading to the next biggest 4 or 5 agencies together. I don't see any truth in the suggestion that you need different keywords for each agency (other than IS with all those phrases, etc).

Signing up for exclusivity is like assuming that the future is already cast and the natural order of each agency's market share is permanently written. This of course is nonsense as stock photography (all of it, not just the 'micro' bit) continues to change and develop on a monthly basis. I have no idea which will be the biggest and best agencies in 5, 10 or more years from now (and that's the timescale I'm thinking in terms of) and neither does anyone else. It might even be an agency that has yet to be launched.

As an independent contributor I am delighted everytime someone signs up for exclusivity but I simply don't understand why they do so. Everytime that they upload a new 'exclusive' image it makes it more difficult for them to break the habit though. Good.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2009, 06:58 »

I've been in your shoes. Last Oct I finally gave up that my sales would ever return to the levels that were before the site went belly up with DA and the subsequent other changes. My sales at IS have continued to steadily decline at IS but no more than they were declining when I was exclusive.

TimAck · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2009, 07:30 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on February 23, 2009, 06:39

Quote from: TimAck on February 23, 2009, 06:22
Then you may be able to extrapolate some figures to see how well you could potentially do.
I don't think it's so easy because you can't assume to stay at current levels at iStock when dropping exclusivity. It might work or might not work.

I've sure I've read in these forums somewhere (tried to find it again and couldn't) that ex-IS-exclusives have reported no significant drop in IS sales (revenue of course takes a 50% hit) when going independent. I don't disagree that this calculation wouldn't give you a wide margin of error but it's the best way to generate a educated guess at the impact of turning independent.

From what I've seen the Istock proportion of income varies between 10% and 50% for independents.

So for min and max estimates:
(Current iStock Sales/2)*10 = Max estimate
(Current iStock Sales/2)*2 = Min estimate

The worst case scenario is that there would be no financial benefit, but more work uploading. Best case you'll be making 5 times what you are now. Realistically you'll probably wind up getting somewhere in the middle.

But it's not just numbers. I'm not advocating exclusivity but it's a lot easier to track unauthorised usage of your images if they're only at one agency.

Cooper · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2009, 07:56 »

Listen Mrs your not going to have your work on other sites.
The whole industry has expanded in the last couple of years and as a result the rewards are spread more.
Sure buyers of our work visit various micro sites but istock by far pays more to it's exclusives.
I would start being less productive and more selective on your work.Your current work will not attract sales IMO.
Have you ever applied to Getty.
[/quote]

Ah yes; I well remember now the type of crap that probably got you banned from the istock forums....

null · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2009, 08:02 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 01:41

does every site have its own model releases? or can I upload istock model releases to other sites?

No site will accept a form from another site, at least not with the site name on it. As a shortcut, you can just blank out the Istk name on your existing releases. For the future, it's better to use a generic form.

My generic MRF has been accepted at all known sites. It's a combination of the IStk and SS ones without mentioning an agency. Download the DOC format and prefill in your own info in OpenOffice or in MS-Word.

Download all-in-1 (minor,adult,property)
Download adult (more room to write)

Make sure names are filled in in PRINT letters or Dreamstime can object.

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 01:41

which sites would you recommend I go to first?

I heard that the Shutterstock application process can take a while. Better start there with a fresh nickname. If all went well, you can cancel IStk exclusivity.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2009, 08:07 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2009, 06:49

Quote from: MichaelJay on February 23, 2009, 05:38
... and I have been reconsidering it every few months since then.

For me this is the crux of the matter. Exclusives always seem to have this 'buyer's remorse' gnawing away inside themselves on whether they have made the right decision or not. Independents on the other hand, at least all the ones I know (and that's quite a few), are happy and confident that they are much better off remaining so. We only have to visit the IS forums and read the shrieks of indignation everytime there's a best match-change to confirm our thoughts.

But it seems to me you're basing that conclusion on a self-selecting sample - exclusives who have made their decision and are happy with it aren't likely to keep posting about how they're content with their lot. And the complainers in the best match threads are frequently non-exclusives as well who feel that the exclusives might be receiving some unfair advantage.

From my point of view, I am exclusive, it suits me just now but if circumstances change in the future it may not and then I'll reconsider it, but I don't see that as "buyer's remorse".

I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on. You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing. And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2009, 08:09 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 23, 2009, 08:02

No site will accept a form from another site, at least not with the site name on it. As a shortcut, you can just blank out the Istk name on your existing releases.

That's simply not true. I always use the IS MR and it is accepted (unmodified in any way) by every other agency apart from DT.

DT used to accept the IS MR if you blanked out the IS name & logo but now will not unless you hapen to live in Canada (as the form mentions Canadian law and either the photographer or the agency in question needs to be based there for that to apply).

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2009, 08:22 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on February 23, 2009, 08:07

I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on. You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing. And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.

Really? Have you tried uploading several thousand images to several different agencies as quickly as possible? Pretty painful I would think.

Commission increases with ranking/sales at SS, DT and FT and images also have to 'earn' their search-order placement too __ and that would make a huge difference. I'm absolutely certain that if I were to go exclusive, change my mind a few months later, and then become independent again it would absolutely crucify my earnings for months, probably years, afterwards.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 23, 2009, 09:24 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2009, 08:22

Quote from: Gannet77 on February 23, 2009, 08:07
I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on. You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing. And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.

Really? Have you tried uploading several thousand images to several different agencies as quickly as possible? Pretty painful I would think.

Fair point!!!

Gannet77 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 23, 2009, 09:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2009, 08:22

Quote from: Gannet77 on February 23, 2009, 08:07
I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on. You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing. And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.

Commission increases with ranking/sales at SS, DT and FT and images also have to 'earn' their search-order placement too __ and that would make a huge difference. I'm absolutely certain that if I were to go exclusive, change my mind a few months later, and then become independent again it would absolutely crucify my earnings for months, probably years, afterwards.

But that's exactly my point - coming FROM exclusivity is a lot easier than going TO exclusivity.

I'd have to work hard to upload my images to lots of sites, fair point, but I'd only be giving up a percentage of my existing income.

Though bouncing from one to another would indeed need a lot of justification...

tubed · « **Reply #32 on:** February 23, 2009, 10:54 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 01:41

does every site have its own model releases? or can I upload istock model releases to other sites?

which sites would you recommend I go to first?

Just photoshop out the Istock logo and any references and it should be fine..

digiology · « **Reply #33 on:** February 23, 2009, 11:06 »

another place to check out with some handy comparison charts.

http://www.fintastique.com/guide.htm

doconnell · « **Reply #34 on:** February 23, 2009, 11:40 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2009, 06:49

For me this is the crux of the matter. Exclusives always seem to have this 'buyer's remorse' gnawing away inside themselves on whether they have made the right decision or not. Independents on the other hand, at least all the ones I know (and that's quite a few), are happy and confident that they are much better off remaining so. We only have to visit the IS forums and read the shrieks of indignation everytime there's a best match-change to confirm our thoughts.

Yes, it is a little more work ... but then you also have more fun, make more money and have a much more stable income. It never fails to surprise me how if one agency has a bad month or two the slack is invariably picked up by a couple of others. We all like getting EL's too and you have many more chances with your images available to different buyers.

As has been said before IS's upload system takes about the same amount of time and trouble as uploading to the next biggest 4 or 5 agencies together. I don't see any truth in the suggestion that you need different keywords for each agency (other than IS with all those phrases, etc).

Signing up for exclusivity is like assuming that the future is already cast and the natural order of each agency's market share is permanently written. This of course is nonsense as stock photography (all of it, not just the 'micro' bit) continues to change and develop on a monthly basis. I have no idea which will be the biggest and best agencies in 5, 10 or more years from now (and that's the timescale I'm thinking in terms of) and neither does anyone else. It might even be an agency that has yet to be launched.

As an independent contributor I am delighted everytime someone signs up for exclusivity but I simply don't understand why they do so. Everytime that they upload a new 'exclusive' image it makes it more difficult for them to break the habit though. Good.

I am a former non exclusive turned exclusive who is very happy with the decision I made over a year ago. I wouldn't change it and here is why:

I uploaded to 5 maybe 6 ( I can't remember anymore) sites for over two years and after the initial and very welcomed success on most of them I started to feel I had no time for learning, getting better and shoot new things. I felt I was in a rat race doing the same things over and over again. I didn't like it. The only way I felt I can become a better photographer was go with one site which for me was the least about quantity and most about quality, offered the best inspecting system, gave the opportunity to meet up with others and learn from the best and was the most fun. For me it was Istock. I am sure it is different for everybody but I found what I was looking for in them and I am very grateful for it.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #35 on:** February 23, 2009, 12:00 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on February 23, 2009, 03:15

Stacey, at least you have the luxury of getting advice by the smartest person on the planet whose decades of microstock experience on virtually all sites of the planet he is willing to share with you.

You wouldn't have that on the iStock Forums because he's not allowed to post his crap over there.

lol, no kidding. shank thinks my images suck.....I'd better rethink my entire career choice

michealo · « **Reply #36 on:** February 23, 2009, 12:07 »

A stopped clock is right twice a day though ...

massman · « **Reply #37 on:** February 23, 2009, 12:11 »

It may also be worth considering how much money the images that IS 'rejected', could be earning you from other agencies.

I have loads of images that IS snubbed selling at other agencies that earn me good money, one or two are my top overall earners.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #38 on:** February 23, 2009, 12:23 »

Hi everyone - wow, a wealth of REALLY appreciated information that I have woken up to this morning. seriously, thank you so much.

lisafx · « **Reply #39 on:** February 23, 2009, 13:03 »

Stacey, I can see you are putting a lot of thought into this and I don't blame you. It's a big decision, but after actually having an admin SUGGEST you go non-exclusive I can see how you would be considering it seriously.

Istock varies between 33% to 43% of my income. It takes uploading to 6 other sites to make up the rest. I seriously considered istock exclusivity at one time, but for me it is worth being spread around for exactly the reasons you are considering it. I just don't feel that the istock income is reliable enough. Constant upheaval in the search functionality and site stability kept me from going exclusive. At least when you are on several sites you are spreading the risk.

That said, many of the other sites have their issues too that cause a lot of aggravation. A number of them have introduced subscriptions and on some sites those have seriously eaten into profits of contributors.

One site has just made it much harder to achieve higher levels and shortly after that lowered commissions. They also have a recurring problem with very slow payouts.

Another has had numerous problems with reporting (and crediting!) sales from their affiliate sites, and also payout issues.

IMO the sites that are the most consistent and trouble free are Dreamstime, Shutterstock, and Big Stock. Of those, Dreamstime and Big Stock have 6 month and 3 month holds on images respectively, so uploading to them means a big commitment to independent status. Shutterstock doesn't have a hold on your images, but they do have a strict process of approval for new contributors. Yet without Dreamstime and Shutterstock it would be tough make enough $ to compensate for giving up istock exclusivity.

So what I am saying is, you might be a perfect candidate for independence. You certainly have an independent streak

But the grass on this side of the fence has some dry patches too.

Best of luck whatever you decide. Personally, if the best match is your biggest concern at IS, it might be worth waiting for BM2 and seeing how that shakes out so you can make an educated choice.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #40 on:** February 23, 2009, 13:35 »

thanks Lisa - you have given me so much information about exclusivity in the past. I definitely value this advice. I know grass isn't necessarily greener.

Freedom · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2009, 13:50 »

Knowing you are overwhelmed with advices, I just want to offer a simple suggestion.

Have you looked at the portfolios of some non-exclusive contributors who joined the Istock at about the same time as you joined? How have they performed in comparison to yours? Once if you did that, you can logically assess whether or not going independent will bring you more income.

Personally I also considered going exclusive, but it is just too much work to delete files from various agencies. Istock is not performing well at this moment, but it is one of the better ones.

There are various emotions in any forums. We cannot control the acts of others, we can only remind ourselves to be the kinder ones.

shank_ali · « **Reply #42 on:** February 23, 2009, 13:52 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 13:35

thanks Lisa - you have given me so much information about exclusivity in the past. I definitely value this advice. I know grass isn't necessarily greener. but to me, action always seems the better choice than non-action or remaining passive. there are two main concerns fueling consideration of my exclusivity status:

1) sales obviously. I'm down by so much even though my portfolio is so much better. I can't get my head around that. I'm very worried that BM2.0 will be a huge disappointment after all the hype.

2) I'll preface this with taking responsibility for being a nervous ninny in the istock forums and for being incorrigible. I'm NOT suggesting they should allow anyone to foam at the mouth in their forums. absolutely.

but I will also say that my concerns (and the concerns of so many others) have been either ignored or ridiculed. as one contributor for whom I have the deepest respect said to me, to be suddenly treated as though you don't matter, when you were lured, branded and wooed into believing you were important and that your exclusivity is a priority for them too, is like a knife in the heart. dramatic, but also bang on.

the emotions aside......four months ago I was shining on iStock, and now I am definitely on a black list. this leaves me feeling very uneasy, because I don't feel I have done anything to deserve that type of reaction. I'm sure I am annoying to say the least, but I've been treated like a delinquent when all I have done is repeatedly ask questions about iStock's future. I took so much garbage in the forums but I still feel I did not dump on people, nor would I. I kept my annoying comments to the issues. I was persistent and irritating yes, but what other people get away with in there is appalling. including some people wearing admin hats. no wonder things escalate. I feel really bad about my relationship with istock. I don't want all my eggs in a basket that could be overturned based on someone's personality preferences.

my work ethic and commitment to istock has never faltered. but I feel like my standing there is shaky at best and that leaves me feeling very worried.

You will be a gold in a couple of months so more money per sale.
JJR has a dream and your part of it..... Think back to the puctum photo contest and the winning image.Can you replicate that? I think perhaps that is what the premier collection will be asking of us.
Anyhow need to edit my weekend photos .More crap later !

lisafx · « **Reply #43 on:** February 23, 2009, 13:53 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 23, 2009, 13:35

but I will also say that my concerns (and the concerns of so many others) have been either ignored or ridiculed. as one contributor for whom I have the deepest respect said to me, to be suddenly treated as though you don't matter, when you were lured, branded and wooed into believing you were important and that your exclusivity is a priority for them too, is like a knife in the heart. dramatic, but also bang on.

IMHO this is a very insightful point. Exclusivity has definitely been touted by appealing to people's emotions, loyalty, and need to belong to a club where they are given preferential treatment. It has never been portrayed by IS as being simply a business decision (although to me that is what it is).

When you appeal to people's emotions you should not be surprised if they then have emotional reactions to site changes and company policies.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #44 on:** February 23, 2009, 14:03 »

Lisa - exactly. and even when something is a business decision, emotion cannot be wholly eliminated as a factor either. especially when fear is involved. losing income is scary. losing income when you are doing everything you promised to do really well is even scarier, because you realize that you have zero control over IS decisions.

Freedom - yes, I have been looking at portfolios of non-exclusives. though I think we often have to be very careful comparing ourselves to other contributors. there are so many factors that a simple timeline does not apply to. there are contributors who started when I did with far more dls....and many contributors who started when I did who have far less dls compared to me. not to mention talent, ability blah blah.

I know myself, I know how hard I work. my hubbie is fabulously supportive. he's a math geek and he works out all the losses and risks etc., for me in going exclusive versus non-exclusive. at this point I'm no doubt overthinking it. it will have to be a leap of faith.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:52 »

ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION PLEASE...

if I remove my exclusivity from iStock, how long must I wait before setting myself up on other sites? I know the contract says 30 days. but does that include set up of accounts etc.. or is it 30 days until I put my first image up elsewhere?

michealo · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:13 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 24, 2009, 11:52

ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION PLEASE...

if I remove my exclusivity from iStock, how long must I wait before setting myself up on other sites? I know the contract says 30 days. but does that include set up of accounts etc.. or is it 30 days until I put my first image up elsewhere?

I think having accounts is fine, having images on them is another matter

CofkoCof · « **Reply #47 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:24 »

On SS and StockXpert you have to pass the initial test. Don't remember exactly how long it takes before they examine your files. If you fail the test you have to wait for a month I think.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:30 »

okay, thanks....I know not to put any images up until after 30 days. I would never go against my iStock contract. I just wanted to be sure it is okay to set up accounts etc.

Magnum · « **Reply #49 on:** February 24, 2009, 17:41 »

It´s always greener on the other side... If you don´t do it, you will always wonder... as long as your happy...etc etc

bittersweet · « **Reply #50 on:** February 24, 2009, 18:43 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on February 24, 2009, 12:30

okay, thanks....I know not to put any images up until after 30 days. I would never go against my iStock contract. I just wanted to be sure it is okay to set up accounts etc.

It's totally fine to have accounts on whatever sites you want. Many people register everywhere they can for the sole purpose of securing their username and preventing someone else from using (or abusing) it. As long as no images are live elsewhere until after the 30 days, you should be fine.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #51 on:** February 24, 2009, 19:18 »

thank you....I hoped that was the case.

alias · « **Reply #52 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:10 »

I'm also beginning to wonder about the route towards giving up exclusivity at iStock.

Would that mean that I would no longer be able to upload to Getty via the iStock programme ? Would work which is already at the Getty site have to be taken down ?

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #53 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:16 »

I'm not sure about Getty. I didn't upload anything to Getty, I meant to but the process was so involved that I kept putting it off...

bittersweet · « **Reply #54 on:** February 26, 2009, 14:45 »

Quote from: alias on February 26, 2009, 09:10

Would that mean that I would no longer be able to upload to Getty via the iStock programme ? Would work which is already at the Getty site have to be taken down ?

The answer to your first question is definitely yes. I'm 95% sure that the answer to your second question is yes as well. A quick phone call to contributor relations could clear it up for sure.

travelstock · « **Reply #55 on:** February 26, 2009, 14:59 »

As has been said previously, it might be worth holding off until you can also assess the impact of turning gold - I know from when I turned Bronze and Silver, there was a noticeable jump in downloads - not being exclusive, this obviously wasn't due to an increased royalty percentage.

While its impossible to know what the best match is factoring in at any particular time, my guess would be that ranking is a significant factor.

One problem with switching tracks as your considering is that some of the agencies that you'd be relying on for income take quite some time to develop your ranking. The two I'm thinking of mainly here are FT and DT. I'm pretty sure FT factors in your ranking in search results - not to mention that a higher % of commission applies as you progress through the ranks. DT pays higher commissions on differently ranked images - these take some time to develop popularity.

I guess what you're facing is the difficulty all of us face when considering changing tracks. Once you've entrenched yourself in one way of doing things, its hard to switch. I've considered IS exclusivity in the past, but like for many here the numbers either didn't add up, or only did in a best case scenario. Going the other way, you'd face the 30 day restrictions from IS, a certain cut to your income there (though of unknown size) and the prospect of contributing to sites where a certain amount of advantage is given to more established contributors.

Either way, many will be watching to see how you go.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** February 26, 2009, 15:15 »

Quote from: holgs on February 26, 2009, 14:59

I know from when I turned Bronze and Silver, there was a noticeable jump in downloads - not being exclusive, this obviously wasn't due to an increased royalty percentage.

While its impossible to know what the best match is factoring in at any particular time, my guess would be that ranking is a significant factor.

I'm certain that this is not the case. I've monitored the performance of quite a few portfolios that have passed ranking points without ever seeing a difference.

You could of course use multimedia.de's excellent chart to see the effect 'live' as it were, observing the performance of other contributors who have recently passed Gold in comparison to those who have yet to do so. If Holgs theory is correct you should see a marked difference in the 30-day % gain/loss between each group. (NB: I've checked and there isn't).

travelstock · « **Reply #57 on:** February 26, 2009, 19:03 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 26, 2009, 15:15

Quote from: holgs on February 26, 2009, 14:59
I know from when I turned Bronze and Silver, there was a noticeable jump in downloads - not being exclusive, this obviously wasn't due to an increased royalty percentage.

While its impossible to know what the best match is factoring in at any particular time, my guess would be that ranking is a significant factor.

I'm certain that this is not the case. I've monitored the performance of quite a few portfolios that have passed ranking points without ever seeing a difference.

You could of course use multimedia.de's excellent chart to see the effect 'live' as it were, observing the performance of other contributors who have recently passed Gold in comparison to those who have yet to do so. If Holgs theory is correct you should see a marked difference in the 30-day % gain/loss between each group. (NB: I've checked and there isn't).

Wow you seem quite certain. I'm assuming you're referring to http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/

I also just had a look - while there aren't universal increases, I don't think there is enough data there to rule it out.

looking at the first 10 who have just turned gold:

+22, +29, +4, +12, N/A, +10, +8, +30, +28, +38

Of the 50 most recent gold contributors - 40 are up, 10 are down. The only big decrease is in a portfolio that has a lot of Christmas images in it. Which brings me to the next point... Christmas... Obviously there are lots of other factors influencing sales - the type of image in a portfolio, the season, what the latest best match is doing etc. At the moment there have been about half a dozen best match changes in the last 3 months, not to mention Christmas going into the equation.

None of us can really get a clear picture of what the best match is doing, despite our best attempts to do so. While the 30/90 day average might be some indicator, the timeframes aren't really the best for judging whether there is a spike between jumping canister levels and downloads. Much better would be 7day/30 day splits, and a different time of year.

From my personal experience with a lowly 2 canister jumps, I did notice a spike - was it a coincidence? I can't be sure. If we could be sure of the science of all this, then it would make exclusivity etc. a much easier decision. Just be careful of anyone presenting absolute facts. In any case, what might have held true yesterday can just as easily be reversed tomorrow.

anaire · « **Reply #58 on:** February 26, 2009, 21:03 »

Hi Stacey,
this idea, drilled by the IS admins into every corner of a thought, that IS is the greatest agency in the world and all the others are sporting nothing but mediocre collections while joyously accepting every crappy shot, is completely false.
I told you so before, but did you believe me?
Of course not!
People believe (mostly) what they want to believe.
Well, the truth may hurt feelings and be not so politicaly correct, but ultimately it is much more useful.
Sit down and have a look at your portfolio.
I'm not criticizing it in any way, (no way!), but just be aware that you're going to have a hard time with a number of your files. And that's including Istock flames.
Keep the following list in mind:
Stockexpert and BigStock are the easier to get into.
Stockexpert asks for an initial test, but it's nothing to worry about. Following that, their review time is ultra, ultra fast (literally minutes). Sales are plenty, but sadly, at least in my case, they're mostly subscriptions. With a port like yours, there'll be lots and lots of them though.
BigStock takes a bit longer to start selling, but they're friendly and easy to deal with. Give them a try!
Dreamstime
Forget everything 'E-person' said about Dreamstime. He has his personal reasons, and he is obviously wrong.
DT's reviewers are (the most) consistent, time and time again, fair and very well trained.
DT's review time is longer though.
A lovely forum, monthly competitions, and lots of happy contributors eager to help.
Also, they have a superb rewarding system. It's all about the image. The better the image, the higher the level and the more money you make.
Fotolia is tough, get ready for surprising rejections. As a curiosity, they lo.o.o.o.ve isolations. When correctly done, all of them get accepted, no matter how boring or common the subject.
SS is the leader.
You probably know by now that you'll have to pass an initial test. It's not easy, but I'm sure you won't have a problem.
Once that's out of the way, sales literally come with every single click of the page. More and more and more. Most of them are subscriptions, but you get OD's and even EL's as well, summing up to an amount IS, at least in my case, has never been able to even half.
Don't look back Stacey!
Istock crowns are nothing more than silly icons designed to excite kids. Unsupported by real numbers, they're not worth a *.
Welcome to the free world, initial bumps and all, this is a much more exciting, rewarding and fun place to be!
And don't worry!
You'll do just fine!
Wishing you all the best, can't wait to see you on DT!

Anna

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #59 on:** February 26, 2009, 22:09 »

^ Anaire, though I know you are being nice in some strange way, your post is off the rails. though I have had my own issues with some current istock decisions, your attitude about them is so off base that I don't even know where to begin. regardless of my feelings about sales at iStock right now, and regardless of my exclusivity status, I will continue to be a proud contributor to the iStock collection..

toming · « **Reply #60 on:** March 26, 2009, 02:30 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 22, 2009, 23:49

I don't envy your decision, as it's a tougher one to make from your perspective. It's easy for me to add up everything I earn in a month, compare the total to my istock earnings, and make a decision about whether I would be winning or losing if I were exclusive. You don't have that option, and opting to go non-exclusive would be more of a leap of faith than a by-the-numbers decision.

You certainly wouldn't be the only one questioning your exclusivity in these slow economic times. I had a brief email exchange with a Black Diamond exclusive a few weeks ago asking me about my website and some other things related to selling independently, because they were thinking about jumping ship as well. It's a lot to think about, and not an easy thing to do if you do take the plunge (think about the time you'll spend uploading your entire portfolio to all those other sites), but it sounds like for some people it is becoming a more likely possibility.

I'm also thinking of withdrawing my exclusivity to istock, but I'm quite confused. Based on your opinion, is it healthy to your part that you've spread your works? I need some advice guys..

volschenkh · « **Reply #61 on:** March 29, 2009, 04:58 »

Quote from: anaire on February 26, 2009, 21:03

this idea, drilled by the IS admins into every corner of a thought, that IS is the greatest agency in the world and all the others are sporting nothing but mediocre collections while joyously accepting every crappy shot, is completely false.

Wow these IS admins sound like the microstock mafia who will torment you (with power tools) if you don't agree with them. An incredible flight of imagination you have, you must have an very creative portfolio with such an vivid imagination. So sad to see your profile is "hidden" would have loved to see your portfolio on any of these sites.

null · « **Reply #62 on:** March 29, 2009, 13:33 »

Quote from: volschenkh on March 29, 2009, 04:58

So sad to see your profile is "hidden" would have loved to see your portfolio on any of these sites.

Personally I don't pay much attention to "new users" that have no portfolio links at all and start to voice very strong opinions. If they go on, I mostly ignore them. Nothing personal, but it's a waste of time if somebody starts a gossip game that doesn't advance my understanding of the business.
Anaire isn't one of those and it's quite easy to find her portfolio.

sweetgirll · « **Reply #63 on:** March 29, 2009, 13:52 »

Hi,
I'm jumping in...
I have been there for years, but I was exclusive for more than a year...It was okay.
Then, a few months ago all the sudden my earnings declined like crazy???..
Just as a way of example, I was consistently making no less than 200 then it went down to 100 or less, and has been like these for the last months, so why do I want exclusivity for?

I have a small porftolio, so Im better off scattering the images on other sites

I cancelled my exclusivity. I want to contribute to more of the big ones.

KB · « **Reply #64 on:** March 29, 2009, 14:59 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 29, 2009, 13:33

Personally I don't pay much attention to "new users" that have no portfolio links at all and start to voice very strong opinions. If they go on, I mostly ignore them.

Personally I don't mind being ignored.

If I had portfolio links, you might ignore me anyway.

But I want to feel free to express my opinions, both positive and negative. If I include portfolio links, I lose my anonymity. And we all know that Fotolia, for example, has publicly stated that if they feel your opinions are a detriment to their business, they will close your account, even if you post them on a 3rd-party forum such as this. So I intend to remain unknown and safe from such retribution, no matter what site it might be.

lisafx · « **Reply #65 on:** March 29, 2009, 15:11 »

For the reasons stated above by KB I don't blame anyone for wanting to be anonymous. Although it is rare, it does seem that occasionally people are targeted for what they say on independent forums.

I don't have portfolio links, but at the same time I am not using a pseudonym either. Sometimes the fact that I am not anonymous keeps me from flying off the handle and saying things in the heat of the moment that are better left unsaid.

But like I said, I don't blame anyone who prefers to stay anonymous. Usually you can read between the lines and figure out who knows what they are talking about and who's just shooting off their mouth with nothing to back it up. And there are a couple of pseudonym folks here that I have a pretty good idea who they are based on their colorful writing style

Anyway, I am glad anonymity is an option because it keeps the conversation around here honest and a lot less boring than the conversations on some of the site forums.

vonkara · « **Reply #66 on:** March 29, 2009, 18:56 »

Actually having unnecessary views on IS is not a good idea. BigStock is a good one to link for getting some views, as it could be part of the search engine, but I'm not with them. Others I can't say. That's in part why I limit myself to StockXpert for the moment until the next best match at IS have been online... and solved!

volschenkh · « **Reply #67 on:** March 30, 2009, 14:20 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 29, 2009, 13:33

Quote from: volschenkh on March 29, 2009, 04:58
So sad to see your profile is "hidden" would have loved to see your portfolio on any of these sites.

Personally I don't pay much attention to "new users" that have no portfolio links at all and start to voice very strong opinions. If they go on, I mostly ignore them. Nothing personal, but it's a waste of time if somebody starts a gossip game that doesn't advance my understanding of the business.
Anaire isn't one of those and it's quite easy to find her portfolio.

Actually I was just in a tongue-in-cheek mood. Of course everyone has the right to anonymity and vent their views on a forum where they are free to express them. I just find it sad to see some people have such a negative view of one microstock agency. I mean, can any one of us really give an objective analysis of which site hosts the best images? What are the criteria? How do you calculate this? Surely each microstock site have some of the best and some of the worst images. We have to have a balanced view on this issue, unless there's raw facts to substantiate, and not single out one agency in a public forum.

DanP68 · « **Reply #68 on:** March 30, 2009, 22:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 29, 2009, 15:11

For the reasons stated above by KB I don't blame anyone for wanting to be anonymous. Although it is rare, it does seem that occasionally people are targeted for what they say on independent forums.

Agreed. We had a high profile contributor targeted last summer for trying to organize a protest of Fotolia's extremely low subs commission offer. It most certainly happens.

DanP68 · « **Reply #69 on:** March 30, 2009, 22:18 »

Anaire brought up some very good points. One major caveat which she alluded to...Shutterstock is the leader for a lot of non-exclusive contributors. But their initial test is a bear. Take a look at their critique forum sometime...sure the majority of those rejected clearly deserve to be. But there are plenty of applicants rejected who offer to supply them with strong images. If you want to make a lot of money as a non-exclusive, you almost certainly need to be selling at Shutterstock. And sometimes it takes a while to break into their agency.

helix7 · « **Reply #70 on:** March 30, 2009, 23:55 »

Quote from: toming on March 26, 2009, 02:30

I'm also thinking of withdrawing my exclusivity to istock, but I'm quite confused. Based on your opinion, is it healthy to your part that you've spread your works? I need some advice guys..

For me personally, I am far better off working independently. Last year my istock earnings were much better, and I did actually give some serious thought to going exclusive. But this year, I really don't see how I would be doing any better as an exclusive istock contributor. I know I'd be making much less if I were selling only at istock.

But that's just me. I know of a few istock exclusive vector guys who most likely would do worse as independents. It's different for everyone, and you need to make your own decision and assessment of your portfolio and earnings potential at other sites.

Fred · « **Reply #71 on:** March 31, 2009, 00:06 »

FWIW:

Shutterstock started strong for me but as I have added to my portfolio earnings have steadily decreased. My BME was my first month there and I had only 40 images I now have over 260 and just had my WME. Very difficult to figure this out. iStock had been up and down for me seemingly fluctuating with changes in the best match but this is my BME there with double what I made at Shutterstock with only 117 images.

Most here seem to love DT and hate FT but based on earnings FT is much the better of the two sites in my experience.

fred

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #72 on:** March 31, 2009, 00:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 29, 2009, 15:11

For the reasons stated above by KB I don't blame anyone for wanting to be anonymous. Although it is rare, it does seem that occasionally people are targeted for what they say on independent forums.

I don't have portfolio links, but at the same time I am not using a pseudonym either. Sometimes the fact that I am not anonymous keeps me from flying off the handle and saying things in the heat of the moment that are better left unsaid.

But like I said, I don't blame anyone who prefers to stay anonymous. Usually you can read between the lines and figure out who knows what they are talking about and who's just shooting off their mouth with nothing to back it up. And there are a couple of pseudonym folks here that I have a pretty good idea who they are based on their colorful writing style

Anyway, I am glad anonymity is an option because it keeps the conversation around here honest and a lot less boring than the conversations on some of the site forums.

really well said Lisa.....I wish I could retrospectively be anonymous for some of my rants when istock sales plummeted....but I'm back on the rails.

lisafx · « **Reply #73 on:** March 31, 2009, 11:21 »

Quote from: yecatsdoherty on March 31, 2009, 00:16

.....I wish I could retrospectively be anonymous for some of my rants when istock sales plummeted....but I'm back on the rails.

Don't feel bad Stacey. This industry can be high stress at times and most of us have felt the need to blow off steam at one time or another.

The way I see it, anyone who's worth a darn won't hold it against you, and who cares about the others?

stacey_newman · « **Reply #74 on:** March 31, 2009, 12:11 »

^ lol, I know....I finally got around to changing my username here.....I changed it on iStock over a year ago....

travelstock · « **Reply #75 on:** March 31, 2009, 14:05 »

Just out of curiosity what did you end up deciding? Or is the decision not concluded yet?

stacey_newman · « **Reply #76 on:** March 31, 2009, 19:28 »

hi holgs - as was probably fairly obvious, I researched the heck out of exclusivity versus non-exclusivity. my decision was to remain an exclusive on iStock. there are many reasons, but the greatest reason is that I can't really imagine not being exclusive. I think iStock has an incredible collection of images, and despite my sales angst (which is still fairly acute), I believe things will improve after getting tons of invaluable advice, and after some very intense and helpful conversations with iStock admins.

I also believe that many iStockers go through a similar rite of passage. questioning exclusivity is like transitioning from teenagehood to adulthood.

I'm about to hit gold, looking forward to increased royalties and the new canister.

travelstock · « **Reply #77 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:15 »

Congratulations on the decision. I guess you were weighing up the reverse decision that many of us labor over in this forum. One of the difficulties of going down a particular path for an extended period of time is that it becomes more and more difficult to change direction mid-stream. I think in your position I'd have gone the same way.

I'm sure you'll do well now that you've settled the question!

stacey_newman · « **Reply #78 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:17 »

exactly, switching midstream is always really tough. thank you!

stacey_newman · « **Reply #79 on:** April 08, 2009, 12:47 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: how to be non-exclusive...for dummies (Read 20148 times)

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

helix7

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

shank_ali

michealo

michealo

e-person

digiology

yecatsdoherty

michealo

yecatsdoherty

lisafx

yecatsdoherty

shank_ali

lisafx

yecatsdoherty

yecatsdoherty

michealo

CofkoCof

yecatsdoherty

bittersweet

yecatsdoherty

alias

yecatsdoherty

bittersweet

yecatsdoherty

lisafx

vonkara

DanP68

DanP68

helix7

yecatsdoherty

lisafx

stacey_newman

stacey_newman

stacey_newman

stacey_newman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors