Author Topic: Planning on going exclusive at Dt (Read 23650 times)

FD · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2010, 13:50 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 14, 2010, 11:15

This thread:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_22870
is a good example of what to expect if one should dare to criticize DT.

Nah, Rolmat was just pissed off that Portugal lost the cup.

Xalanx · « **Reply #26 on:** July 14, 2010, 13:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 14, 2010, 13:07

Sorry for jumping in with a differing opinion and upsetting your b*tchfest

No worries, carry on - nobody's upset. You have to admit it's a lot more funnier than b!tching about anecdotal buyers leaving IS for... DT?

cathyslife · « **Reply #27 on:** July 14, 2010, 14:04 »

Quote from: Xalanx on July 14, 2010, 13:56

Quote from: lisafx on July 14, 2010, 13:07
Sorry for jumping in with a differing opinion and upsetting your b*tchfest

No worries, carry on - nobody's upset. You have to admit it's a lot more funnier than b!tching about anecdotal buyers leaving IS for... DT?

But then everyone who posts here, including you, only has anecdotal evidence...no?

As long as I am making money at DT it doesn't matter to me if you want to call me a hobbyist, cheerleader or unprofessional. I am laughing all the way to the bank.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #28 on:** July 14, 2010, 14:30 »

I've had a couple of payouts too. I had expected more. Perhaps a lesson in diplomacy would strengthen my standing?

Just kidding, RolMat; that was sarcasm.

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** July 14, 2010, 15:29 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 14, 2010, 14:04

As long as I am making money at DT it doesn't matter to me if you want to call me a hobbyist, cheerleader or unprofessional. I am laughing all the way to the bank.

^^ Well said. This about sums it up

Megastock · « **Reply #30 on:** July 19, 2010, 10:36 »

Quote from: Perry on July 12, 2010, 08:52

Why . would anyone want to go exclusive with DT? You could make many times more money by submitting to all the big 4 sites and maybe to some middle tier sites as well.

There just isn't one answer (site) for everyone's portfolio. Why wouldn't you go exclusive with one site if they sold your portfolio better than anyone else? I see a lot of hobbyists who submit to a lot of sites and they don't seem to do any better than me submitting to one site (DT), whether talking monthly revenue or revenue per image... Since there are no exactly equivalent workflows or portfolios the best you can do is make a decision based on your own experience with all the sites.

As a hobbyist I enjoy the simplicity of submitting to a single agency - and the dollars they put in my bank account! I also like that when I do a search on DT I can find my own images in the first page of results without having to check 'exclusive'.

disorderly · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2010, 11:25 »

Quote from: Megastock on July 19, 2010, 10:36

Why wouldn't you go exclusive with one site if they sold your portfolio better than anyone else?

First, they would have to sell my portfolio better than everyone else, not anyone else. They'd have to generate more than all the others combined, which no one agency does. Shutterstock's my top earner, and for the past year they're less than 30% of my total. So even if they offered to double my earnings per image, I'd still be giving away money.

There's a second reason, and that's the way agencies' exclusivity programs put restrictions on what I can do beyond what I sell. Some claim rights to images they rejected; others claim rights to everything I shoot, telling me I can't give away images if I want. Sorry, but unless an agency wants to restrict themselves to just carrying my product, why should I restrict myself to their channel?

And then there's a third, which is that an agency that plays fair now can change in the future. I've seen too many players rejigger the rules to their benefit and our disadvantage. (Fotolia, I'm looking at you.) Maybe they'll fall on hard times and decide that the best way to survive is to screw their suppliers. Maybe they'll get acquired, and their new owners won't be as fair and honorable. Whatever might happen, I prefer to keep my options open.

I can imagine an offer I'd find it hard to refuse. But no one's making anything close to it, so I'll stay independent and enjoy the freedom and the extra income it provides.

FD · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2010, 11:47 »

Quote from: Megastock on July 19, 2010, 10:36

I also like that when I do a search on DT I can find my own images in the first page of results without having to check 'exclusive'.

Yes that's very obvious. There are a few very loud exclusives on DT with many sales, and if you go have a look at their portfolio, the images are very mediocre.

cathyslife · « **Reply #33 on:** July 19, 2010, 12:00 »

Quote from: disorderly on July 19, 2010, 11:25

Quote from: Megastock on July 19, 2010, 10:36
Why wouldn't you go exclusive with one site if they sold your portfolio better than anyone else?

First, they would have to sell my portfolio better than everyone else, not anyone else. They'd have to generate more than all the others combined, which no one agency does. Shutterstock's my top earner, and for the past year they're less than 30% of my total. So even if they offered to double my earnings per image, I'd still be giving away money.

There's a second reason, and that's the way agencies' exclusivity programs put restrictions on what I can do beyond what I sell. Some claim rights to images they rejected; others claim rights to everything I shoot, telling me I can't give away images if I want. Sorry, but unless an agency wants to restrict themselves to just carrying my product, why should I restrict myself to their channel?

And then there's a third, which is that an agency that plays fair now can change in the future. I've seen too many players rejigger the rules to their benefit and our disadvantage. (Fotolia, I'm looking at you.) Maybe they'll fall on hard times and decide that the best way to survive is to screw their suppliers. Maybe they'll get acquired, and their new owners won't be as fair and honorable. Whatever might happen, I prefer to keep my options open.

I can imagine an offer I'd find it hard to refuse. But no one's making anything close to it, so I'll stay independent and enjoy the freedom and the extra income it provides.

I totally agree with all three points. You summed it up nicely.

FD · « **Reply #34 on:** July 19, 2010, 12:21 »

Quote from: disorderly on July 19, 2010, 11:25

There's a second reason, and that's the way agencies' exclusivity programs put restrictions on what I can do beyond what I sell. Some claim rights to images they rejected; others claim rights to everything I shoot, telling me I can't give away images if I want.

I can't imagine how they dare to forbid selling the images they rejected. I have for instance loads of editorial that won't fly on DT. Perhaps on RM, but also that is forbidden by DT. Claiming all my non-stock worthy (technical flaws, fine at 800px) production on Flickr is pure serfdom.
I posted that (in May I think) on the DT forum and lo and belo, my current July earnings are just 18.89$, compared to 67$ (full month) July 2009. They also fell from position #2 to #5, between the peanuts sites like 123RF.

As a small scale buyer though, DT is still great. IMHO they have the fastest search engine around, at least for me. I'm always on ranked by downloads by the way, to be fast. The subscription pack is a great deal! Max sizes for virtually nothing, if you don't wander into level 4 or 5.

alias · « **Reply #35 on:** July 19, 2010, 13:59 »

Microstock history question: Was DT a contributor at IS about the time that the DT site started ? Or was that someone different ?

I might have asked that before. I think I used to know the answer.

RT · « **Reply #36 on:** July 19, 2010, 14:44 »

Quote from: alias on July 19, 2010, 13:59

Microstock history question: Was DT a contributor at IS about the time that the DT site started ? Or was that someone different ?

I might have asked that before. I think I used to know the answer.

Don't know about DT but the guy that started SS used to be a contributor at iS

travelstock · « **Reply #37 on:** July 20, 2010, 13:44 »

Well I had my last sale on DT today, half way through removing my images to go exclusive elsewhere:

1250 credits (2006) $625.00 maximum (SR-EL)

Thought about stopping the script disabling my files... but didn't.

At least I'm not so unhappy about the wait I've had over the last few months now! Still - its a little strange that a buyer would have that many credits sitting around from 2006...

hoi ha · « **Reply #38 on:** July 20, 2010, 19:45 »

Quote from: Xalanx on July 14, 2010, 12:35

Quote from: lisafx on July 14, 2010, 08:13
Unlike Istock, for example, where there are so many glitches anytime an upgrade is done, that buyers report giving up and going to other sites to buy. Quite a few end up at good old reliable DT

Can you back up your words about buyers leaving IS for DT by some real facts? And I highly doubt that IS is in any way comparable to DT. Bear in mind that you're one of the few that do really good at DT, and one of the much fewer that do better at DT than at IS.
Reliable DT - c'mon you HAVE to be kidding. Try again their search engine and have a good laugh.

That would be us - my company left istock over a year ago and now buy exclusively from DT despite having used IS for many years - we spend several hundred a month on images FWIW.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #39 on:** July 20, 2010, 20:57 »

Quote from: hoi ha on July 20, 2010, 19:45

Quote from: Xalanx on July 14, 2010, 12:35
Quote from: lisafx on July 14, 2010, 08:13
Unlike Istock, for example, where there are so many glitches anytime an upgrade is done, that buyers report giving up and going to other sites to buy. Quite a few end up at good old reliable DT

Can you back up your words about buyers leaving IS for DT by some real facts? And I highly doubt that IS is in any way comparable to DT. Bear in mind that you're one of the few that do really good at DT, and one of the much fewer that do better at DT than at IS.
Reliable DT - c'mon you HAVE to be kidding. Try again their search engine and have a good laugh.

That would be us - my company left istock over a year ago and now buy exclusively from DT despite having used IS for many years - we spend several hundred a month on images FWIW.

@hoi ho: What influenced your decision most? Why did you choose DT over Shutterstock or even 123rf? Are not the same images available at most of the sites?
Was it more about price? Is the search engine really better? Is it also better than SS or 123?

I've always wanted to ask these things but this is really the first opportunity ... without straying too far off topic.

Just being curious ... and trying to reason like a buyer.

PS: Do you ever use Cutcaster?

hoi ha · « **Reply #40 on:** July 20, 2010, 21:21 »

@WarrenPrice - Price was a pretty big factor but also we were treated badly by support a couple times at IS - first it took them days to get back to us when we had download issues (which happened from time to time) and then second they were often simply rude in heir response. The last straw sort of all happened at once - a price rise combined with a really rude and sarcastic response from their support to some problem we had - to be honest now I don't remember exactly what the issue was I just remember being flabbergasted at the response. So we looked around at options and went with DT which seemed to have the best value for money combined with the largest selection of images. The biggest downside to DT is that they do lack choice on the illustration side - IS is far far superior on the vector side of things so we do buy the occasional vector from IS when we need to. Other than that though we almost always find what we need at DT.

We never seriously looked at SS or any other agency - SS's search is terrible - full of spam - and while we did look at Thinkstock a few months back but don't like their search engine at all and their images just seem kind of old and tired TBH. And no, cutcaster never crossed our mind ... sorry about that.

I would like to add though that I am speaking here as a buyer and not a seller - outside of work I do contribute to micro to be sure and make a couple hundred or so a month doing it - IS is easily my top agency in terms of sales - I like DT in terms of the web site and how they treat their contributors (by and large) - but IS is my best seller and if I had to go exclusive with one agency it would be IS. So my buyer hat and contributor hat are different.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #41 on:** July 20, 2010, 22:56 »

I often find most agencies attitudes infuriating. I have complained mostly, I guess, about DT and FT. At least I have kept my portfolio active and am building at DT. Their processing of uploads, however, is just unreal. I upload image to DT, 123, SS, and BS all at the same time. All except DT have processed them. They are selling already at SS and DT has them still setting in queue ... for another estimated 95 hours. Are they not losing money by being so slow?

Maybe my complaining gets me special attention?

ap · « **Reply #42 on:** July 21, 2010, 00:24 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 20, 2010, 22:56

Maybe my complaining gets me special attention?

only if you're anonymous.

RolMat · « **Reply #43 on:** July 21, 2010, 02:02 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 14, 2010, 13:50

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 14, 2010, 11:15
This thread:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_22870
is a good example of what to expect if one should dare to criticize DT.

Nah, Rolmat was just pissed off that Portugal lost the cup.

Hah! Not really, Hugo :-)
But we still have high hopes:

"Thanks Spain for getting the World Cup for Portugal. It turns out that according to the Tordesilhas Treaty signed in 1494, everything conquered by Spain east of 46 degree meridian, is indeed property of Portugal. So, can you please fedex the Cup now to Portugal? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

FD · « **Reply #44 on:** July 21, 2010, 04:59 »

Quote from: RolMat on July 21, 2010, 02:02

"Thanks Spain for getting the World Cup for Portugal. It turns out that according to the Tordesilhas Treaty signed in 1494, everything conquered by Spain east of 46 degree meridian, is indeed property of Portugal.

During our (the 17 provinces of the Lower Countries) rebellion against Philips II of Spain, Philips proclaimed a collective death penalty against the northern part (now The Netherlands). The thing seems to have never been revoked. The Spanish were legally entitled to kill all the Dutch on the field. That's why they won the cup: the Dutch were too intimidated. Good try with your old treaties

lisafx · « **Reply #45 on:** July 21, 2010, 10:52 »

Quote from: hoi ha on July 20, 2010, 19:45

That would be us - my company left istock over a year ago and now buy exclusively from DT despite having used IS for many years - we spend several hundred a month on images FWIW.

Thanks for posting Hoi Ha. It really is helpful to hear the buyer's perspective, and one we don't often get around here (except secondhand).

I have to say I am shocked that you had several rude run-ins with Istock support. I thought their support department was one of the strongest things about them.

And just to set the record straight for Xalanx, I never said I sell MORE on DT than IS. As I report every month, Istock is my top selling agency. Which is why it concerns me when buyers are leaving and when my sales there are nearly halved like they have been this month.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #46 on:** July 21, 2010, 11:03 »

Quote from: RT on July 19, 2010, 14:44

Quote from: alias on July 19, 2010, 13:59
Microstock history question: Was DT a contributor at IS about the time that the DT site started ? Or was that someone different ?

I might have asked that before. I think I used to know the answer.

Don't know about DT but the guy that started SS used to be a contributor at iS

dreamstime used to be a user on iStock before leaving (or getting booted) to start his own place, I believe. Can't find anything on google right now though.

thaimacky · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2010, 03:35 »

Quote from: hoi ha on July 20, 2010, 21:21

...DT which seemed to have the best value for money combined with the largest selection of images...

i am also buying from DT coz of above reasons, good search engine and...hmmm...it just feels right somehow.

as a contributor DT is my number 3 head-to-head with FT but far, far away from SS and IS (which is getting closer to SS every month). exclusivity is also no option for me though. disorderly hit the nail on the head:

Quote from: disorderly on July 19, 2010, 11:25

First, they would have to sell my portfolio better than everyone else, not anyone else. They'd have to generate more than all the others combined, which no one agency does. Shutterstock's my top earner, and for the past year they're less than 30% of my total. So even if they offered to double my earnings per image, I'd still be giving away money.

There's a second reason, and that's the way agencies' exclusivity programs put restrictions on what I can do beyond what I sell. Some claim rights to images they rejected; others claim rights to everything I shoot, telling me I can't give away images if I want. Sorry, but unless an agency wants to restrict themselves to just carrying my product, why should I restrict myself to their channel?

And then there's a third, which is that an agency that plays fair now can change in the future. I've seen too many players rejigger the rules to their benefit and our disadvantage. (Fotolia, I'm looking at you.) Maybe they'll fall on hard times and decide that the best way to survive is to screw their suppliers. Maybe they'll get acquired, and their new owners won't be as fair and honorable. Whatever might happen, I prefer to keep my options open.

I can imagine an offer I'd find it hard to refuse. But no one's making anything close to it, so I'll stay independent and enjoy the freedom and the extra income it provides.

FD · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2010, 10:23 »

I'm currently building my Free Galleries with old shots on old cams that would never pass QC on any agency nowadays. Of course my download pages will be stuffed with Google Ads and Adsense. Those images are 2-3K, often a bit soft and certainly noisy. But they look fine at 600 or 800 px web resolution.

Under any exclusivity contract, I would not be allowed to post them for download, not on my site and certainly not on Flickr. I can't live with that.

Out of the DT exclusivity agreement:

Quote

Exclusive contributors may, however, sell their other artwork on a photographer-to-client basis.

Does that mean you can offer your free images on your own site?

gaja · « **Reply #49 on:** July 28, 2010, 10:26 »

You can't use any other distributor (including Flickr, Zazzle, Alamy etc), but you can give them away from your own web page.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Planning on going exclusive at Dt (Read 23650 times)

FD

Xalanx

cathyslife

WarrenPrice

lisafx

Megastock

disorderly

FD

cathyslife

FD

alias

RT

travelstock

hoi ha

WarrenPrice

hoi ha

WarrenPrice

ap

RolMat

FD

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

thaimacky

FD

gaja

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors