MicrostockGroup

I understand the logic behind your explanation Sharply, and agree that is probably the reason, but that kinda sucks for us.

If someone purchases more credits for less money, that probably won't affect me much as they will use those credits all over iStock, not all on my portfolio. That sounds like a "Win - Win" for iStock and the client.

I guess on the grand scale of things, it induces purchasing. I like the volume at iStock.

Thanks.

No Mess for me.  I'm just confused - Seniors moment! 

I am getting nowhere with istock.  Haven't had a BME for months, despite uploading lots.  Most of the other sites are showing growth.  With StockXpert, I am paid 50% commission as a non-exclusive and they absorb the price of the bulk discounts.  The upload process takes very little time.  istock pay me 20% and it takes a lot of my time using their upload procedure.

The only reason I upload to istock is that they do have good sales but in the long run are we getting a poor deal and could we put pressure on them to pay a decent commission to non-exclusives?  30% and absorbing the costs of bulk discounts would be more like it.  That would bring them closer to the lowest commission sites. 

I know the argument is that they spend more on advertising but they also make much more than sites that give us a fair cut.  I would prefer more of that money going to the contributors than the share holders.

I disagree with you there.  Most of my downloads are from the US, to say none of those images is usable in the US is preposterous.

And how do you know that, as far as I am aware you are unable to find out who downloads your images at IS or most other sites.

You're right, "none" was too strong. I should just said that a large percentage of your portfolio isn't targeted toward the US market. For example: Euros, double decker bus, blue police tape, British telephone box, British mailbox, etc.