Author Topic: Going exclusive... Before and after. (Read 22905 times)

willie · « **on:** July 29, 2009, 10:12 »

Hello all,

Enough has been published about the pros and cons of going exclusive. I don't need to hear anymore from those who are against. Neither do I need to be convinced from those who are happily stayed in exclusiveness.

The question I ask here is more on preparation and awareness.

What , in your experience , do I need to be ready BEFORE going exclusive.

Or , if I decided to get out of exclusive, what do I need to be guarded about.

As I said, this is for both sides. And please feel free to voice your experience.
I only want to know what to do. NOT what you feel whether I should or should not go exclusive.

Cheers. As always, lots of good people with expertise here. Appreciate it.

P.S.
CEOs (eg. Keith of Zymm, John of Cutcaster,etc) are welcome to write me as well, as it's good to know as much before jumping in.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2009, 15:13 »

Nearly a year ago I became an exclusive after about 4 years as an independent. I assume you've made a list of the waiting periods at each site you upload to; the first thing is to stop uploading to sites with a waiting period, but start with the longest and phase in the others as their wait times dictate (i.e. if you stopped uploading to DT today, in 3 months you'd stop at BigStock and so on). The goal is to keep earning the absolute max you can while you disentangle yourself.

Watch your payout amounts and for the sites where you control the timing (i.e. not SS or 123rf) so you can ensure you end up with a balance over the minimum at the date you want to pull the plug. Don't want to leave any money on the table. And with the exception of small sites (ScanStockPhoto was very gracious to me) the big guys will happily keep your money, so don't assume it'll be all friendly and you'll get your money anyway.

For the monthly payout sites, if you think you'll be leaving early in the month, set the minimum payout to a very high number the previous month (to be sure you don't get paid). Then, in the month you'll be leaving, set the minimum payout back to normal.

For SS, you can disable your images without deleting them via the Opt Out button on your account page. After a certain amount of time, they'll automatically disable your account, but won't delete it. You'll want to do that (leave the accounts in place) so you can reactivate with an e-mail to support if you later decide to cancel exclusivity.

FT deleted my account even though I didn't request it (they dislike any less than glowing comments made about them in offsite forums) but otherwise I still have my accounts on most sites. I don't think it's likely someone will use my login, but I'd rather not have someone else selling images under the same name and keeping the login ensures that.

I may have forgotten something and things change in a year, but hope this helps a bit.

puravida · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2009, 15:28 »

what bad weed have you been smoking , bro?

have you considered one important thing, as stockastic mentioned in the other thread. that the question is not whether you want to be exclusive, but whether they (i assume you are talking about Istock) want you exclusive or not.

have you even tried to upload their max limit as a newbie? did you even get at least half of it approved?

if you haven't even done this, you should . then come back here and ask the same question.

gostwyck · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2009, 15:31 »

Quote from: Perseus on July 29, 2009, 10:12

The question I ask here is more on preparation and awareness.

What , in your experience , do I need to be ready BEFORE going exclusive.

Firstly buy yourself a big tub of lube and then practice bending over and touching your toes __ when the inevitable happens it should be less painful.

willie · « **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2009, 15:49 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 29, 2009, 15:31

Quote from: Perseus on July 29, 2009, 10:12
The question I ask here is more on preparation and awareness.

What , in your experience , do I need to be ready BEFORE going exclusive.

Firstly buy yourself a big tub of lube and then practice bending over and touching your toes __ when the inevitable happens it should be less painful.

I already bought a carton of lube from m@m , right after his ad on the topic of Fotolia's "we listen to our million" announcement . Now the trick is getting used to bending over and rubbing it in at the same time

PixelBytes · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2009, 15:57 »

Wow, great advice Jsnover! That should be required reading for anyone thinking of going exclusive!

I have never gone exclusive, but reading the experience of lots of people over the years, I will add two suggestions.

Before you go exclusive, DON'T go messing with your keywords on DT and trying to get out of their 6 month hold. They will freeze all your keywords. If you follow their rules then you won't burn your bridges there in case you ever want to go back.

If you are exclusive at istock, you may be tempted to keyword the IPTC of all your files only by Istock's controlled vocabulary. If you ever decided to drop exclusivity you would have to re-keyword all your files to work on the other sites' search engines. Suggestion would be to save a copy of the image keyworded for uploading to all sites, and one saved according to istocks CV.

willie · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2009, 16:14 »

Awesome response Jsnover. Very informative. And to you too Pixelbytes.
This is going better than I expected, esp. when you touched other related topics like the difference in keywording. There's a lot more to think about , even if one is not consider going exclusive.

Keep them coming... please

Gannet77 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2009, 17:12 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2009, 15:57

If you are exclusive at istock, you may be tempted to keyword the IPTC of all your files only by Istock's controlled vocabulary. If you ever decided to drop exclusivity you would have to re-keyword all your files to work on the other sites' search engines. Suggestion would be to save a copy of the image keyworded for uploading to all sites, and one saved according to istocks CV.

Better still - use DeepMeta.

It will import your IPTC keywords and match them into iStock's CV, then you can add more CV terms without affecting the original IPTC data. And by using DeepMeta, you don't have to mess with iStock's site upload system, which even the most fervent IS supporters find difficult to defend... plus, DeepMeta makes cross-linking related images just so, so easy!

Actually though Perseus, you might get more information if you posted your question on the IS forums. They don't bite. Much.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2009, 22:49 »

Great advice JSNOVER,

That was clear and concise. I wrote it all down in my notes. Thanks for the advice.

Best,
Jonathan

PixelBytes · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2009, 12:48 »

Are you thinking of becoming istock exclusive Jonathan?

I'm sure they would be thrilled to have you. You would be a big feather in their cap.

Would also be great for the rest of us to hear your experiences. Other than tacojim and jsnover I can't think of any big name independent sellers that have gone exclusive in recent years.

Moonb007 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2009, 13:05 »

The only sites I would even consider going exclusive with is iStock or Dreamstime...but its not beneficial personally for me. Besides the great advise, I must say I cracked up with the tube of lube comment.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2009, 15:17 »

Quote from: Moonb007 on July 30, 2009, 13:05

... I must say I cracked up with the tube of lube comment.

I was tempted to answer this with my own take - I may need one tube, but it's infinitely preferable to the prior need for multiple tubes. I find the occasional urge to return to independence regularly banished by the anti-contributor (lube-requiring) antics of other sites.

But of course I wouldn't indulge in such crude analogies, so I didn't reply

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2009, 16:46 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 30, 2009, 12:48

Are you thinking of becoming istock exclusive Jonathan?

There's no way he could turn to the dark side with all his content out there.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2009, 21:38 »

Quote from: jsnover on July 30, 2009, 15:17

Quote from: Moonb007 on July 30, 2009, 13:05
... I must say I cracked up with the tube of lube comment.
I was tempted to answer this with my own take - I may need one tube, but it's infinitely preferable to the prior need for multiple tubes. I find the occasional urge to return to independence regularly banished by the anti-contributor (lube-requiring) antics of other sites.

But of course I wouldn't indulge in such crude analogies, so I didn't reply

I, on the other hand, expected such crap from that member. He's obviously anti-iStock exclusivity. But note, when I took him to math school in another post after he incorrectly computed what I said, he shut up and did not post again in that thread for whatever reason. Perhaps that member should use that lube to get that pickle out of his ass

Back to the thread, I just think you need to make sure you have a style that suits iStock and you can get downloads. If you don't have that style, then no matter what you do, exclusivity won't work for you.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2009, 22:49 »

Hi Pixelbytes,

No they will not let us Macro RF shooters join unless all our work is under only the Getty umbrella. I have my work in so many different collections it would be impossible because in Macro you sign long contracts up to 7 years to be represented. Even if I wanted to pull all my work and give it to Istock I could not.
Now Getty as well as ever agency I have ever been represented by, is very well known for change that will increase it's revenue so where we are on this rule by this time next year might be a different story. I can shoot all the Micro exclusive video I want for Istock because my motion is only represented in RM and only at Getty so that option is wide open.
If I could I still don't know if I would but Istock does show the highest RPI of all my Micro agencies. Right now I have enough images to upload my 20 a week to Istock for the next 3 years before needing to produce another frame.
My sales have shown the highest RPI at Istock but SS has made half my Micro income. It took 5-6 months to pay off the photos I have loaded in Micro at 5 agencies so in the first year I hope to see a 30% profit and I still have another 1,000 images from our original shooting to upload to all the sites and we have increased to ten sites now instead of 5. So hopefully when all is said and done I will make 3-4 times back on each image I produced over the next 3 years. That is only a theory because it is impossible to tell how long the shelf life will remain in Micro. For me so far so good, not nearly as fast a drop as I thought it might be. And thank you for the kind statement about the feather in the cap. Istock has some very strong shooters so that is a really nice compliment.
I wouldn't go as far as to say the dark side. Are you actually my father SJ, I refuse to believe it but please don't laser my hand off

Best,
Jonathan

Pheby · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2009, 23:54 »

Hi Jonathan,

may I ask which further 5 agencies you have choosen to now submit to and what you based that decision on?

Sorry, this is off topic, and I haven't much to contribute to the actual topic of this thread - didn't find one that fitted my question better.

Regards,
stardust

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2009, 02:05 »

Hi Stardust,

I am uploading to the following 10 Micro agencies at the moment. These were chosen by the company that is doing our post on Micro uploads www.lookstat.com. They help to research the market to see where our style of work is seeing the best sales.

SS
IS
Fotolia
Dreamstime
StockXpert
VEER
123rf
Creostock
Cutcaster
Panther

I am uploading to these Macro sites as well :

Stone RM
Iconica RM
Photographers Choice RM
Getty Motion RM
Blend Images RF
Cultura Images RF
Photodisc RF
Digital Vision RF
Brand X RF
Stockbyte RF
Punchstock RF

21 sites in total now with one brand new Macro RM/RF agency coming soon.

Best,
Jonathan

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:27 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on July 31, 2009, 02:05

21 sites in total now with one brand new Macro RM/RF agency coming soon.

Best,
Jonathan

Joining up with Hollingsworth?

willie · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:38 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 30, 2009, 21:38

I just think you need to make sure you have a style that suits iStock and you can get downloads. If you don't have that style, then no matter what you do, exclusivity won't work for you.

Good point ichiro17.
I was just discussing this with another of your peer (a poster here on my thread too) in the past days via PM on this matter. He was helpful enough to give me some very objective pointers .
Yes indeed, it does require consideration if my work is IS material or not.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2009, 09:31 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on July 31, 2009, 02:05

Hi Stardust,

I am uploading to the following 10 Micro agencies at the moment. These were chosen by the company that is doing our post on Micro uploads www.lookstat.com. They help to research the market to see where our style of work is seeing the best sales.

SS
IS
Fotolia
Dreamstime
StockXpert
VEER
123rf
Creostock
Cutcaster
Panther

I am uploading to these Macro sites as well :

Stone RM
Iconica RM
Photographers Choice RM
Getty Motion RM
Blend Images RF
Cultura Images RF
Photodisc RF
Digital Vision RF
Brand X RF
Stockbyte RF
Punchstock RF

21 sites in total now with one brand new Macro RM/RF agency coming soon.

Best,
Jonathan

Thanks for sharing your list Jonathan. Thanks also for sharing your well-thought-out and researched conclusions on exclusivity and relative site performance. As usual you have done the legwork for the rest of us

So you find that having a PP and upload service pays for itself? With your volume of output and web sites I can see how it might.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2009, 10:14 »

Perseus, If you decide to go exclusive with any site ...... what if they go belly up and close the doors. Images gone, site gone.
What do you do now?
Think twice before going exclusive in this unstable market and each site trying to under sell the other until somebody goes broke. Soon!

In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!

My two cents my friend!

-Larry

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2009, 10:17 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 30, 2009, 21:38

I, on the other hand, expected such crap from that member. He's obviously anti-iStock exclusivity. But note, when I took him to math school in another post after he incorrectly computed what I said, he shut up and did not post again in that thread for whatever reason.

You didn't take anyone to 'math school' you numpty. I didn't reply to your pitiful drivel as you are too thick to bother with.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2009, 11:10 »

Quote from: Lcjtripod on July 31, 2009, 10:14

Perseus, If you decide to go exclusive with any site ...... what if they go belly up and close the doors. Images gone, site gone.
What do you do now?
Think twice before going exclusive in this unstable market and each site trying to under sell the other until somebody goes broke. Soon!

In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!

My two cents my friend!

-Larry

If they go belly up, then you just re-upload to other sites. If not, then all is well.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2009, 11:34 »

Quote from: Lcjtripod on July 31, 2009, 10:14

In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!

You've definitely piqued my curiosity now Larry.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2009, 15:51 »

Hi Sean,

Nope! Jack is just a dear friend we are not in business together on this one. NDA's can't say anymore at this time but I will be happy to share as soon as legal is clear. The ink is drying on the paper as I type, so pretty soon. I can offer that there is no one you would know involved in this collection with the exception of myself.

Best,
Jonathan

Pheby · « **Reply #25 on:** July 31, 2009, 17:39 »

Thank you for responding, Jonathan!

Pheby · « **Reply #26 on:** July 31, 2009, 17:44 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 31, 2009, 11:10

Quote from: Lcjtripod on July 31, 2009, 10:14
Perseus, If you decide to go exclusive with any site ...... what if they go belly up and close the doors. Images gone, site gone.
What do you do now?
Think twice before going exclusive in this unstable market and each site trying to under sell the other until somebody goes broke. Soon!

In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!

My two cents my friend!

Ok, but what if by then other sites have closed their doors to new members or have introduced upload limits? If you had to rebuild your port on other sites uploading 10 or 20 a week, you'd be in trouble.

-Larry

If they go belly up, then you just re-upload to other sites. If not, then all is well.

iclick · « **Reply #27 on:** August 01, 2009, 13:05 »

Thank you a most useful tip for Shutterstock should i ever take the exclusive plunge

willie · « **Reply #28 on:** August 01, 2009, 13:20 »

Quote from: stardust on July 31, 2009, 17:44

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 31, 2009, 11:10
Quote from: Lcjtripod on July 31, 2009, 10:14
Perseus, If you decide to go exclusive with any site ...... what if they go belly up and close the doors. Images gone, site gone.
What do you do now?
Think twice before going exclusive in this unstable market and each site trying to under sell the other until somebody goes broke. Soon!

In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!

My two cents my friend!

Ok, but what if by then other sites have closed their doors to new members or have introduced upload limits? If you had to rebuild your port on other sites uploading 10 or 20 a week, you'd be in trouble.

-Larry

If they go belly up, then you just re-upload to other sites. If not, then all is well.

Excellent points all.

I am not at the stage to be exclusive momentarily. My percentage with IS is too small, and with the 15 images limit, it will be at least 2028 before I build enough "acceptable" images for being an IS exclusive, lol.
However, I started this thread out of curiousity to solicit awareness for myself, and any one else interested. And seeing the response, I can tell there are good insights coming from both sides.

The crush of being exclusive still weighs heavily against it on 2 points :
a) rejected images by IS cannot be used elsewhere
b) what if ? the biggy , as pointed out by aforementioned, that one site pulls the plug?
-you have another 10 years , lol... to rebuild your portfolio elsewhere... upload limits considering.
-your style may not be compatible with the rest of the Big 6.
by this , I mean, it's very obvious Istock do not like anything "enhanced". (quote: reviewer - photo is over processed). which is odd at times getting this rejection note, when I submit mostly from RAW doing very little post processing. my camera is set to Extended Dynamics so capture better detail in both shadow and highlight. This may be the reason why certain reviewers consider "excessive" post processing.
point to note, is that the others that are accepted were shot in the same setting.
confusing, to me ? yes ! very !

That said, please continue with your insights. It's always wonderful to have minds in continuous discussion. Cheers all !

Pheby · « **Reply #29 on:** August 01, 2009, 14:49 »

ooops, just noticed that my post went wrong.
Just to clarify, my part was only this:

Ok, but what if by then other sites have closed their doors to new members or have introduced upload limits? If you had to rebuild your port on other sites uploading 10 or 20 a week, you'd be in trouble.

Sorry.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 01, 2009, 15:48 »

Quote from: stardust on August 01, 2009, 14:49

ooops, just noticed that my post went wrong.
Just to clarify, my part was only this:

Ok, but what if by then other sites have closed their doors to new members or have introduced upload limits? If you had to rebuild your port on other sites uploading 10 or 20 a week, you'd be in trouble.

Sorry.

Thats fine. Its a valid concern and I can't say that its not a problem, but given the 80-20 rule of everything is pretty obvious (where 80% of the business is concentrated in 20% of the total number of businesses) I can't see that being a problem too soon. If some freak chance however it does happen, there would be a lot of great photographers available that other sites would be foolish to not want to lock up as assets for their collections. If you are good enough, the doors will open for you

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #31 on:** October 20, 2009, 07:57 »

Saw this flash by in my news:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fotolia/102009/prweb3060724.htm
"Gold Level Photographer Jim DeLillo Cancels iStock Exclusivity, First Stop...Fotolia "

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** October 20, 2009, 08:19 »

^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?

It seems an odd time to cancel exclusivity at IS as they appear to going from strength to strength over the last few months. I believe the recent guarantee they have included will encourage more big accounts too.

Yesterday I saw one of mine on a poster in Tesco (the UK's biggest supermarket) which I'm pretty sure was bought from IS. It's the first time I've seen Tesco using microstock as, being such a huge company, they've tended to do all marketing, printing and photography in-house. I'm seeing lots of microstock in the UK national newspapers nowadays too which again is a relatively recent phenomena.

travelstock · « **Reply #33 on:** October 20, 2009, 09:29 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 08:19

^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?

Yep looks like it. Always odd when people talk about themselves in the third person - even when they're trying to sell themselves on an About page on their own website.

bittersweet · « **Reply #34 on:** October 20, 2009, 09:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 08:19

^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?

Yeah, it's apparently another of his hobbies.

http://www.newsguide.us/technology/multimedia/iStock-Photographer-Jim-DeLillo-Strikes-Gold/

But neglected to update his profile page at istock:

Quote

Jim DeLillo is a photographer that is an active, exclusive member of iStock.com, the fastest growing micro-stock company, owned by Getty images.

travelstock · « **Reply #35 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:27 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 20, 2009, 09:50

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 08:19
^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?

Yeah, it's apparently another of his hobbies.

http://www.newsguide.us/technology/multimedia/iStock-Photographer-Jim-DeLillo-Strikes-Gold/

But neglected to update his profile page at istock:
Quote
Jim DeLillo is a photographer that is an active, exclusive member of iStock.com, the fastest growing micro-stock company, owned by Getty images.

I like these quotes too:
"New Jersey Photographer, Jim DeLillo joins an elite group of less than 1500 photographers worldwide reaching the milestone of 10,000 downloads at istockphoto.com."

And "My photography is very ecclectic" both in the first person at the start of the article, and then in the third person further on.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #36 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:29 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 08:19

^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?

It seems an odd time to cancel exclusivity at IS as they appear to going from strength to strength over the last few months. I believe the recent guarantee they have included will encourage more big accounts too.

Apparently it wasn't going from strength to strength for him - press releases notwithstanding. (Although I'm happily seeing what you are and IS is doing well for me right now).

His IS blog says he made gold April 30th. He currently has >11,000 licenses sold.

In six months he's sold less than 2K images, probably closer to 1K as his own press release says he is "...credited with over 11,000 downloads". I'd have said "close to 12,000" if I were over 11.5K

Not sure how writing breathlessly about himself is giong to help one way or the other.

And as far as the original topic, it's obviously always possible that businesses close, but if the stock photography business goes away (which I doubt it will) the last one to turn out the lights will be Getty. I can understand the issues and risks in considering exclusivity (it took me nearly 4 years to decide on doing it) but I can't imagine considering it anywhere other than IS.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:33 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 20, 2009, 11:29

Not sure how writing breathlessly about himself is giong to help one way or the other.

I suspect he might have been typing with one hand

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:44 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 11:33

Quote from: jsnover on October 20, 2009, 11:29
Not sure how writing breathlessly about himself is giong to help one way or the other.

I suspect he might have been typing with one hand

LOL!!!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:52 »

Writing style aside (

I was just pointing out someone who may now have knowledge of both sides (on topic).

vonkara · « **Reply #40 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 20, 2009, 11:52

Writing style aside ( I was just pointing out someone who may now have knowledge of both sides (on topic).

Don't try sjlocke! This ecclectic guy is awesomely selfish and funny ! I would suggest the folowing to the author

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=22722966505

RacePhoto · « **Reply #41 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 20, 2009, 07:57

Saw this flash by in my news:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fotolia/102009/prweb3060724.htm
"Gold Level Photographer Jim DeLillo Cancels iStock Exclusivity, First Stop...Fotolia "

DeLillo says, "with iStock's decision to offer exclusive content through non-exclusive partners, and Getty now marketing tiny size images while offering to purchase Flickr photos from individuals it appears that the exclusive marketing model has changed."

Sounds reasonable considering the Partner Program.

Interesting is that he has copied his entire collection to FT. Sometimes what's not being said jumps out. Anyone think there was some sort of deal with FT to get a transfer of his collection. How long would it take to "upload" 900+ files to FT?

Actual IS portfolio shows Search results: jimd_stock's Portfolio 1193 matches. The contributor search shows 1251. Whatever, it's a general idea of what he has up there.

Oh by the way. Nice shots!

travelstock · « **Reply #42 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:23 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 20, 2009, 12:15

Quote from: sjlocke on October 20, 2009, 07:57
Saw this flash by in my news:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fotolia/102009/prweb3060724.htm
"Gold Level Photographer Jim DeLillo Cancels iStock Exclusivity, First Stop...Fotolia "

DeLillo says, "with iStock's decision to offer exclusive content through non-exclusive partners, and Getty now marketing tiny size images while offering to purchase Flickr photos from individuals it appears that the exclusive marketing model has changed."

Sounds reasonable considering the Partner Program.

Interesting is that he has copied his entire collection to FT. Sometimes what's not being said jumps out. Anyone think there was some sort of deal with FT to get a transfer of his collection. How long would it take to "upload" 900+ files to FT?

He has 1251 photos on IS - the thought had occurred to me - it it was someone high profile (not that a "top 1200" isn't high profile

) I'd suspect that he'd had assistance. FT don't have upload limits, so its just a matter of going through the tedious process of entering in data. I'd guess that he'd have started from a larger portfolio than just what's on IS - 921/1251 would be a pretty good acceptance ratio on FT at the moment.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #43 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:24 »

So I looked at this guy's FT portfolio and he has 903 images online, 2 sales and is gold ranking. Was there some kind of deal to make him instant gold?

I'm pretty sure I have the right guy as the thermometer image is also in his IS portfolio.

I didn't know agencies did deals like this...

gostwyck · « **Reply #44 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:42 »

Wow __ that's very interesting JoAnne! He also appears in the 'Newly Awarded' column as a Gold contributor (with his 2 sales).

Looks like FT have done a deal with him, effectively giving him an extra 6% commission, presumably in return for the publicity. That's not exactly fair to all the others that have supported FT for some years and might be just on the threshold of Gold.

I wonder if this is part of a new aggressive policy by FT in an attempt to undermine IS's biggest asset, their exclusive contributors?

ichiro17 · « **Reply #45 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:52 »

oooh exciting.........

travelstock · « **Reply #46 on:** October 20, 2009, 13:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 12:42

Wow __ that's very interesting JoAnne! He also appears in the 'Newly Awarded' column as a Gold contributor (with his 2 sales).

Looks like FT have done a deal with him, effectively giving him an extra 6% commission, presumably in return for the publicity. That's not exactly fair to all the others that have supported FT for some years and might be just on the threshold of Gold.

I wonder if this is part of a new aggressive policy by FT in an attempt to undermine IS's biggest asset, their exclusive contributors?

EDIT... sorry starting to sound bitter.. which I'm not.

Its would probably be a sound move from FT to try to attract some of the IS exclusives and offer them some sort of incentive to make jump. Probably good advice for anyone thinking of making a switch to make ask informally at the other agencies to see if there are any sweetheart deals on offer. Never know what you may get offered.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #47 on:** October 20, 2009, 16:01 »

Quote from: holgs on October 20, 2009, 13:26

Quote from: gostwyck on October 20, 2009, 12:42
... He also appears in the 'Newly Awarded' column as a Gold contributor (with his 2 sales).

...That's not exactly fair to all the others that have supported FT for some years and might be just on the threshold of Gold.

EDIT... sorry starting to sound bitter.. which I'm not....

I read your post prior to the edit - and it sounded pretty reasonable to me

It's also easier for me to comment openly as FT removed my account after I became exclusive - there's nothing they can take away at this point.

As someone who did live through the early days of FT (before they were officially 1.0) and the absolute fiasco of V2.0 (which at the time I feared might take FT under; kudos to them for keeping things going) I'd be totally @#$'d off at someone with a so-so portfolio getting such a huge leg up. Even more so if I'd been one of those just about to get a new level when FT changed the goalposts for rankings a wee while back.

There's more than one way to give contributors a raw deal...

sharpshot · « **Reply #48 on:** October 20, 2009, 18:07 »

I would of just reached gold now with the old FT limits, now I have another 5,000 downloads to go. Seeing them give away a gold ranking makes me so happy

This could backfire, I don't like the idea of exclusivity but if I was considering it, this might make me want to go to istock.

lisafx · « **Reply #49 on:** October 20, 2009, 18:37 »

Surely this is some sort of mistake?? Perhaps it sounds naive, but I can't believe Fotolia would intentionally jerry rig their tier system that way.

Not only would it be a slap in the face to their other contributors, but it seems like a pretty poor business decision. The whole point of the tier system is to let the cream rise to the top, isn't it

Pheby · « **Reply #50 on:** October 20, 2009, 21:55 »

It might be a bad business decision, but Fotolia never really minded slapping the faces of their photographers, did they?

Someone pointed out the fact that they had found a contributor to have gold status but only 2 sales on the German forum today. The moderator said he had no idea and would find out about it. I can't wait to read no answer to that tomorrow. Probably the thread will have vanished.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #51 on:** October 20, 2009, 22:01 »

I wonder if Fotolia even knows about that press release or if he just made it himself.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 20, 2009, 22:10 »

Fotolia's management team has never been the poster boy of good decision making. This will most likely backfire, and I would hope that the contributors who work hard for this would make a gigantic stink about it.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** October 21, 2009, 00:24 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 20, 2009, 22:01

I wonder if Fotolia even knows about that press release or if he just made it himself.

From the release on PR Web is the following quote:

"Having had the privilege of collaborating with Jim DeLillo in the past, I know his exceptional portfolio will only enhance Fotolia's collection of over seven million images," says Garth Johnson, Fotolia Executive Vice President, North America. "We welcome him to the Fotolia community with open arms."

That's a direct quote from a Fotolia employee in the press release and it mentions the photographer's name and welcoming him with open arms. I'd say FT knows about the release (OTOH this is the era of balloon boy and amazing hoaxes for publicity's sake, so one never knows

)

sharpshot · « **Reply #54 on:** October 21, 2009, 00:47 »

eppic · « **Reply #55 on:** October 21, 2009, 07:52 »

Ive been watching this thread with a fair bit of interest as Ive also toyed with the idea of going exclusive with IS as Ive been eligible for awhile now.
IS accounts for roughly 2/3 of my total stock earnings and that has been consistent since March, but the kicker is that just one image in my port there is responsible for about 75% of what I earn at IS (its double flamed now). If that image loses popularity, which Im sure it will eventually, then my IS earnings will drop significantly unless other images step up to the plate for me.
Here's where my involvement with DT has helped me put the brakes on doing anything rash due to that 6 month image period.
However I may reconsider going exclusive with IS once I reach the 2500 DL tier, which should be within a year's time.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:02 »

Quote from: eppic on October 21, 2009, 07:52

IS accounts for roughly 2/3 of my total stock earnings and that has been consistent since March, but the kicker is that just one image in my port there is responsible for about 75% of what I earn at IS (its double flamed now). If that image loses popularity, which Im sure it will eventually, then my IS earnings will drop significantly unless other images step up to the plate for me.

To be honest, if you're in any way serious about trying to preserve your earnings or the longevity of your precious best-sellers, then it's probably best not to post handy links to them on public forums. I can almost hear the sound of compasses and walking boots being dusted off all over the world.

travelstock · « **Reply #57 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:12 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 20, 2009, 18:07

I would of just reached gold now with the old FT limits, now I have another 5,000 downloads to go. Seeing them give away a gold ranking makes me so happy

This could backfire, I don't like the idea of exclusivity but if I was considering it, this might make me want to go to istock.

I think moves like this backfire on agencies already. There are a lot of contributors who are also buyers - probably a much larger portion on IS than anywhere else because they're IS exclusives.

An online marketplace that relies on crowd sourcing really isn't the place where you can look at your buyers and sellers as being completely separate. Even if someone isn't a buyer directly, chances are they talk to buyers and the subject of "where should I buy your photos" will come up. In that context - moving goalposts and this latest move just aren't smart.

Its also a reason why I think DT's pricing and commission moves don't seem to have paid off the dividends that they'd been calculating.

I can see why FT would want to poach IS exclusives - but they should really be upfront about it such as by announcing some sort of deal, rather than annoying the existing contributor base - especially by signing up someone with a mediocre portfolio half of which would probably be rejected in the normal inspection process.

gostwyck · « **Reply #58 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:23 »

Quote from: holgs on October 21, 2009, 08:12

I think moves like this backfire on agencies already. There are a lot of contributors who are also buyers - probably a much larger portion on IS than anywhere else because they're IS exclusives.

snip

I can see why FT would want to poach IS exclusives - but they should really be upfront about it such as by announcing some sort of deal, rather than annoying the existing contributor base - especially by signing up someone with a mediocre portfolio half of which would probably be rejected in the normal inspection process.

I'd agree. I've always thought it has been to Istock's considerable credit that there never appears to have been any obvious or significant bending of the rules to favour one contributor over another, irrespective of their status.

Losing the trust of your contributors is a dangerous game to play especially when, as you say, so many of them are buyers too.

cathyslife · « **Reply #59 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:37 »

Surely this is some sort of mistake?? Perhaps it sounds naive, but I can't believe Fotolia would intentionally jerry rig their tier system that way.

I don't think it's a mistake...businesses make these kinds of deals all the time. Sometimes I think top management thinks the rest of us are stupid and that we would never notice things like this. Or maybe they don't think we're stupid, they just don't give a crap as long as it's putting money in their pockets.

loop · « **Reply #60 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:48 »

Why couldn't they do that? Private supply agreement dosn't garantee that any other contributor wil come in by the same standard door. Afer all, it's a business.

FD · « **Reply #61 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:52 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 21, 2009, 08:02

To be honest, if you're in any way serious about trying to preserve your earnings or the longevity of your precious best-sellers, then it's probably best not to post handy links to them on public forums. I can almost hear the sound of compasses and walking boots being dusted off all over the world.

He has many imitators, look here.
But unlike Dreamstime with its new relevancy search (bypassing sales by default), iStock also takes sales into account. His nearest copy on the search page has only 9 downloads while Eppic on position #1 has over 500. One of my best selling concepts over sites that is easy to reshoot dropped off page #1 of Dreamstime since reshooters seem to use more "relevant" keywords, whatever sales. That's why my sales at DT are degrading and getting better at iStock, I guess. At least iStock doesn't favorite copycats.

travelstock · « **Reply #62 on:** October 21, 2009, 09:54 »

Quote from: loop on October 21, 2009, 09:48

Why couldn't they do that? Private supply agreement dosn't garantee that any other contributor wil come in by the same standard door. Afer all, it's a business.

I agree - all sorts of deals go on behind closed doors in this business. Fotolia are not the only ones.

@ Eppic... Istock's best match favors IS exclusive copycats - but there's not too many of them on this forum so you should be ok!

eppic · « **Reply #63 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:45 »

Lol maybe I shouldnt have said anything about that image, but its not an easy one to copy anyway, at least so far as getting that particular look (and that part I wont share with the class).
I honestly think it sells as more of a concept shot than it does as a hand and compass shot, so the copycatters can try copying the concept rather than the image itself.
Hey since I myself have just started contributing to Fotolia maybe I too can bump right into gold status? I can tell them I got this killer shot over at IS...

gostwyck · « **Reply #64 on:** October 21, 2009, 11:53 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 21, 2009, 09:37

[Or maybe they don't think we're stupid, they just don't give a crap as long as it's putting money in their pockets.

True enough Cathy. Sometimes they make it a bit too obvious that they've already got their exit strategy firmly in mind.

bittersweet · « **Reply #65 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:23 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on October 21, 2009, 09:52

He has many imitators, look here.
But unlike Dreamstime with its new relevancy search (bypassing sales by default), iStock also takes sales into account. His nearest copy on the search page has only 9 downloads while Eppic on position #1 has over 500. One of my best selling concepts over sites that is easy to reshoot dropped off page #1 of Dreamstime since reshooters seem to use more "relevant" keywords, whatever sales. That's why my sales at DT are degrading and getting better at iStock, I guess. At least iStock doesn't favorite copycats.

Sorting your results by age, it looks like more than half of his "imitators" uploaded their images before his. That's quite a trick!

FD · « **Reply #66 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:35 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 21, 2009, 12:23

Sorting your results by age, it looks like more than half of his "imitators" uploaded their images before his. That's quite a trick!

Yeah I didn't check age, stupid me. Right, I have a compass here. I still have to find a road that splits.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #67 on:** October 21, 2009, 13:31 »

Well, here you go - the answer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-operation-level-ground-attracts-artists-to-fotolia/msg0/?topicseen#new

RacePhoto · « **Reply #68 on:** October 21, 2009, 13:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 21, 2009, 13:31

Well, here you go - the answer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-operation-level-ground-attracts-artists-to-fotolia/msg0/?topicseen#new

It's specifically targeting roughly 500 top iStock Gold and above, exclusive level artists.

To participate in Operation Level Ground:
1. Artists choose at least 1,000 actively selling images to upload to Fotolia.
2. Prospective contributors provide proof of downloads or earnings to date. (12,000 downloads)
3. Fotolia reviews the application and upon approval assigns an equivalent ranking on www.fotolia.com.

cathyslife · « **Reply #69 on:** October 21, 2009, 20:09 »

And notice this caveat:

Some conditions apply: images are subject to approval. The minimum 1,000 images uploaded to Fotolia must currently be for sale either online or in-studio.

So if I have 1,000 photos on other sites that have already been approved, possibly by more than one site, and are making money, and they want to entice me to join their site, why on earth would they run all of those images back through the approval process with the possibility of rejecting some? That seems like a huge waste of time, unless that's the loophole to get them out of giving tons of new members gold status right off the bat.

lisafx · « **Reply #70 on:** October 22, 2009, 17:02 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 21, 2009, 13:53

Quote from: sjlocke on October 21, 2009, 13:31
Well, here you go - the answer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/news-operation-level-ground-attracts-artists-to-fotolia/msg0/?topicseen#new

It's specifically targeting roughly 500 top iStock Gold and above, exclusive level artists.

To participate in Operation Level Ground:
1. Artists choose at least 1,000 actively selling images to upload to Fotolia.
2. Prospective contributors provide proof of downloads or earnings to date. (12,000 downloads)
3. Fotolia reviews the application and upon approval assigns an equivalent ranking on www.fotolia.com.

Well this explains it.

I wonder how many istock high-level exclusives they will attract? If I was exclusive to istock this would not sway me to go independent unless I already planned to do so.

For one thing IS exclusives who are used to the favored treatment all exclusives get at Istock will be in for a rude awakening when they learn how Fotolia treats contributors

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Going exclusive... Before and after. (Read 22905 times)

bittersweet

vonkara

RacePhoto

lisafx

bittersweet

RacePhoto

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors