Author Topic: Where's the money? Exclusive or independent? (Read 12608 times)

shank_ali · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2009, 17:18 »

Istock are asking the buyers to use 18 credits for an XL and 12 credits for a Large now.The buyers are doing just that on the evidence of my small regular sales this year.1-XL and 3-Large sales today netted me $18.60.Which other micro site offers that much to a contributor..

crazychristina · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2009, 00:07 »

Quote from: michealo on January 20, 2009, 07:09

This is the wrong question, its not being exclusive or non exclusive that makes a difference its being good at what you do ...

I note that on the istock discussion forum there's a contributor that went exclusive two days ago and has had a 300% increase in downloads. Must have had some kind of photographic epiphany.

helix7 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2009, 00:33 »

Quote from: michealo on January 20, 2009, 07:09

This is the wrong question, its not being exclusive or non exclusive that makes a difference its being good at what you do ...

Well sure, if you're good, you're good, and you'll do fine either way. But that doesn't invalidate the question of whether someone can do better as an independent artist or as an exclusive artist. I'd like to say that I'm a good artist, and I could just go exclusive and make my life much easier by uploading to just one site. But the fact is (for me at least) that I'd make a hell of a lot less as an exclusive artist, so the question is certainly worth asking.

It's kind of scary that anyone would have that kind of attitude about this topic. Sure it's probably nice to be able to just say "I'm good, and I'm sure I'll make good money no matter which option I choose," but to totally ignore the possibility that you might be better off one way or the other is just crazy.

bittersweet · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2009, 01:30 »

Quote from: averil on January 21, 2009, 00:07

Quote from: michealo on January 20, 2009, 07:09
This is the wrong question, its not being exclusive or non exclusive that makes a difference its being good at what you do ...
I note that on the istock discussion forum there's a contributor that went exclusive two days ago and has had a 300% increase in downloads. Must have had some kind of photographic epiphany.

Yeah I saw that. Since according to the contributor charts, he's averaging 1.03 downloads per day, that percentage sounds a bit more impressive than it actually is.

crazychristina · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2009, 01:35 »

He's doing a lot better than I am then - just had my third dl for the month on istock.

shank_ali · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2009, 02:07 »

Quote from: averil on January 21, 2009, 01:35

He's doing a lot better than I am then - just had my third dl for the month on istock.

That sucks, i had 9 sales yesterday on istock which is the BDE this year which netted me $24.
I have said it before if microstock makes up a large portoin of your income i would stay independant to get maximum exposure for your work.If your like me though and you work full time and shoot only in your leisure time istockphoto ticks all my boxes and you can earn some regular extra income as an exclusive.

crazychristina · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2009, 05:34 »

It'l be a year before I even have the option to go exclusive. I've stopped uploading - what is accepted doesn't sell there anyway.

michealo · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:18 »

Quote

It's kind of scary that anyone would have that kind of attitude about this topic. Sure it's probably nice to be able to just say "I'm good, and I'm sure I'll make good money no matter which option I choose," but to totally ignore the possibility that you might be better off one way or the other is just crazy.

I think for most people there is more to be gained by improving their craft than in the difference between exclusivity at IS and contributing to a number of sites.

As an analogy if you make baked beans, its better to improve the quality of your product than to worry about distribution, and face it stock imagery is becoming increasingly commoditised

Personally I think exclusivity at IS is better for me in the long term but I know many people (Leaf included) that feel the independent route is better.

disorderly · « **Reply #33 on:** January 21, 2009, 10:28 »

I believe being independent has had an impact on my ability to grow as a photographer. Since I started submitting, I've used image acceptance and sales results as guides to how I'm doing. Being at multiple agencies helps considerably; it reduces the effect of house styles and arbitrary reviewers on my sense of what's good and what's stockworthy. Just because particular agencies (I'm lookin' at you, Fotolia!) think some of my work is crap doesn't make it so, and having other agencies decide differently and customers voting with their dollars helps me understand where I'm doing it right and wrong.

And at least for me, the difference in income between exclusive and independent is significant. iStock has never been more than 40% of my monthly take; this month it's 14%. That's money and validation I'm not willing to give up. Granted, some of that may be due to the huge backlog of images I can't upload to iStock yet due to their laughable weekly quota. And granted, there would likely be at least some revenue boost just for leasing my soul to exclusivity. But I don't believe it would be worth what I'd lose.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Where's the money? Exclusive or independent? (Read 12608 times)

shank_ali

crazychristina

helix7

bittersweet

crazychristina

shank_ali

crazychristina

michealo

disorderly

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors