MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock poll about Exclusivity  (Read 15335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2007, 01:41 »
0
You are not allowed to sell your images royalty free anywhere except getty. You are not even allowed to give your images away for free. But if that image is Rights-Managed you can sell, or if it is work for hire by that magazine.

The non-exclusive poll is completed! 100 photographers filled it out! (The poll is limited to 100, if you only have a free account on sureveymonkey)
Thank you so much!
The exclusive part is at 11 photographers. Thats not too much, but may tell us a bit. I will try to give you the results this week. So exclusives please continue filling out the poll :)


« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2007, 12:36 »
0
I have a large number airliner images which are sold as editorial on SS and an aviation webpage, they are editorial and would never be accepted on IS, would I have to remove these from either site if I went exclusive with IS.

« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2007, 14:18 »
0
Yes, you would have to remove them. :(

« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2007, 14:49 »
0
One more exclusive survey filled out...

« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2007, 11:47 »
0
Thank you!

Here is the first part of the survey. The results of the poll, which the exclusive photographers filled out.
I just had 14 filled out this part. The poll is still open, I will update the survey, if some more people will fill it out.

The photographers are sorted by their canister color which they had at the time they became exclusive.

Exclusives

Question: How high was the amount you earned on Istockphoto as a percentage of your total income on microstock before you became exclusive?

Bronze photographers (10):

7 answered: 80-100%
2 answered: 65-80%
1 answered: no respons

Silver photographers (3):

1 answered: 80-100%
1 answered: 65-80%
1 answered: 55-65%

Gold photographers (1)

1 answered: 80-100%

Question: What was your increase in earnings on microstock the 30 days after you became exclusive, compared to the 30 days before you became exclusive?

Bronze photographers (10)

2 answered: decrease in earnings
1 answered: 10-20%
4 answered: 20-30%
3 answered: 30-40%

Silver photographers (3)

1 answered: 10-20%
1 answered: 30-40%
1 answered: 50-60%

Gold photographers (1)

1 answered: 40-50%

Question: On which of the following agencies did you sell your photos before becoming exclusive at Istockphoto?

Bronze photographers (10)

5 answered: no response
1 answered: other
1 answered: Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Bigstockphoto
1 answered: Bigstockphoto
1 answered: Dreamstime
1 answered: Shutterstock

Silver photographers (3)

1 answered: no response
1 answered: shutterstock, dreamstime, fotolia, stockxpert, bigstockphoto
1 answered: shutterstock, dreamstime, fotolia, stockxpert, bigstockphoto, other

Gold photographers (1)

1 answered: Dreamstime

Question: How many images do you upload to Istockphoto on average per week?
 
Bronze photographers (10)

7 answered: less than 10 Images
2 answered: 10-20 Images
1 answered: 20-30 Images

Silver photographers (3)

2 answered: less than 10 Images
1 answered: 10-20 Images

Gold photographers (1)

1 answered: less than 10

Question: Are you happy with your decision of becoming exclusive?

Every photographer is happy with the decision, except 4 Bronze photographers, who do not know if they are happy or not.

(Was edited, discovered a mistake at the results on question where they sold the images before they got exclusive)
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 01:27 by Freezingpictures »

« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2007, 13:15 »
0
Yes, you would have to remove them. :(

oh well  that then.

« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2007, 13:27 »
0
And here part two:

The poll for non exclusive photographers:

Question: How high is the amount you earn on Istockphoto as a percentage of your total income on microstock?

Base photographers (28)

6 answered: less than 15%
11 answered: 15-25%
4 answered: 25-35%
4 answered: 35-45%
1 answered: 45-55%
1 answered: 55-65%
1 answered: 80-100%

Bronze photographers (41):

5 answered: less than 15%
5 answered: 15-25%
8 answered: 25-35%
11 answered: 35-45%
6 answered: 45-55%
2 answered: 55-65%
2 answered: 65-80%
2 answered: 80-100%

Silver photographers (19):

1 answered: less than 15%
2 answered: 15-25%
7 answered: 25-35%
6 answered: 35-45%
1 answered: 45-55%
1 answered: 55-65%
1 answered: 65-80%

Gold photographers (10)

1 answered: 15-25%
5 answered: 25-35%
3 answered: 35-45%
1 answered: 45-55%

Diamond photographers (2)

1 answered: less than 15%
1 answered: 35-45%


Question: On which agencies are you selling your images? (Options were: Dreamstime,Shutterstock, Fotolia, Stockxpert, Bigstockphoto)

Base photographers (28)

1 answered: no response
1 answered: SS
1 answered: SS,DT
1 answered: SS,FT
1 answered: DT,BS
1 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert
5 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
3 answered: SS,DT,FT,BS
14 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS

Bronze photographers (41):

2 answered: no response
1 answered: StockXpert
1 answered: SS,FT
1 answered: SS,DT,BS
1 answered: SS,DT,FT
3 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
6 answered: SS,DT,FT,BS
1 answered: DT,FT,StockXpert,BS
25 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS

Silver photographers (19):

1 answered: SS,DT
1 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert
2 answered: SS,DT,FT
1 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
2 answered: SS,DT,FT,BS
12 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS

Gold photographers (10)

2 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
8 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS

Diamond photographers (2)

2 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS

Question: How many images do you upload to Istockphoto every week on average?

Base photographers (28)

17 answered: less than 10
11 answered: 10-20

Bronze photographers (41):

29 answered: less than 10
12 answered: 10-20

Silver photographers (19):

14 answered: less than 10
3 answered: 10-20
1 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 40-50

Gold photographers (10)

4 answered: less than 10
2 answered: 10-20
3 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 30-40

Diamond photographers (2)

1 answered: 10-20
1 answered: 20-30


Question: Would you upload more if you were not restricted by the upload limit? If yes, how many would you upload on average per week?

Base photographers (28)

14 answered: No
8 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 30-40
3 answered: 40-50
1 answered: 50-75
1 answered: 150-200

Bronze photographers (41):

30 answered: No
4 answered: 20-30
5 answered: 30-40
3 answered: 40-50
1 answered: 50-75
1 answered: 100-150

Silver photographers (19):

12 answered: No
2 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 40-50
1 answered: 50-75

Gold photographers (10)

8 answered: No
1 answered: 30-40
1 answered: 50-75

Diamond photographers (2)

1 answered: No
1 answered: 30-40

Question: Would you consider going exclusively to Istockphoto? If yes, at which canister level?

Base photographers (28)

12 answered: No never!
12 answered: I do not know
2 answered: Yes, Bronze
1 answered: Yes, Gold
1 answered: Yes, Diamond

Bronze photographers (41):

23 answered: No never!
7 answered: I do not know
4 answered: Yes, Silver
3 answered: Yes, Gold
3 answered: Yes, Diamond
1 answered: Yes, Black Diamond

Silver photographers (19):

8 answered: No never!
5 answered: I do not know
2 answered: Yes, Gold
4 answered: Yes, Diamond

Gold photographers (10)

4 answered: No never!
2 answered: I do not know
3 answered: Yes, Diamond
1 answered: Yes, Black Diamond

Diamond photographers (2)

1 answered: No never
1 answered: I do not know

Probably I will write an analysis on my website some day, right know I am too busy for that..

« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2007, 20:22 »
0
Freezing..    Thank you! Interesting data.  Appreciate your time and effort!
 8)-tom

vicu

« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2007, 23:48 »
0
What I found most interesting were the responses to the upload limits, especially how the non-exclusives with the lower canister levels would upload many many more photos than those in the higher levels if given the opportunity. It also was interesting that it appears many exclusives are not taking advantage of their higher upload limits to slam the queue with a bunch of mediocre crap (as is often implied here)... maybe just a little mediocre crap. ;)

Thanks for the data. Don't know what it means really, but it is interesting. I am curious whether there were any controls to ensure one person did not submit more than one survey (such as both exclusive and non-exclusive, in an attempt to skew results). I'm not familiar with the restrictions of survey monkey.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 23:50 by vicu »

« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2007, 01:23 »
0
One person could only submit once to one poll, they somehow managed this with the IP address. But yes, a person could submit to both exclusive and non-exclusive. And there were two or three really unusual votes in the non-exclusive part. But so many votes were taken in the non exclusive poll, I doubt it overall made a big difference.

Sorry, I had to edit the exclusive poll results at the question where the photographers sold their images before they became exclusive. I just discovered the mistake looking again at the results.
 There is one exclusive photographer who joined exclusivity programm when he was Bronze and sold his images on 4 other agencies before. You cannot read this data in what I provided here, but exactly this photographer is one of the two photographers who reported a decrease in earnings after he went exclusive.

Although the poll was not taken by too many exclusive photographers, my impression out of this is, that it generally is not worthy regarding the earnings if you get exclusive at the Bronze level.
There might be exceptions. If you are one of the few Bronze photographers who earns 65-80% upwards on Istockphoto, you might increase your earnings by turning exclusive.
Another photographer who turned exclusive at the Bronze level had 65-80% of his total income on Istockphoto before he joined the exclusivity program. His total earnings increased  30-40% after he became exclusive.
However the other photographer allready mentioned who sold his images at 4 other agencies and had a decrease of total earnings, reported also that before he became exclusive, istock earned him 65-80% of his total income.

All the other photographers who turned exclusive at the Bronze level and had 80-100% of their income allready before they became exclusive, reported an increase of earnings except one. Coincidentely, all those photographers have been just on one or none of the big 6 microstock agency.

Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 02:00 by Freezingpictures »

« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2007, 04:38 »
0
thanks....it was an interesting poll  ;)

« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2007, 14:57 »
0
Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.
I don't think your sample size was big enough to draw a conclusion that it is not worth it.

« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2007, 16:02 »
0
Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.
I don't think your sample size was big enough to draw a conclusion that it is not worth it.

I think what he is saying  is     of those non-exclusives that took the poll, that was the feeling,  that it is not worth it..      I don't think he was implying all photographers in general...
       I'm not sure how IS works, but on most other sites,  you just make the decision and click the box and become exclusive.  It's that simple.  The point is, why are so many not clicking that box?  Because, they don't think it's worth it..
      At this stage in my life... I'd lose money being exclusive anywhere. I'm sure there are advantages being exclusive too. It's sure a lot less work uploading to one site instead of a couple dozen.
      But to each his own.. everyone has to make their own decision about that matter.
        peace. 8)-tom
 

« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2007, 16:25 »
0
No I wasn't implying for all photographers who are at the bronze level. Maybe conclusion was not the right word. Impression might be better. I just wanted to summarize it.

« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2007, 00:00 »
0
To me exclusivity begins to make (economic) sense once you hit the diamond level, when you receive double the commission you'd normally get.

If IS accounted for 40% of your pre-exclusivity income, you'd then only be taking an immediate 20% hit for 'taking the leap'. You'd have to make up for this fairly quickly by taking advantage of your new 180 images/week unlimited upload limit.

« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2007, 00:35 »
0
And then they need to be more diverse than another 180 aircraft shots!
« Last Edit: June 22, 2007, 00:39 by thesentinel »

« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2007, 08:54 »
0
And then they need to be more diverse than another 180 aircraft shots!
Yes, Sharply definitely has the best aircraft images - but at some point won't he just be competing with himself?  Not sure how to make sense out of this thought... in Sharply's case, with his "niche" - if Istock only sells 100 aircraft shots a day he would sell 100 photos and no more.... wouldn't going exclusive be a negative thing?  There would only be so many aircraft travel sales at one site - wouldn't he have more sales by spreading his folio across more sites? 

Sharply - my thoughts are meant to be a compliment to your quality of work because I sincerely think it's fabulous.  But, I'm sure you do have more than aircraft in your folio -  haven't browsed in a while.

« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2007, 11:58 »
0
Ok, guys, sorry for delay, but finally I wrote the article about iStock exclusivitiy, based on this survey. Check out the lower part of the article, there I write about earnings, which might be the most interesting part. Enjoy reading:

http://www.freezingpictures.com/istockphotoexclusivity

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2007, 13:46 »
0
Very interesting numbers and one of the prime reasons I opted not to go exclusive, at least for now.  iStock is my best earning site, month-to-month.  Not in total number of images sold, but in total dollars earned.  SS is the best for total number of images, but trails IS dollar wise.

If IS would change their rules to allow images not accepted to be submitted or used elsewhere, I might consider going exclusive.  But locking in all images, whether they want them or not is completely irrational and I won't even consider the option so long as that rule remains.  Interestingly, images that are not accepted on IS sell very well elsewhere.  Thus the concern about foregoing income from images not accepted by IS.

« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2007, 14:10 »
0
When I look at successful photographers at iStock, I see most of them already exclusive.  And these exclusives have huge download numbers.  I suspect that exclusives get more than just an increase in commission - it seems that sales improve dramatically (at least for some).

However my main concern is the 'all eggs in one basket' problem.  Of course this hasn't been a problem for Lise or Hidesy or Sean Locke, all of whom have flourished there.  Nonetheless, the technical difficulties seen over the last few weeks must have worried some exclusives.  What if IS has a serious problem like Fotolia with V2?  I recall Phildate's comments about his huge loss of income from Fotolia.

It's a difficult choice.  On the one hand it might be a very successful and satisfying move.  On the other hand it could be equivalent to having one's entire life savings in Enron stock.....

« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2007, 16:32 »
0
w7lwi,

I don't find it interesting to be exclusive to any site (I like the option of offering exclusive images in some of them though).  But I understand that once someone is "exclusive" this clearly means that he is not elsewhere, even with different images, so I wouldn't say this rule is "irrational".  Remember this is about exclusive photographers not exclusive photographies.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2007, 16:50 »
0
Thanks for the work, Freezing!  Great article and very interesting.

I'm still not sure about going exclusive (Hatman's reference to Enron hits close to home for me).  One advantage I see is that the time saved in uploading to all the other sites can be spent shooting more pictures, thus increasing your portfolio more quickly and possibly your earnings as well.  Maybe, I guess.  But being "chained" to one site just isn't my cup of tea right now.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2007, 17:25 »
0
Exactly my point.  I don't mind having exclusive images, even to the point of giving someone the first right of refusal; but, I do object to being told what I can do with those images when that same someone tells me they don't want that particular work.  From a purely business standpoint, for the agency to have this clause makes a limited amount of sense ... "we have photographer XYZ exclusive to us for all his work."  Nice advertising touch.  And having someone like Lise or Sean "in your pocket" is a definite plus.  However, from most photographer's perspectives it is nonsense unless he/she makes as much or more than they would by submitting to multiple agencies.  There is usually no economic advantage.  In fact the numbers from Freezingpictures indicate that for the vast majority it is a definite disadvantage.  Is there an ego boost to being exclusive, probably.  But that won't buy many groceries at the store.  Most of us are in this for the money and each must review their actions in relation to their own bottom line.  With a few noteable exceptions, exclusivity is 100 percent advantage to the agency and minimal, if at all, to the photographer.  Thus the rule would normally be viewed as irrational from the photographer's perspective, but not necessarily so for the agency (IS).

An interesting side thought.  Do you think there would be any change in the review process and acceptance criteria under an exclusive, first right of refusal scenario?  Knowing that if an image was refused, it would likely end up on a competitor's site (assuming it was a half way decent image to begin with).  In a perfect world, this should make no difference.  But people being people, would it?  I once worked for a company that was so hung up on beating their competition, that they deliberately broke Federal law just to keep a competitor from getting a contract.  And nothing simple like under the table payoffs.  International commerce with banned terrorist nations.  Major third and fourth party transactions to hide the illegal actions.  Didn't work and the Fed's caught them.  Fines in the millions and potential jail time for the executives who were involved.  Point is, people will sometimes do stupid things just to limit competition.  Just a hypothetical question.  Would it make a difference?

« Reply #48 on: September 29, 2007, 18:20 »
0
Yuri Arcur wrote the following on his website (I can't post a direct link to this quote but his website is here www.arcurs.com).

In one year I sell around 400,000 individual licenses for the use of my pictures, which is equal to the amount that my biggest istock competitor has had in her entire lifetime.

I don't know when that was last updated, but Lise now has 5176 photos on IS and 583770 sales.

Yuri has over 2000 on IS, but over 5000 on DT.  Difficult to compare the bottom line, but - somewhat similar size portfolio aside from the fact that he must suffer from the upload restrictions on Istock.  I'm grabbing a number here - if he averages about 60 cents per sale, Yuri would make $240,000 per year and I read recently that Lise makes $120,000.  I think that recent Times article said "over 100,000."

It's not very scientific, but I'm guessing that Yuri makes twice as much as Lise.

Edited:  I didn't mention that Lise is exclusive at IS, but I think everyone knows that.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2007, 21:34 by Pixart »

« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2007, 20:14 »
0
My goodness, what a bragger.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3793 Views
Last post November 25, 2006, 10:26
by kosmikkreeper
13 Replies
13793 Views
Last post February 26, 2008, 07:07
by nickp37
20 Replies
5697 Views
Last post June 01, 2008, 18:02
by DanP68
Istock sales (+) (-) (=) -Poll-

Started by vonkara « 1 2 ... 6 7 » iStockPhoto.com

156 Replies
27482 Views
Last post December 30, 2008, 21:31
by dbvirago
177 Replies
31899 Views
Last post September 14, 2010, 22:28
by KB

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors