Author Topic: Planning on going exclusive at Dt (Read 21345 times)

Magnum · « **on:** July 12, 2010, 04:32 »

Not!

I read a blog today at Dt " What do you like most about DREAMSTIME? ". People are saluting this site, and many seems to be exclusive.

Nothing against Dt at all exept lack of sales, but what I read in the blog is beyond my understanding. Exclusive at Dt?

Can anyone please shed some light on this mystery? I´d cut my earnings 20 times if I dropped the rest

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:07 »

Quote from: Magnum on July 12, 2010, 04:32

Can anyone please shed some light on this mystery? I´d cut my earnings 20 times if I dropped the rest

From DT's policies I get the impression that they are becoming the home of the hobbyist microstocker, those doing it largely for fun and verification of their photography/art, rather than those trying to earn a living. It is still amazing that some people do sign up for exclusivity with them though!

Klauts · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:34 »

Quote from: Magnum on July 12, 2010, 04:32

Can anyone please shed some light on this mystery? I´d cut my earnings 20 times if I dropped the rest

Same here. You gave me quite a shock when I read the title lol.
Can't understand it either. Not to mention that, if I'm not mistaken, I recall that if you're exclusive with DT you can't even sell RM with other agencies.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:49 »

I've often wondered that myself, I guess not everyone is interested in getting the highest financial return for their photos, or maybe they feel the standards are too high on the higher earning sites like iS or FT, I keep having to remind myself that some people like doing this just for the 'fun' side of things.

vonkara · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:52 »

This blog post you talk about have been made by a contributor with 20 overall sales

http://blog.dreamstime.com/2010/07/06/what-do-you-like-most-about-dreamstime-_art32831

Do not base your choice on this

ibogdan · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:54 »

Dreamstime seems to be the most user friendly agency and I think that's a big + for beginners. And the 0.2$ reward for each accepted image is not to neglect. I also have a referral that gets very excited about the 0.2$ per accepted photo he gets. If I'd go exclusive someday, I would surely go to Istock!

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2010, 06:11 »

in my opinion, the only advantage of esclusivity is a simpler workflow

in terms of earnings, I doubt one can be profitable going esclusive with any site (not even IS)

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2010, 06:16 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on July 12, 2010, 06:11

in my opinion, the only advantage of esclusivity is a simpler workflow

in terms of earnings, I doubt one can be profitable going esclusive with any site (not even IS)

I agree. At one point I thought about going exclusive with IS, but I am glad today that I did not.

Klauts · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2010, 08:39 »

Still, Exclusivity at IS at least offers substantial benefits and probably, for some contributors, higher earnings or at least comparable.

Perry · « **Reply #9 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.

If I had to go exclusive with one site, that would be iStock.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2010, 10:23 »

Yeah 2 reasons to go exclusive on Dt, to sell your images without jumping around all over the place and the second because you love the site. I think Dt sends majic messages via the internet and the mentally weak become spell bound. They'll probably come out of it in a few years time being unable to comprehend how it is possible to love a site. They'll immediately want to come out of being exclusive, but they'll have 6 months to wait, by which time dt will hypnotize them again and they'll go back to being exclusive.

Seriously though, I can't understand how a photographer can contemplate never being allowed to sell his/her images. You can't sell your images which you want to keep as RM, you can't sell rejected dt images. Talk about being shackled.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2010, 10:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 12, 2010, 05:07

Quote from: Magnum on July 12, 2010, 04:32
Can anyone please shed some light on this mystery? I´d cut my earnings 20 times if I dropped the rest

From DT's policies I get the impression that they are becoming the home of the hobbyist microstocker, those doing it largely for fun and verification of their photography/art, rather than those trying to earn a living. It is still amazing that some people do sign up for exclusivity with them though!

Truly. Read the blog posts at the top of MSG from DT:
http://blog.dreamstime.com/2010/07/09/what-type-of-images-are-selling_art32854
http://blog.dreamstime.com/2010/07/11/_art32865

gaja · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2010, 11:35 »

@Komar: It took less than one month for me to quit the exclusivity status, not 6.

Why I was exclusive? I didn't know the back from the front of the camera when I started, and the staff of DT were very helpful during my learning process. Also, they "felt" safe and reliable. I was happy as an exclusive then, I'm happy as an independent now. But I'll never be more than a hobbyist.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2010, 11:53 »

Quote from: gaja on July 12, 2010, 11:35

@Komar: It took less than one month for me to quit the exclusivity status, not 6.

Why I was exclusive? I didn't know the back from the front of the camera when I started, and the staff of DT were very helpful during my learning process. Also, they "felt" safe and reliable. I was happy as an exclusive then, I'm happy as an independent now. But I'll never be more than a hobbyist.

Yeah that's fair enough I guess, I suppose as a learning process it's fine. I just question the ones who stay exclusive for the love of Dt and there seems to be many. To stay exclusive and not being allowed to sell anything else anywhere else, blimey! Hats off to dt for managing to get as many exclusives as they do.

Oh and I just realised I was confusing the 6 month thing with the 6 month rule on deleting images.

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2010, 19:03 »

DT exclusivity means a larger commission. On the other hand, when I learned not long ago they require full exclusivity, not even letting RM like other sites do, I was very shocked. And even more shocked when they suggested these RM images could be sold as editorial - they really miss the point.

Exclusivity at FT has the advantage of setting higher prices, with exclusives reporting a higher RPD and higher total earnings. Plus, you can opt out from subs.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2010, 12:40 »

I keep seeing these "blog" posts from DT at the top of MSG. It appears people are mistaking their blogs for a forum post, or maybe it's just a cry for attention. "Look at me! X uploads" "Check out my new downloads" etc. Mostly nonsense.

"It is a great pleasure that i have 198 sales now. ... Now ,i will share some of my little experience to you. ... Firstly,i think a good camera is needed. I know some blogger in DT saying camera is not important."

http://blog.dreamstime.com/

Eireann · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2010, 13:30 »

Well, I think it's time for a different opinion.
I'm a die hard independent, but if I ever grow strong enough to go exclusive with one site, it will be Dreamstime.
No question about it.
I might be mentally weak (up for debate), and I'm definitely not a professional. I'm not even a photographer.
I'm a hobbyist and from time to time, when and if things go the right way, I like to cheer Dreamstime on. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.
So far I seem to fit the profile to a 'T', 'Dreamstime Exclusive' - hobbyist, cheerleader and mentally weak

But then again, there are many hobbyists and cheerleaders at IStock as well. Some have even reached gold and above.

I like Dreamstime for many reasons, (including the blogs and the forums), but let's have a look at the numbers. Numbers don't have opinions and don't lie.
- acceptance rate at DT - 96 %
- acceptance rate at IS - 85 %
- sales at DT - 127
- sales at IS - 43
No room for debating.

Not to mention that I have a nagging feeling that the true 'IStock Exclusive Contributor' is a dying breed. From now on we have to take into account the many sisters and brothers plastered all over IStock and part of the great Getty family.
In my books Dreamstime is a better agency, but we're all different and to each its own.

Magnum · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2010, 15:21 »

Eireann@ Istock is slow in the beginning if you have a mixed small portfolio. Add a few hundred files, and wait and you´ll see Istock beat the crap out of Dt. No doubt about it.

Phil · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2010, 16:58 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 13, 2010, 12:40

I keep seeing these "blog" posts from DT at the top of MSG. It appears people are mistaking their blogs for a forum post, or maybe it's just a cry for attention. "Look at me! X uploads" "Check out my new downloads" etc. Mostly nonsense.

"It is a great pleasure that i have 198 sales now. ... Now ,i will share some of my little experience to you. ... Firstly,i think a good camera is needed. I know some blogger in DT saying camera is not important."

http://blog.dreamstime.com/

LOL!!

almost as bad as istock, "I became exclusive today, gee all those independants suck, how dare you question istock, only exclusive people know how to a take photo....

"

rene · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2010, 20:21 »

Quote from: Eireann on July 13, 2010, 13:30

'Dreamstime Exclusive' - hobbist, cheerleader and mentally weak

Agree. Dreamstime can be nice place for people who are not professional but dream to feel like."Community" feeling is very strong here.:
"BME, DT rocks" (by a 1 year old contributor with 17 dls).
But there is no money. Try to find one exclusive photographer who can live from DT's earnings. It's easier to find them at IS, isn't it?

Eireann · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2010, 21:36 »

@Magnum,
upload more photos to IStock?
Gladly!
Except there's a slight problem.
Their upload system.
Judging by IStock's forum it seems a variety of errors keep on bugging it down.
I guess there's not much else I can do, but wait a lill' bit longer.
Will do.

@Rene,
absolutely.
IStock is a professional agency dedicated to professional photographers. No denying.
Not a place for someone like me.
I'm not a photographer, I'm not a professional and I certainly don't dream to *feel* like one.
I like Dreamstime's site, sales, numbers, community and blogs.
You don't.
Fair enough.
Luckily you're a professional, an IStock exclusive and you don't have to.
Wishing you the best of sales,

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2010, 08:13 »

FWIW I am not a hobbyist. I do stock FT and I also like Dreamstime. I am not a cheerleader for them (unless simply by liking the site you get that label), but I do find them consistent in both sales and the way they treat contributors.

It's also worth noting that DT has implemented a number of large site changes in recent years (and I believe is in the middle of another one) yet always managed to keep the site functioning well so that sales can continue even in the midst of the upgrades. 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

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2010, 11:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 14, 2010, 08:13

FWIW I am not a hobbyist. I do stock FT and I also like Dreamstime. I am not a cheerleader for them (unless simply by liking the site you get that label), but I do find them consistent in both sales and the way they treat contributors.

It's also worth noting that DT has implemented a number of large site changes in recent years (and I believe is in the middle of another one) yet always managed to keep the site functioning well so that sales can continue even in the midst of the upgrades. 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

I think you are almost as sensitive as the DT crew, Lisa. Almost ...

This thread:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_22870
is a good example of what to expect if one should dare to criticize DT. Note that FOUR admins jumped on this person before anyone was able to suggest that the OP's post was really quite funny.

The cheerleaders are the ones who are so quick to offer kudos for any change, no matter how insignificant, just to preserve their "good contributor" reputation. Just notice how often intimidated contributors offer a slight criticism followed with the qualification ... "but it was probably my fault." Or, "I'm not complaining, but..."

Or, note how often admins will suggest that bad behavior will "Not be Tolerated." or, "We will not tolerate ..."

It is an atmosphere much reminiscent of Fotolia. Censorship never creates a feeling of trust in my camp.

Xalanx · « **Reply #23 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.

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2010, 13:07 »

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

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.

All I have is anecdotal evidence from buyers who have told me over the past couple of years that they had to get images from DT because Istock's search was messed up or because of price rises.

One buyer told me this very recently, but they are by no means the first. I have heard it from others numerous times over the years, both in e-mails and posted in the IS forums (back when buyers bothered to complain - nowadays they just leave). Judging from sales it is more like a trickle than a flood of buyers leaving, but it's a trickle Istock should be worried about. Like all of us, I don't have access to the stats, but I believe buyers when they tell me things like this.

As far as reliable - yes, absolutely. The search results may not always be perfect on DT, but at least you GET search results every time. When was the last time you tried to search on DT and got no results at all, or the last time you logged in and got an error message? I am sure it must have happened on occasion, but I don't remember it. The no results thing happens so much on Istock I have given up count.

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

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.

Red Dove · « **Reply #50 on:** July 31, 2010, 13:54 »

I wouldn't consider exclusivity anywhere but IS....DT just doesn't cut it for sales. It's a really strange community, even more of a love-in than IS used to be. Most of the posts read like they're written by pubescent teenagers raving about the latest Twilight movie....banging on about going exclusive with a port of 50 and 7 sales, or writing simplistic blogs about creativity and inspiration....or...or.....enough. I have a specific problem with DT at the moment - I'll get over it but at the moment GGGGRRRRRR

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Planning on going exclusive at Dt (Read 21345 times)

vonkara

microstockphoto.co.uk

lisafx

WarrenPrice

Xalanx

lisafx

Xalanx

WarrenPrice

lisafx

alias

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

RolMat

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors