pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exclusivity might soon be the only option?  (Read 15973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: January 30, 2011, 03:01 »
0
I dont think Exclusives anywhere are doing all that, not at the moment anyway. For us non-exclusives however, its gradually becoming more and more difficult, if not booted out, well then we end up last in searches, so whats next? its become a job without identity, really, "jack of all trades but master of none".
From the Micro agencies point of view, their future lies entirely in stopping the competition from having the same material as themselves, i.e. hosting lots of exclusives and able to supply unique material, well, if you can call it unique, that is?

For us non-exclusives, a pretty scary scenario could soon become a reality, the 5 bigger agencies could easily just over a night be bought or transformed to just one or maybe two umbrellas, making life pretty miserable for outsiders, especially the serious ones with large portfolios, depending on it for a living and having to rely on the mediocre selling-power of smaller agencies.
Terminating exclusivity, today?  thinking the grass is greener with the others?  the majority has found themselves starving alive. Its all too late for that, the business have changed, sure its a numbers game, problem is nowdays, there are just too many numbers.
Also, when the time comes for exclusivity, which Im sure will come, sooner or later, its bound to come, its geared that way. That might bee too late as well, they might not want us?

Any thoughts?

Im not advocating at all for exclusivity or independant, live and let live, I would say but as an independant, there are things to be taken into consideration.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 03:06 by lagereek »


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2011, 03:10 »
0
While I mainly agree with your observations here, my conclusion - based on current uncertainty across microstock - is against exclusivity.

And if the time will come (and I hope it doesn't) for exclusivity, it's better to already have our full port everywhere.

lagereek

« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2011, 06:50 »
0
While I mainly agree with your observations here, my conclusion - based on current uncertainty across microstock - is against exclusivity.

And if the time will come (and I hope it doesn't) for exclusivity, it's better to already have our full port everywhere.

Full port!  yep, thats for sure or else its curtains.

« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 07:02 »
0
I don't think I will ever be interested in contributor exclusivity, where I can't upload any RF images anywhere else.  I might be interested in image exclusivity, where I can still put different images on the other sites.

For now, I will just see how it goes.  I had hoped shutterstock would want an exclusive images collection but that hasn't happened and I don't really like the other big sites enough to try their exclusive images options.  It doesn't seem like a good option with the smaller sites because they don't have enough buyers.

« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2011, 08:01 »
0
I would never, ever become an exclusive contributor on a site with strict terms ("all your RF stuff belongs to us, and you can't even sell rejects as RF").

BUT, I could consider submitting exclusive images/shoots to some site, but then there should be real compensation for that. DT's and FT's few-percents-more doesn't cut it.

I have been thinking about a site that sells only exclusive images. You couldn't find the same images anywhere else. The problem is to get the submissions, but if someone really started an "only exclusive images" agency, I would try them with a dozen images.

lagereek

« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2011, 08:32 »
0
Problem is not now! but pretty soon, with exeption of subscription-agencies, I recon that the major agencies will have little alternative but to insist on exclusivity, or else?
Image exclusivity might work for DT but it certainly wont work for something like IS, too big and too hard to police, not to mention Getty ofcourse.
No, I think the majority of us are in for a bit of a surprise before the end of this year.

« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2011, 09:08 »
0
I'm thinking exclusivity - at least agency exclusivity - is a fad.  I don't see the upside for the customer.  Customers don't license the image exclusively - any other customer of the site can license the image at the same time and what other benefit could they gain from agency exclusivity.

The restriction that the customer must buy a particular image from a particular site actually seems to me to be disadvantageous to customers.  This kind of exclusivity means that to satisfy all their image needs customers need accounts with many agencies.  Hasn't the MS revolution gotten them used to just maintaining accounts at a few agencies where they can get everything they need?  Where is the benefit of having to look for what they need in many places?

I am probably missing something because I really don't see how this idea ever got started.  But if I am right it should die away as customers realize they are better off with an image market that has lots of independent suppliers selling across multiple outlets.

Agency exclusivity also seems to be anti-competitive and may be open to legal challenges.    In the U.S. anti-trust enforcement is so moribund that it is unlikely to succeed but elsewhere (EU, Canada, etc.) it may be a possibility.

fred

« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2011, 09:18 »
0
I know that this is OT, but I just had to say how much I like Perry's avatar!  :D

« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2011, 10:21 »
0
I know that this is OT, but I just had to say how much I like Perry's avatar!  :D
The way things are going, that trash bin will be soon full of other icons...

« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2011, 10:32 »
0
While I mainly agree with your observations here, my conclusion - based on current uncertainty across microstock - is against exclusivity.

And if the time will come (and I hope it doesn't) for exclusivity, it's better to already have our full port everywhere.

That's the key.  Upload everywhere in anticipation that consolidation will occur.  I've pulled my port from a few sites but regret it today because of exactly what ^ said.

« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2011, 10:41 »
0
I'm thinking exclusivity - at least agency exclusivity - is a fad.  I don't see the upside for the customer.  Customers don't license the image exclusively - any other customer of the site can license the image at the same time and what other benefit could they gain from agency exclusivity.

The restriction that the customer must buy a particular image from a particular site actually seems to me to be disadvantageous to customers.  This kind of exclusivity means that to satisfy all their image needs customers need accounts with many agencies.  Hasn't the MS revolution gotten them used to just maintaining accounts at a few agencies where they can get everything they need?  Where is the benefit of having to look for what they need in many places?

I am probably missing something because I really don't see how this idea ever got started.  But if I am right it should die away as customers realize they are better off with an image market that has lots of independent suppliers selling across multiple outlets.

Agency exclusivity also seems to be anti-competitive and may be open to legal challenges.    In the U.S. anti-trust enforcement is so moribund that it is unlikely to succeed but elsewhere (EU, Canada, etc.) it may be a possibility.

fred

I agree with your thinking. Personally, I think agency exclusivity is really just an advantage for the agency, as a way to control their contributors.

jbarber873

« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2011, 11:15 »
0
  I think Lagereeks post poses some interesting questions, and the answer is difficult to know. The biggest plus for going exclusive at Istock is the higher placement in searches, higher payout and a persistent feeling that the crown gives you an edge in getting an image accepted ( i know many will dispute this, but that's just MY take on it.) Couple this with Istocks commanding market recognition and it's a compelling argument. The biggest negative is the complete disarray of the management at IStock. IF that changes, and Istock lives up to it's potential, and you could really see a complete change in the market. I keep thinking of Yuri's statement on the John Lund blog post to the effect that if he were starting out now he would seriously think about exclusivity. Over time, an exclusive collection would probably bring the best work to Istock, because that's where the best returns could be. That's again, very iffy, because given the mess the current management has made of Istock, it's not apparent that they are up to the task. But it could happen. A lot of the images on all the sites are starting to look pretty stale by now, and if the "look" of stock imagery takes off in a new direction,as it did in the late 90's, all the collections will start looking like the Bettman archives. As for legal challenges, an agency has the right to structure their suppliers any way they choose. If there was any merit to the argument that agencies collude in denying access to a market, that would have been better directed to the macrostock agencies years ago. But the market took care of that. It's called microstock.

« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2011, 11:25 »
0
All exclusive doesn't seem to be the way things are headed. If anything, I'd say the opposite. Smaller agencies are slowly eroding the superiority of the Big 4. If I was going to predict, I think the landscape will be more of a bunch of mid tier agencies, and nobody will command enough sales to justify exclusivity.

lagereek

« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2011, 12:27 »
0
No. wrong!  the smaller agencies will certainly have their place, fill a function, etc,  but they will simply not be allowed to get much further, UNLESS! they are taken over by one of the big umbrellas. Thats the way it works. As soon as one becomes a threat, its a gonner or bought. Look at Stockxpert! golden example.

« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2011, 13:05 »
0
I think quite opposite! Non-exclusivity is future! Because erratic decisions of stock agencies "don't put all eggs in the same basket" becomes very live command for every contributor....

P.S.
Put "treasure chest" in IS "best match" search engine and you will see my photo on third place (of 60 pages) without crown or/and flame...  Istock gets more money from me than from any exclusive contributor, so if buyers love some image , it doesn't matter whose property is....
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 06:39 by borg »

« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2011, 13:15 »
0
No. wrong!  the smaller agencies will certainly have their place, fill a function, etc,  but they will simply not be allowed to get much further, UNLESS! they are taken over by one of the big umbrellas. Thats the way it works. As soon as one becomes a threat, its a gonner or bought. Look at Stockxpert! golden example.

Well, I guess they'll have to get their checkbook out because there are a few agencies that they'll probably need to buy.  ;D

« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2011, 13:35 »
0
Could it?..... Yes possibly

Will it?..... No I very much doubt it

The market place for contributers is evolving so rapidly anything could happen which is exactly why I will always keep my options open ;)

To each their own,  being Exclusive is not for the faint hearted, especially at IS  :D


« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2011, 14:08 »
0
Probably should read "best viable option" as there are always other options. No titan has ever survived for that long. Something changes, a chink in the armour and they fall like the lead balloon they have become. And usually based on the huge level of arrogance and non-caring, stick it your b**t attitude they develop; everyone is all too  happy to see them fall and are just as happy to leave and go wherever it is that is replacing them. The fat lady has never finished singing.

jbarber873

« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2011, 15:24 »
0
Probably should read "best viable option" as there are always other options. No titan has ever survived for that long. Something changes, a chink in the armour and they fall like the lead balloon they have become. And usually based on the huge level of arrogance and non-caring, stick it your b**t attitude they develop; everyone is all too  happy to see them fall and are just as happy to leave and go wherever it is that is replacing them. The fat lady has never finished singing.

   I guess the question is:  Which one is Istock- AOL or Apple? One went down in flames and the other was reborn stronger than ever.

« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2011, 15:36 »
0
I guess the question is:  Which one is Istock- AOL or Apple? One went down in flames and the other was reborn stronger than ever.

Right now my money would be on AOL.

grp_photo

« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2011, 16:39 »
0
I shoot mainly exclusive...... but session-exclusive. I fully understand the need for agencies to have exclusive images to have an USP... but I'm totally against bond-slavery it is plain wrong and belongs to the middle-age, and of course it was also wrong in the middle-age. Contributor-exclusivity is a dumb thing! Don't be stupid think twice!

« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2011, 17:38 »
0
Content exclusivity is OK, but contributor exclusivity is a pure slavery , just wrapped in nice paper.

« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2011, 17:46 »
0
Content exclusivity is OK, but contributor exclusivity is a pure slavery , just wrapped in nice paper.

I agree it's pure slavery, but where is the nice paper? ;)

« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2011, 18:15 »
0
Content exclusivity is OK, but contributor exclusivity is a pure slavery , just wrapped in nice paper.

I agree it's pure slavery, but where is the nice paper? ;)
lol

lisafx

« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2011, 18:35 »
0
If I were ever to consider exclusivity it would have to be to an agency that treats its contributors as respected partners, not slave labor.  That certainly rules out Istock, and exclusivity at the other two sites in the big 4 that offer it, just doesn't appear to be lucrative enough.  

Christian, you may very well be right, but, like the majority here, I see the industry moving away from the artist exclusivity model.   In fact, Istock seems to be working to chase its lower and mid-tier contributors away from exclusivity.   IMHO any agency that insists on artist exclusivity is going to lose a lot more good content than they gain.  

In what other branch of business - art related or otherwise - does the storefront insist on complete exclusivity from their suppliers?  

If agencies want suppliers to go exclusive at this point, they need to consider a lot more carrot and a lot less stick.  
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 18:51 by lisafx »

mlwinphoto

« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2011, 19:39 »
0
Agency and image exclusivity is typical in the RM markets where control of licensing terms is imperative.  IMO, exclusivity in the RF and micro markets makes no sense to anyone other than the agency; as an attempt to attract buyers that may be interested in images that aren't seen on every website and every page of every magazine....However, if a buyer expects to purchase the rights to an image that is truly unique for their intended use then they should expect to pay
RM prices.

I think attempts by micro agencies to require exclusivity would backfire.  If you are forced to go exclusive why not do so with a RM agency instead, where you have the opportunity to make what your work is worth. 

« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2011, 20:21 »
0
I guess the question is:  Which one is Istock- AOL or Apple? One went down in flames and the other was reborn stronger than ever.

Right now my money would be on AOL.
I agree. We all know the companies which turned their initial foothold into permanent marketshare dominance: Amazon, Microsoft, Ebay, and so on. But the history of the computer business is littered with the names we now forget, companies who blew their lead and put the truth in the saying, "It pays to be second."

The spreadsheet, the word processor, the microcomputer database, the first micrcomputer for consumers, the GUI were all invented by companies which no longer exist or are no longer in the microcomputer business. When was the last time you bought software from Digital Research, the company which produced CP/M, the first real microcomputer operating system? Or Heathkit? Or VisiCalc, which sold the first spreadsheet? Will the first microstock agency end up in that graveyard?

IS is making way too many mistakes. They may live to rue the day that they mistreated independents and illustrators the way they have. IS thinks they can get away with anything. They may be wrong.


« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2011, 22:12 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).
If they had nice exclusivity program and did not limit non-exclusive content, they'd have the best of both worlds and would just rule the marketplace.

« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2011, 22:36 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).

They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?

« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2011, 22:49 »
0
They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?

Too bad that huge body of work from independents can't be found by buyers.

« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2011, 00:21 »
0
be your own agency  ;D

« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2011, 02:03 »
0
They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?


Too bad that huge body of work from independents can't be found by buyers.


I read that over and over again here and from what I can see that just not true.
Ex.
1. Business: sort best match/View 200  5http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/business/filetypes/[1]/source/basic/
Counted 50 images from independents in the first 100 images.

2. Senior: sort best match/View 200 http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/senior_adult/filetypes/[1]/source/basic/
44 out of 200 images from independents.

3. Education: sort best match View 200, http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/school/filetypes/[1]/textDisambiguation/%7B%22termId%22:%221_1692%22,%22string%22:%22school%22%7D/source/basic/

23 out of 200 images from independents.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 02:05 by Eyedesign »

lagereek

« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2011, 02:44 »
0
Agreeing Thomas!  I also keep reading this all the time but in all fairness, I certainly find my own and friends images right on the premiere pages, so I dont know what kind of images these people are searching or looking for??

Yes, its quite true, exclusivity is associated with the RM industry, licencing, not Micro,  but really?  the micro we knew 5 years back have changed drastically and we are not really talking micro anymore, are we? its all moving towards Macro, RF, etc.

Im an independant myself and dont really speak for or against exclusivity but I think we have to remember, this is a business, not personal and if we start judging this business on moral grounds, aspects, etc,  we could be entering dangerous grounds.

« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2011, 03:52 »
0
@Thomas

What are you doing here? You should be shooting ;-)

For me one of the main arguments for exclusivity is legal protection. I really dont see how I can chase after an infringement case or stop someone who is selling my work elsewhere all by myself.  The cases where I did find abuse of my work, istock got involved and my images were removed within 24 hours. All I had to do was send them a link.

Also exclusivity with istock now means your images will be quite widely distributed via partner sites as well (if you like that). And then there is the integration with Getty. I now have a house contract and can build an additional portfolio there. So Ireally dont feel I am "limited" in my exposure.

istock = Apple

« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2011, 05:05 »
0
@ J., Last shoot at the old studio planned for Thursday  ;D

« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2011, 05:27 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).

They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?
There's lots of good independents that never bothered with istock or only uploaded a tiny fraction of their portfolio because of the 20% commission.  There will be many more now, especially as istock don't sell new images well any more.  I do think the advantage they had with exclusives is diminished and they will find it harder to get as many good new contributors as their rivals.  That might suit some people but will the buyers like it?

« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2011, 05:32 »
0
Im an independant myself and dont really speak for or against exclusivity but I think we have to remember, this is a business, not personal and if we start judging this business on moral grounds, aspects, etc,  we could be entering dangerous grounds.

+ 1  ;D

If your not treating this as a business you're in trouble.


« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2011, 05:42 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).

They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?
There's lots of good independents that never bothered with istock or only uploaded a tiny fraction of their portfolio because of the 20% commission.  There will be many more now, especially as istock don't sell new images well any more.  I do think the advantage they had with exclusives is diminished and they will find it harder to get as many good new contributors as their rivals.  That might suit some people but will the buyers like it?

The point is not how many images independents have vs how many are loaded onto istock. The market is over supplied with images. I've said it before I'll said it again, show me an agency with 12 millon image and I'll show you an agency with 10 million crappy images.  

lagereek

« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2011, 05:47 »
0
Sharpshot! No, its just too much pie-in-the-sky and wishful thinking going on, I can tell by some comments. Some time back we had a giant long thread "Is this the end of Micro"?  and everyone was sure it was going downhill,  now all of a sudden, there are many more and micro is flourishing??? and all because IS,  isnt selling all that well.
Micro, macro, RM, RF, doesnt just evolve around Getty/IS, they got it pretty much sewn up, theyre not worrying.  
You wake up on a Monday morning and you find two or three other of the leading agencies have gone the same way as Stockxpert? or simply bought up? which is a scenario that could very well happen.
Then where are you gonna stick all your eggs? or working day and night to furnish some 25 small hole-in-the-wall agencies for peanuts?

lagereek

« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2011, 05:55 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).

They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?
There's lots of good independents that never bothered with istock or only uploaded a tiny fraction of their portfolio because of the 20% commission.  There will be many more now, especially as istock don't sell new images well any more.  I do think the advantage they had with exclusives is diminished and they will find it harder to get as many good new contributors as their rivals.  That might suit some people but will the buyers like it?

The point is not how many images independents have vs how many are loaded onto istock. The market is over supplied with images. I've said it before I'll said it again, show me an agency with 12 millon image and I'll show you an agency with 10 million crappy images.  
[/q


Couldnt have put it better myself! 90% crap, the rest is what sell. Do you remember the old Stones-Worldwide?  he proudly went out and said, "sure! we got plenty of shots but our very small collection of just 150K images, stand for 80% of turnover. Why? because they represent the very best in every field AND they did. So Getty bought them in 93.

« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2011, 06:53 »
0
Sharpshot! No, its just too much pie-in-the-sky and wishful thinking going on, I can tell by some comments. Some time back we had a giant long thread "Is this the end of Micro"?  and everyone was sure it was going downhill,  now all of a sudden, there are many more and micro is flourishing??? and all because IS,  isnt selling all that well.
Micro, macro, RM, RF, doesnt just evolve around Getty/IS, they got it pretty much sewn up, theyre not worrying.  
You wake up on a Monday morning and you find two or three other of the leading agencies have gone the same way as Stockxpert? or simply bought up? which is a scenario that could very well happen.
Then where are you gonna stick all your eggs? or working day and night to furnish some 25 small hole-in-the-wall agencies for peanuts?
Nobody knows the future, I see more risk being exclusive now than non-exclusive but who really knows?  2 or 3 of the leading agencies could go the same way as StockXpert but I think it's just as likely that istock has missed its chance to dominate the market and is going to struggle to keep a dominant position.  I'm not going to risk putting all my eggs in one basket, I'm going to spend more time working on ways to make money outside of microstock.

« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2011, 08:18 »
0
@ sharpshot, Finding a way to made money outside of microstock with your images is the best bet!

« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2011, 09:37 »
0
@ sharpshot, Finding a way to made money outside of microstock with your images is the best bet!

Very good advice - I think its a much more productive approach to think of microstock as a whole as one basket - and look for other baskets that you have more control over or that involve different risk factors.

An alternative approach for some may also be to find other sources of income that aren't related to producing or licensing images at all.

helix7

« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2011, 10:13 »
0
As long as SS is around, I don't see any incentive to go exclusive anywhere. My earnings at SS this month are more than double my IS earnings. While SS remains the top microstock earner for me, I'm inclined to stay on the same path I'm on right now. Microstock is a side income for me, much of it comes from SS, and my earnings there are steady and consistent even while I'm hardly uploading anything new these days.

Even if some of the other big companies (DT, FT, etc) were acquired or shut down, I'd still stay right where I am. SS is the key, though. If they were acquired or shut down, I'd probably go exclusive with IS and just stop producing anything for microstock entirely, and just collect whatever pennies I could from IS for as long as I could.

The only scenario I see for SS to disappear is by a Getty acquisition. SS is doing very well, so they're not going out of business any time soon. Getty has a competing property (Thinkstock) and they would benefit greatly from SS disappearing and directing all of those buyers over to TS. That's really the only way I could see SS going anywhere.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 10:21 by helix7 »

« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2011, 12:53 »
0
Micro, macro, RM, RF, doesnt just evolve around Getty/IS, they got it pretty much sewn up, theyre not worrying.  

Dan Heller showed an industry study which proved that over 60% of stock photography sales are direct transactions between the buyer and the photographer.  Less than 40% involve an agency, and of that 40%, Getty hardly owns the entire pie, and the last several years they always seem one step away from bankruptcy or another sale.

You guys are allowing the agencies far more power than they actually have. 

lisafx

« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2011, 13:42 »
0
Im an independant myself and dont really speak for or against exclusivity but I think we have to remember, this is a business, not personal and if we start judging this business on moral grounds, aspects, etc,  we could be entering dangerous grounds.

+ 1  ;D

If your not treating this as a business you're in trouble.

I don't know where this particular admonishment is coming from, Christian and Thomas.  Reading this thread, most of the arguments I am seeing against exclusivity are solid business arguments, not merely moral or emotional ones. 

You guys are certainly free to disagree with the majority and express your own opinions, but please don't denigrate those of us who disagree with you by dismissing our well-reasoned and articulated arguments as unbusinesslike. 

« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2011, 14:07 »
0
You guys are certainly free to disagree with the majority and express your own opinions, but please don't denigrate those of us who disagree with you by dismissing our well-reasoned and articulated arguments as unbusinesslike. 

+ 1


« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2011, 14:07 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market. Anything they gain by representing exclusive work of a few talented photographers they lose by NOT having a huge body of work from non-exclusive photographers that other agencies have (and Istock doesn't).

They do have a huge body of work from independents.  Seriously, do you need 1,000 of the same business images from someone, or will 400 pretty much cover the series?

This is hardly a logical statement. You can't assume every (or most) independents produce a constant stream of nearly identical images. Some of them do. But definitely not majority.
My own portfolio covers a wide range of subjects, simply because I get too bored to do the same thing over and over again. And more than half of it is not present on Istock. I am quite certain I am not the only one in this situation.
Of course, opening the doors would mean more competition for exclusives, but then it would have a positive effect on the quality of everyone's work. Competition makes you try harder.
----------------
On another subject - the idea of an agency that would represent the best stock artists and have a small but very sellable collection has been around for a while, and some people are trying it right now with various degrees of success. I personally like that idea very much, it would be so efficient, but it still needs to be run and marketed properly, and that costs a lot of money.


"What is it?" - "Efficient" (if you know where this quote is from, you're such a nerd!)

« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2011, 14:21 »
0
This is hardly a logical statement. You can't assume every (or most) independents produce a constant stream of nearly identical images. Some of them do. But definitely not majority.
My own portfolio covers a wide range of subjects, simply because I get too bored to do the same thing over and over again. And more than half of it is not present on Istock. I am quite certain I am not the only one in this situation.

Is it not present on IS because you don't have enough upload slots, or because you just haven't used all your upload shots.

« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2011, 14:27 »
0
The fact about exclusivity is that buyers find the same files at A, B, C, D... etc microstock sites, and that many of them know that just on istock will find different quality files, as well as a hugue body (not all them, that's true) of the said commodity files.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 14:43 by loop »

« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2011, 14:33 »
0
Is it not present on IS because you don't have enough upload slots, or because you just haven't used all your upload shots.

It always ticked me off because most exclusive illustrators only uploaded a few illustrations a month and I always had a ton of stuff sitting in a folder labeled istock. I asked once (jokingly) if I could borrow other exclusives' upload slots. It was a joke, but the reality was that istock was becoming more and more irrelevant when it came to a complete collection of my work. That's more my problem than theirs, but still that mindset that they are irrelevant isn't a positive thing. I stopped recommending them because I had a lot more stuff on other sites.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #51 on: January 31, 2011, 14:36 »
0
I wish I were as smart as many of you seem to be.  With me it is just a matter of expending energy for cash.  When I see certain sites want PERFECTION, uniqueness and exclusivity, and then pay the contributor $.50 or less per sale, I think it is insulting and not worth my time.

I have boiled my targeted sites down to three.  Now I spend much less time and haven't lost anything.  Before I spend over $4,000 for a camera to earn less than $.50, I forget about it.

Just my two cents.  Like I said, you folks are much smarter than me, but I have to consider whether the return is worth the effort.

I do senior portraits for the younguns at the church for free, and I end up making more money than I would get from stock.  They feel led to give me what they can afford and what they think it is worth.  I do that work as a labor of love.  Funny ting is, I know the sites would reject them for some reason or other.  Yet when they show me the prints they get from the disc I give them, I can't find a flaw anywhere?  Do you think the print is less able to magnify flaws when compared to 100% views on a monitor?  The prints do look better to me than what I see on my monitor.

At any react - Good Luck!

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2011, 14:42 »
0

I do senior portraits for the younguns at the church for free, and I end up making more money than I would get from stock.  They feel led to give me what they can afford and what they think it is worth.  I do that work as a labor of love.  Funny ting is, I know the sites would reject them for some reason or other.  Yet when they show me the prints they get from the disc I give them, I can't find a flaw anywhere?  Do you think the print is less able to magnify flaws when compared to 100% views on a monitor?  The prints do look better to me than what I see on my monitor.

What a nice thing to read :)

Sounds like you are really doing your photography for the love of it, and in a giving spirit, and you are being rewarded for it.  That is the nature of true prosperity, and a good reminder, since I sometimes forget it. 

« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2011, 14:43 »
0
This is hardly a logical statement. You can't assume every (or most) independents produce a constant stream of nearly identical images. Some of them do. But definitely not majority.
My own portfolio covers a wide range of subjects, simply because I get too bored to do the same thing over and over again. And more than half of it is not present on Istock. I am quite certain I am not the only one in this situation.

Is it not present on IS because you don't have enough upload slots, or because you just haven't used all your upload shots.

My upload slot is 38 per week. I produce at least 50 a week, often more than that. We use up the slots every single week, even if we are on vacation. Still, the backlog is mounting - and it's been doing that for 5 years.

« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2011, 14:46 »
0
Funny ting is, I know the sites would reject them for some reason or other.  Yet when they show me the prints they get from the disc I give them, I can't find a flaw anywhere?  Do you think the print is less able to magnify flaws when compared to 100% views on a monitor?  The prints do look better to me than what I see on my monitor.

Shrinking a 21 MP image or 12MP or probably even 6MP to fit an 8x10 or 4x6 will hide flaws much easier than viewing at 100% on a monitor.  Same as standing 1/2 mile away from a billboard.

« Reply #55 on: January 31, 2011, 14:51 »
0
My upload slot is 38 per week. I produce at least 50 a week, often more than that. We use up the slots every single week, even if we are on vacation. Still, the backlog is mounting - and it's been doing that for 5 years.


So, if the world doesn't have access to 12 berry images on iStock, and only can see 8 there, are they really missing out?  Or 5 out of 10 cakes?
http://www.elenaphoto.com/Holidays_Occasions_g38.html

The point being, you're probably smart enough to upload the best, and the rest wouldn't garner sales anyways.  The buyers aren't really missing out.

« Reply #56 on: January 31, 2011, 14:58 »
0
My upload slot is 38 per week. I produce at least 50 a week, often more than that. We use up the slots every single week, even if we are on vacation. Still, the backlog is mounting - and it's been doing that for 5 years.


So, if the world doesn't have access to 12 berry images on iStock, and only can see 8 there, are they really missing out?  Or 5 out of 10 cakes?
http://www.elenaphoto.com/Holidays_Occasions_g38.html

The point being, you're probably smart enough to upload the best, and the rest wouldn't garner sales anyways.  The buyers aren't really missing out.


Ooooh Sean, you don't want me to go poking at your portfolio. I can be really mean, people keep telling me that. But I am busy with something else right now. Plus, I don't see a need for personal attacks here ;)


« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2011, 15:11 »
0
You can point at my portfolio.  I'm allowed to upload pretty much all I can produce, so I don't have to cherry pick out "the best".  I'm not being personal - I'm just pointing out that out of a series, maybe only half are needed to give buyers a good selection of usable stuff.

« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2011, 16:15 »
0
Im an independant myself and dont really speak for or against exclusivity but I think we have to remember, this is a business, not personal and if we start judging this business on moral grounds, aspects, etc,  we could be entering dangerous grounds.

+ 1  ;D

If your not treating this as a business you're in trouble.

I don't know where this particular admonishment is coming from, Christian and Thomas.  Reading this thread, most of the arguments I am seeing against exclusivity are solid business arguments, not merely moral or emotional ones. 

You guys are certainly free to disagree with the majority and express your own opinions, but please don't denigrate those of us who disagree with you by dismissing our well-reasoned and articulated arguments as unbusinesslike. 
Lisa, no one is being admonished or denigrated. I think me and Christan both see eye to eye on this point,exclusive or independent doesn't much matter. The only thing that matters is that it works in a business sense for the individual. As for solid business arguments and well-reasoned and articulated arguments, yes you also see that sometimes from both sides. As for my statement "If your not treating this as a business you're in trouble" I'll have to stand by that one. I think you'll agree that in the last ten years many contributors have used words like community, family, and friends to describe this thing of ours. For the agencies its always been about business.

« Reply #59 on: January 31, 2011, 16:35 »
0
You can point at my portfolio.  I'm allowed to upload pretty much all I can produce, so I don't have to cherry pick out "the best".  I'm not being personal - I'm just pointing out that out of a series, maybe only half are needed to give buyers a good selection of usable stuff.

Hmm... so you're saying that you as an exclusive have the opportunity to flood the library with similars? ... and it's a good thing?...
And I have entire series of images that are not represented on istock. Just because we didn't get to them yet. Cherry-picking images for istock would be spending a lot of time for something with questionable results - images don't sell the same on different agency, there are variables like supply, customer base, search peculiarities, etc.

grp_photo

« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2011, 18:13 »
0
You guys are certainly free to disagree with the majority and express your own opinions, but please don't denigrate those of us who disagree with you by dismissing our well-reasoned and articulated arguments as unbusinesslike. 

+ 1
+100  ;) ;D

lagereek

« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2011, 02:05 »
0
Im an independant myself and dont really speak for or against exclusivity but I think we have to remember, this is a business, not personal and if we start judging this business on moral grounds, aspects, etc,  we could be entering dangerous grounds.

+ 1  ;D

If your not treating this as a business you're in trouble.

I don't know where this particular admonishment is coming from, Christian and Thomas.  Reading this thread, most of the arguments I am seeing against exclusivity are solid business arguments, not merely moral or emotional ones.  

You guys are certainly free to disagree with the majority and express your own opinions, but please don't denigrate those of us who disagree with you by dismissing our well-reasoned and articulated arguments as unbusinesslike.  
Lisa, no one is being admonished or denigrated. I think me and Christan both see eye to eye on this point,exclusive or independent doesn't much matter. The only thing that matters is that it works in a business sense for the individual. As for solid business arguments and well-reasoned and articulated arguments, yes you also see that sometimes from both sides. As for my statement "If your not treating this as a business you're in trouble" I'll have to stand by that one. I think you'll agree that in the last ten years many contributors have used words like community, family, and friends to describe this thing of ours. For the agencies its always been about business.


Lisa!
Blimey, you know me and if anybody is business like, its you, 100%. I have been giving this a lot of thought myself and based on all previous years of stock-shooting with Stones and Image-Bank, etc,  the pattern is pretty much the same, no matter what one do, the agencies rule! and there is little if anything that one can do, exept what we are doing here, venting our feelings, trying to find logic, etc.
See, Im not concerned anymore with agencies cutting percentages and all, I sort of left that behind me, realizing they will all do that sooner or later, I am much more concerned with, how many agencies will be around in future? and the ones that are? will they be worthwhile?
We often hear people say " dont put all your eggs in one basket", etc, sure!  but theres also got to be some baskets left to put something of quality into.


best.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 02:12 by lagereek »

RacePhoto

« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2011, 02:52 »
0

I agree with your thinking. Personally, I think agency exclusivity is really just an advantage for the agency, as a way to control their contributors.

You weren't the only one, but it was a nice short quote.

Think about actors, artists, musicians and some others who have agency exclusive contracts. Yes it's control, but it's also about distribution, promotion and association. There are many professionals who have exclusive contracts when you think about it. It benefits the agency and the artist. You want this person/artists, you get it through only this agency. Agency markets based on having the best artists, and you can't get their work anywhere else.

One the other hand, if you were making M&Ms of course you sell to anyone who wants to buy them. You want to have everyone everywhere selling your product. Kind of like subscriptions or many of the sites who people should admit have mostly the same people with mostly all the same images. Nothing to offer except the same thing you can find anywhere. Not much of a marketing advantage as far as quality or art goes? What's the point? All the sites are the same that have these same non-exclusives. Price War brewing, because no difference in the product.

Somewhere in between is the distributor agreements I used to work under where I had to qualify to sell a product, maintain a stock, have annual sales at a required level, or I wouldn't be an authorized distributor anymore. Also some would give discounts based on the previous years sales. Hey sound familiar, commissions based on sales. A bonus for being a good producer. Only part missing is microstock agencies don't clean out the dead wood, close accounts and don't have production requirements. Maybe someone should but then there would be another set of crying and whining when slow movers or old images that have never sold in five years, are being removed. Or artists who sell $20 a year are being paid off and their accounts closed, because their work just isn't needed. Simple enough, isn't it?

Three different situations, and as usual with the debates here, people make good points and also start mixing all kinds of dissimilar situations into the debate.

The contention that image exclusive is somehow more open and helps is ludicrous. Someone takes 25 photos, they put 10 "exclusive" on site A for more commission, then 5 on site B, 5 one site c and 5 more are non-exclusive and sold on the other 17 microstock sites. Only a fool would pay extra and allow that kind of "exclusive" images.

I think people need to step back and think about what if they were the agency, instead of the person trying to sell and make money. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you make some of the wacky deals that some people here saying, would be good? They aren't here to help us. They aren't in business to be our friends pals and cozy social friends. They are in business to make money.

People need to understand this and get over the warm and fuzzy, sell photos, make money attitude. It's cutthroat business on the internet!

For some people exclusive is security and identity and a place to do marketing. For others it's a ball and chain and they want the freedom to sell wherever, whatever. Neither is a bad answer. It depends on what you have and how you want to operate your business. I especially liked the quote from a recent interview, optimum is 1, 2 or 20 agencies. I'd say it's pretty much that and modify the comment to be one exclusive, two of the best that match your material and make the best sales, or as many as you can get to host your material.

[reminder, nothing personal, just a nice quote to start with]  :)
 
There is no easy answer.

lagereek

« Reply #63 on: February 01, 2011, 03:01 »
0
Only, its nothing new, its been like this since the birth of the trad-agencies back in late 70s,  we are just experiencing this on a much grander scale and over the computers, thats all. The pattern is totally unchanged.

« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2011, 07:44 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market.

It began in December 2004, when CanStockPhoto and DT were six months old and SS had been accepting contributions for about six weeks. They saw photographers starting to drift off to rival agencies and decided to offer a deal to try to starve the opposition of talent. But they pitched the original offer to artists a bit too low and the rivals survived and in two cases prospered.
All the other claims about extra-special quality of exclusive content etc. etc. was just marketing hype to try to paint a policy designed to fight off competition as if it was designed to help buyers. Bruce was extremely clever in that and the exclusives lapped up the myth that they were super-special and propagated it everywhere.
I sometimes wonder if iStock itself remembers what it was all about, or if its leaders have started to believe in their own myth. Kelly certainly can't remember what was going on back then - or else he just likes to invent fairy tales to try to impress us.
Given that there are so many similars all over the net, I doubt if there is anything one top site can provide that the others can't produce an acceptable substitute for. So exclusivity is just an anachronism, but it is also a club with an inner circle that would never jeopardise their earnings by admitting it is a waste of resources, and they include the policy-makers and those who have to sell the idea to the higher-ups.
What matters much more than exclusivity is the search engine. The site that can match search terms best will win.

« Reply #65 on: February 01, 2011, 07:55 »
0
Funny ting is, I know the sites would reject them for some reason or other.  Yet when they show me the prints they get from the disc I give them, I can't find a flaw anywhere?  Do you think the print is less able to magnify flaws when compared to 100% views on a monitor?  The prints do look better to me than what I see on my monitor.

Shrinking a 21 MP image or 12MP or probably even 6MP to fit an 8x10 or 4x6 will hide flaws much easier than viewing at 100% on a monitor.  Same as standing 1/2 mile away from a billboard.

Roadrunner's in the real world, Sean, where people don't pixel-peep at billboards. We're all trapped in a world of supposed technical perfection, like engineers who marvel at the perfection of a cogwheel they created but can no longer see the overall beauty of the car it goes into. Or, to put it another way, we're manufacturing design elements, he's taking photos. Horses for courses.

« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2011, 08:52 »
0
It was always baffling to me why Istock thinks their policy on exclusivity brings them any advantage in the market.

It began in December 2004, when CanStockPhoto and DT were six months old and SS had been accepting contributions for about six weeks. They saw photographers starting to drift off to rival agencies and decided to offer a deal to try to starve the opposition of talent. But they pitched the original offer to artists a bit too low and the rivals survived and in two cases prospered.
All the other claims about extra-special quality of exclusive content etc. etc. was just marketing hype to try to paint a policy designed to fight off competition as if it was designed to help buyers. Bruce was extremely clever in that and the exclusives lapped up the myth that they were super-special and propagated it everywhere.
I sometimes wonder if iStock itself remembers what it was all about, or if its leaders have started to believe in their own myth. Kelly certainly can't remember what was going on back then - or else he just likes to invent fairy tales to try to impress us.
Given that there are so many similars all over the net, I doubt if there is anything one top site can provide that the others can't produce an acceptable substitute for. So exclusivity is just an anachronism, but it is also a club with an inner circle that would never jeopardise their earnings by admitting it is a waste of resources, and they include the policy-makers and those who have to sell the idea to the higher-ups.
What matters much more than exclusivity is the search engine. The site that can match search terms best will win.

Well said and exactly how I see it.


« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2011, 09:01 »
0
Roadrunner's in the real world, Sean, where people don't pixel-peep at billboards. We're all trapped in a world of supposed technical perfection, like engineers who marvel at the perfection of a cogwheel they created but can no longer see the overall beauty of the car it goes into. Or, to put it another way, we're manufacturing design elements, he's taking photos. Horses for courses.

The real world includes people who may need to zoom into a small segment of an image in a video, or crop a tiny piece of a larger image, where flaws would be noticed.  You're right, of course, that if you're targeting 4x6s, you have much more leeway technically than a stock provider, which is why so many "pros" can't handle it.

« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2011, 09:29 »
0
Roadrunner's in the real world, Sean, where people don't pixel-peep at billboards. We're all trapped in a world of supposed technical perfection, like engineers who marvel at the perfection of a cogwheel they created but can no longer see the overall beauty of the car it goes into. Or, to put it another way, we're manufacturing design elements, he's taking photos. Horses for courses.

The real world includes people who may need to zoom into a small segment of an image in a video, or crop a tiny piece of a larger image, where flaws would be noticed.  You're right, of course, that if you're targeting 4x6s, you have much more leeway technically than a stock provider, which is why so many "pros" can't handle it.

It's interesting that Alamy's inspection is much less draconian than the top micros' and that early files from the days when standards were much lower continue to sell without producing complaints and refunds. It makes me think that the inspection standards are partly used as a barrier to entry because there is so much similar stuff out there. The upload limits are one filter to try to hold stuff back, rejections could be another.

« Reply #69 on: February 01, 2011, 10:40 »
0

The real world includes people who may need to zoom into a small segment of an image in a video, or crop a tiny piece of a larger image, where flaws would be noticed.  You're right, of course, that if you're targeting 4x6s, you have much more leeway technically than a stock provider, which is why so many "pros" can't handle it.

Does the real world honestly expect all of that for a few pennies per sale? "pros" i.e. those who were around before the inception of microstock or even RF have seen countless images used that were anything BUT technically perfect. They are still being used. Micrstock photogs have been hammered with the idea that a tiny bit of purple fringe or the slightest amount of artifacts will make an image useless. I don't think so. Those who have been around micro since the beginning probably see images that are anything but perfect selling well even now. I think what drives "pros" crazy is this notion that a few artifacts ruin an image. It's the rule you have to abide with if you want to contribute to microstock but that hardly makes it right.

« Reply #70 on: February 01, 2011, 11:03 »
0
I think that sites can compete on 3 things for buyers, price, search engine/site design, and portfolios. I think that the search engine is the one most open to making a huge difference. Hopefully we have seen a bottom price point (and it seems that a lot of designers are relatively willing to pay a bit more to get the image they want more easily).  If you get sales, then you will get the images from the photographers, so that leaves the search engine. This is where IS could have really taken over with the CV etc. (and they still might if they can get their act together). Unfortunately for a lot of the sites like SS and DT that split apart multiple word keywords it would be an enormous task to go back and fix the keywords. I wonder if a site could do that though, maybe starting with the most popular sellers and slowly cranking through the database and really improve things. I have always thought the problem with "bad" images isn't their existence, but showing them too high in the search.

« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2011, 11:20 »
0
. I have always thought the problem with "bad" images isn't their existence, but showing them too high in the search.

Alamy tried to address this with a hugely complicated layering of keyword fields. Trouble is I think they have too many images that are used to too infrequently to build a proper analysis of the data. Plus I don't bother making full use of this system because it is just too time consuming IMO to be worth it.

ShadySue

« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2011, 12:27 »
0
It makes me think that the inspection standards are partly used as a barrier to entry because there is so much similar stuff out there. The upload limits are one filter to try to hold stuff back, rejections could be another.
You night like to think so, but I've just seen (on iStock) a recent poorly-keyworded batch of accepted images, taken in poor light (my 'poor light' rejections of things which would be unique or very unusual on the site are legion, even when that is the light which is correct for the subject) of a very, very common subject (over 12000 'hits' on the main keyword), each of which is a badly-composed 'snapshot' is just mindboggling. And of course, we're not allowed to ask, "Why are these good while mine are unacceptable?"

lagereek

« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2011, 12:31 »
0
The search engine is everything and thats what its all about but with billions of shots and 90% all similars,  well you can imagine?

helix7

« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2011, 12:49 »
0

If it's all about the search engine then why do sites with extremely basic search functionality continue to do so well?

« Reply #75 on: February 01, 2011, 13:30 »
0
It makes me think that the inspection standards are partly used as a barrier to entry because there is so much similar stuff out there. The upload limits are one filter to try to hold stuff back, rejections could be another.
You night like to think so, but I've just seen (on iStock) a recent poorly-keyworded batch of accepted images, taken in poor light (my 'poor light' rejections of things which would be unique or very unusual on the site are legion, even when that is the light which is correct for the subject) of a very, very common subject (over 12000 'hits' on the main keyword), each of which is a badly-composed 'snapshot' is just mindboggling. And of course, we're not allowed to ask, "Why are these good while mine are unacceptable?"
Rumour has it that some istock submitters have extraordinary luck in getting their images to go before lax reviewers. I had a very high ranking diamond portfolio pointed out to me which seemed to fall way below the minimum normal standard. But any inspection fiddling going on will be a private matter and will be nothing to do with the general policy.

On the other hand, Bruce said two or three years ago that the rejection rate was about 50% and always had been, so if standards are rising and they still reckon to cull half the crop then the inspections will become stricter and stricter - and we do it to ourselves by getting better and thus raising the bar. 

« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2011, 13:34 »
0

If it's all about the search engine then why do sites with extremely basic search functionality continue to do so well?

Perhaps extremely basic searches can work very well. I know that iStock's search (even before latest F5-up) can make correct keywording impossible by forcing things into false matches.


« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2011, 13:49 »
0
I would say for those of us just starting out, trying the waters at all of the well knowns, and some of the not so well knowns is the best option. It's a fumble process. I only know enough to know how much I don't know... ::)

lagereek

« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2011, 15:02 »
0

If it's all about the search engine then why do sites with extremely basic search functionality continue to do so well?

Are they? doing so very well as you say?  must have missed something?

« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2011, 15:28 »
0
Are they? doing so very well as you say?  must have missed something?

Is it important for the agency to do well or us?  ;)

« Reply #80 on: February 01, 2011, 16:29 »
0
"Rumour has it that some istock submitters have extraordinary luck in getting their images to go before lax reviewers. I had a very high ranking diamond portfolio pointed out to me which seemed to fall way below the minimum normal standard. But any inspection fiddling going on will be a private matter and will be nothing to do with the general policy."

As a former istock inspector I would like to point out that I have never seen or heard any of that. Of course it is possible that inspectors make a bad decision (they are only human) and that is why members can appeal to Scout to have an image overturned. Also while inspecting you usually dont look at who is submitting the image, you just look at the file in 100%. Training is pretty rigorous and ongoing.

My own images get rejected from time to time. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I send them to Scout, just like anyone else. Of course my rejection rate is pretty low, but I already had 89% acceptance before training.

For those who consider exclusivity, image rejection shouldnt really be a question. If you spend time in the critique forum you can optimize your workflow to minimize rejections. Many people have acceptance rates of over 90%, both exclusive and non exclusive, even with simple cameras.

lagereek

« Reply #81 on: February 01, 2011, 17:00 »
0
The one and only way of achieving a reasonable search is in fact what the Getty-RM does. They take care of the keywording and you yourself is allowed 4 or 5, conceptual words, it certainly doesnt make it perfect but you do get rid of large percentage of spamming.

As it is now, well just have a look!  series of almost identical files and on first pages, hardly any variety at all. Theyve all forgotten the golden rule of Ogilvy, " if you got it, flaunt it".  I am sure he didnt mean 20 pairs of identical shoes.

« Reply #82 on: February 01, 2011, 17:14 »
0
too bad the discussion between Elena and Sean ended.. :)

« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2011, 17:48 »
0
too bad the discussion between Elena and Sean ended.. :)

Oh I have no doubts there will be more  ;)

« Reply #84 on: February 01, 2011, 17:50 »
0
For those who consider exclusivity, image rejection shouldnt really be a question. If you spend time in the critique forum you can optimize your workflow to minimize rejections. Many people have acceptance rates of over 90%, both exclusive and non exclusive, even with simple cameras.

Rejections was actually what steered me away from going exclusive last year. I had around 95% acceptance, then IS changed their policies to crack down on illustrations in a series. I had already created these illustrations, so the policy shift meant that many of them may get rejected. It didn't make a lot of sense to go exclusive and have a bunch of illustrations that I'd already worked hard to create that I couldn't sell. And who knows how they would change things in the future.

« Reply #85 on: February 01, 2011, 18:06 »
0
too bad the discussion between Elena and Sean ended.. :)

Oh I have no doubts there will be more  ;)

I was really enjoying, I guess I dont need to say who I agree with.. (when IS is the only agency that shrinks our uploading..)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
7542 Views
Last post June 28, 2006, 08:14
by Striker77s
6 Replies
4172 Views
Last post October 07, 2006, 20:18
by berryspun
6 Replies
3119 Views
Last post June 06, 2008, 17:04
by littlerobin71
1 Replies
2424 Views
Last post January 11, 2011, 22:04
by Angel
23 Replies
5503 Views
Last post June 30, 2011, 15:07
by jcpjr

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results