MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: icefront on December 02, 2008, 19:09
-
OK, I'm not interested in opinions like "it's fully safe" or "it's a hobby so I'm too lazy to upload to many more agencies".
I agree, exclusivity can put an agency in a good light but from the contributor's viewpoint I don't see the reason.
I was looking at my exclusivity estimator and multiplied these numbers with 3 and I still got a number of 1/3 of what I earn when I'm present at multiple agencies. If I produce something why sell this only in one store???
I think about putting all eggs in one basket. Risky? It's good to live in the shadow of a big but when something good/worse happens this big pulls everybody with him. See the new iStock's best match search algorithm. Except non-exclusives, many exclusives had BME/WME in November while at StockXpert, FL, DT, etc. there are no changes. Do they expect this???
Again, except a 'fully safe' and 'hobbyist' membership, an exclusive contributor only looses money not selling material with other agencies. We need to find the roots of exclusivity in the human behavior?
-
Yeah, I don't like iStockphoto's exclusivity agreement either. I like how Dreamstime does it, though. Basically, if iStockphoto rejects a non-exclusive's image then that individual can submit it to other agencies. More than likely, one of these agencies will like the image and accept it. This means that other agencies also have "exclusive" content that iStockphoto doesn't have. Of course, the image may not be any good; however, there are always exceptions. In my opinion, exclusivity does nothing to make iStockphoto more appealing to buyers. Hopefully, that made some sense. :)
-
I suppose it makes sense if the site is a good earner and you have a good acceptance ratio. Also, you can still sell other material as RM.
Not that I would consider exclusivity, because my earnings are very spread among the top sites, but I understand it's attractive (less time-consuming) to upload to a single site, if overall you make a very good profit.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
I submitted to multiple agencies for 4 years and went exclusive with IS in August. It was a complex decision, but it had to do with trying to find a good place to make a long term, financially rewarding part time business out of selling stock photos and illustrations. It was in part a decision about the positives about IS and in part a reflection on the unpleasant aspects of the other agencies. Of course there are risks - and one independent suggested anyone who considered exclusivity required mental health counseling :)
Uploading to multiple agencies is no issue, IMO. If I produce something, I want it to make the maximum it can, and not just this week or next, but over time. It's at least theoretically possible to do that more than one way, not only by uploading to as many agencies as possible.
-
I can't go exclusive with istock because they reject some of my best selling images. My earnings with istock are often not much more than 20% of my monthly income. I like selling RF on alamy and other sites that sell at much higher prices than istock.
It is nice not having to rely on one main source of income. Being limited to big swings every time istock change the best match would drive me crazy. I don't like the idea of one site dominating the market. Using lots of different ones increases competition and hopefully makes it harder for one site to lower our commission.
-
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting ;D Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them ;D
-
Nice.
-
Nice.
come on, don't stick your head in the sand. Do you tell no exclusives are copying non-exclusives ? Do you think non-exclusives are handled fairly at IS ?
if not ? why wouldn't we take advantage of your weakness (not being able to upload to other sites) ?
-
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting ;D Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them ;D
Morally it is questionable. From a pure business point of view it is very efficient - granted! And you are right the best sellers are to more than 90% very easy to copy. I personally hesitating to make direct copies but there is certainly nothing morally wrong to get inspired by some exclusive portfolios.
-
Nothing to understand really! and especially not in the Micro world but, there you go.
Lets move on from this IS/best match rubbish? just dont upload anymore, concentrate on all the rest. Theres an ocean out there. Ive spent three hours, uploading Dealers on Trading-floors, Stockexchange, to two of my other Agencies.
Lets try and leave them alone and move on. Youre gonna feel a lot better.
Best.
-
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting
This isn't an exclusive/independent issue, but is important. Copying easy to reproduce shots - or quick and dirty vector backgrounds with which SS is very flush - is a big issue.
I try to make images and vectors that are distinctive and not easy for anyone with two strobes and some white background to knock out a copy of. I'm also fortunate in that I'm not much of a target as I don't have those runaway bestsellers that copiers go for :)
I also, for personal satisfaction reasons, want to make images that have my personal "stamp" on them. Vectors were (and I hope will be again) an interesting niche as the more complex ones aren't easy to make knock-offs of. There's a reason why some of RussellTate.com's work (as an example) isn't all over other agencies - he's very skilled and his work isn't easy to copy.
Great models, unique styling of the set, great locations and a good eye can mean that it's hard for the would-be lazy sod to copy even if they want to.
-
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting ;D Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them ;D
Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.
-
My mistake in thinking about exclusivity and trying to understand people's reasoning for choosing to be exclusive was that I assumed that most people factored profitability into the decision. This is, afterall, a hobby for many contributors, and making the most money possible is not always a priority. For me, making money is the top priority and I wouldn't be here if I didn't make money at this. Sorry I'm not an "I do it for the community" guy, but that's just how it is. Similarly to my day job, I love what I do but I show up every day for the paycheck first and foremost. And so exclusivity doesn't work for me because it would drastically lower my earnings in the microstock business. However many people are here for the community aspect of it, for the simple fun of shooting/illustrating, and that is more than enough for them. The idea of uploading to multiple sites does not appeal to them, and so exclusivity makes sense.
There are also some people who do make more money as exclusive artists than they would non-exclusively. Statistically most people would financially benefit more from non-exclusivity, but not all.
Don't get me wrong; I love what I do and I was doing it before I got into microstock and while not getting paid for it. But I continue to do it to earn a living (or part of my living) and I wouldn't continue working at this pace if I wasn't getting paid for it. And so I opt to make decisions that maximize my profits in this business, one of which is to remain independent.
I know why I made my choice, but I can also see why people choose exclusivity over remaining independent.
-
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting ;D Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them ;D
Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this. Actually one of the greatest copycat of all is the famous Lise Gagne and i don't see her get banned either so relax!
-
For me, making money is the top priority and I wouldn't be here if I didn't make money at this. Sorry I'm not an "I do it for the community" guy, but that's just how it is. Similarly to my day job, I love what I do but I show up every day for the paycheck first and foremost. A
Exactly. I treat macro/microstock as a full-fledged business, and it's too risky to put all my eggs in one basket. I realize that I may be diluting my sales at some agencies, but I sleep better at night knowing that I'm well diversified. The recent happenings at IS confirms my feelings about this.
I respect the hobbyists who choose to be exclusive with one agency. If I wasn't trying to build a business, I'd probably do the same.
-
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this. Actually one of the greatest copycat of all is the famous Lise Gagne and i don't see her get banned either so relax!
concepts aren't © , so there is no chance of being banned. sane with vectors, but you have to draw them completely by yourself.
About lise ... read and look at point 20.2 at the bottom of :
http://www.perrush.be/SYF_micro_E_20.html
been seeing this from the beginning ;)
-
My mistake in thinking about exclusivity and trying to understand people's reasoning for choosing to be exclusive was that I assumed that most people factored profitability into the decision. This is, afterall, a hobby for many contributors, and making the most money possible is not always a priority
you didn't make ANY mistake. money IS the reason why people choose to go exclusive. If not, they could go exclusive at DT which has a much easier upload system and give you 50% royalties.
So why IS ?? because they make money at IS !! point, other line
-
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is? I mean really, you guys go on and on and on... how many active threads are there about mean old istock right now?
Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!
Why can't we all just respect that it is an individual choice that is made by a person based on their own unique circumstances? Nobody is forced to either side of the fence.
Can't we all just get along???
-
Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!
Can't we all just get along???
You mean the secret exclusive's only forum at IS? ;)
If history is any indication, no, we can't all just get along. Conflict seems to be a condition ingrained in everyone. Though, we can hope and expect at least some civility in a forum for discussion.
-
Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!
You mean the secret exclusive's only forum at IS? ;)
YES! There is an exclusives only forum, no denying that... but my point is that nobody there discusses how crazy, stupid, insane, blind, lazy, etc etc etc that non-exclusives are. You know this; you've been there.
There just seems to be an attitude here that exclusive contributors somehow bear the responsibility for whatever beef someone may have with istock. There have been really mean attacks, characterizations that non-exclusives are being treated with "hate and envy" and all kinds of other stuff.
If Leaf intended this to be a non-exclusives only forum, he certainly has not made that clear. It's been my impression that he welcomes contributions from everyone; but I often feel like he is one of the very few who do.
-
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this.
Are you sure?
Added: BTW the coment about Lise Gagné is false, but its has no importance, because it doesn't portrait her; it portraits you and your feelings.
-
@
getalife whatalife : ( ;) sorry, couldn't help it ;D )
the exclusives aren't the problem. They are just people like we are who just made a different choice.
The 'problem' (if we can call it that way) is that IS treats non-exclusives very different then exclusives. And this is what some people don't accept.
-
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is? I mean really, you guys go on and on and on... how many active threads are there about mean old istock right now?
Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!
Why can't we all just respect that it is an individual choice that is made by a person based on their own unique circumstances? Nobody is forced to either side of the fence.
Can't we all just get along???
There are loads of posts on the istock forum about how great going exclusive is. It is nice to be able to debate it here without getting the thread locked. Perhaps if istock paid us all a decent commission and increased our sales, there would be less complaining about them?
-
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is?
There are loads of posts on the istock forum about how great going exclusive is.
So you don't see the difference? One is criticizing the choice made by others; one is cheering the choice made by themselves.
What is there to debate? Nobody is arguing with you or trying to convince you otherwise. You are preaching to the choir. That's the part I don't get. It is just pure commiseration.
Maybe you are all just trying to convince yourselves. ;)
Oh never mind. Like a wise woman said somewhere recently, once you've got an idea in your head, there isn't much chance of changing your mind if you won't listen to anybody saying something different.
-
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting ;D Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them ;D
It's this type of attitude that has led to the mind numbing repetition and boring lack of originality that has been so typical of microstock imagery these days. Since when are creativity and originality dirty words? Would it kill you to take a risk and try something that hasn't been tried before? As a microstocker who at least attempts to be original, I resent those who regard my portfolio as their personal grab bag for ideas to rip-off. >:(
-
<allsa puts his head in the sand>
-
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting ;D Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them ;D
It's this type of attitude that has led to the mind numbing repetition and boring lack of originality that has been so typical of microstock imagery these days. Since when are creativity and originality dirty words? Would it kill you to take a risk and try something that hasn't been tried before? As a microstocker who at least attempts to be original, I resent those who regard my portfolio as their personal grab bag for ideas to rip-off. >:(
Its not really rewarding to be original in the Microstockworld, take your time and look at the portfolios and the stats of it, you will see its always the same stuff that sell well though really original and innovative portfolios seems to get no significant downloads at all. So my tip would be if you really create something original don't submit it to a Microstocksite save it for a traditional or macro agency ;-). But note some microstockers think they are original but they aren't at all ;-)
-
<allsa puts his head in the sand>
There's nothing wrong with wanting to believe there are a few people left in the world with personal integrity.
-
Nothing to understand really! and especially not in the Micro world but, there you go.
Lets move on from this IS/best match rubbish? just dont upload anymore, concentrate on all the rest. Theres an ocean out there. Ive spent three hours, uploading Dealers on Trading-floors, Stockexchange, to two of my other Agencies.
Lets try and leave them alone and move on. Youre gonna feel a lot better.
Best.
Very good advice, Christian! I've tried saying basically the same thing, but when I say it all people hear is "Hurry up and leave so I'll have less competition!"
We all have choices and free will, don't we? Why make a choice that makes us miserable?
-
Its not really rewarding to be original in the Microstockworld, take your time and look at the portfolios and the stats of it, you will see its always the same stuff that sell well though really original and innovative portfolios seems to get no significant downloads at all. So my tip would be if you really create something original don't submit it to a Microstocksite save it for a traditional or macro agency ;-). But note some microstockers think they are original but they aren't at all ;-)
I don't agree, I think it's possible to be both original and successful in microstock. It's true that you're limited to certain types imagery (business concepts, holidays, lifestyle, ect), but it's possible to approach these subjects in new and innovative ways; it just takes a little effort and a willingness to take a risk. It's true that I've spent a great deal of time on illustrations that are hardly ever downloaded, but then I've had a lot of successful experiments as well.
As an artist, you risk harming yourself by limiting yourself to tried and true ideas - the danger is you get bored, and that boredom reflects itself in your portfolio, consequently, your work can become stale and boring.
-
Its not really rewarding to be original in the Microstockworld, take your time and look at the portfolios and the stats of it, you will see its always the same stuff that sell well though really original and innovative portfolios seems to get no significant downloads at all. So my tip would be if you really create something original don't submit it to a Microstocksite save it for a traditional or macro agency ;-). But note some microstockers think they are original but they aren't at all ;-)
Not only that, but shooting outside the box is also likely to result in rejections because the reviewers are specifically trained to think inside the box with respect to subject, lighting, color, composition, etc. This motivates a contributor to be a boring copycat and to use other, not-merit based factors to get sales, such as keyword spamming and best match spamming using whatever techniques happen to work with the current algorithm.
I speculate that this tendency is more pronounced right now because the prevailing economic pessimism is leading to generally conservative and cautious business attitudes. A more optimistic business climate would presumably lead to more originality and creativity in business-related graphic arts.
-
I am not going to talk about exclusivity as that's a bit early for me, but I can certainly express my views based on the other exclusives and free agents here.
As mentioned, exclusives are locked to one server, or master, if you like. So it's not surprising that you get their goad when you come here or IS to make hell about being unfairly treated, or worse, threaten the downfall of IS.
It is their pocket book you're threatening to cut, their life support.
What I feel is unfair, and cannot understand why IS exclusives even accept this , is that , from my understanding, if IS rejects 2000 of your images, you cannot submit them elsewhere. This is croc to many, and scary to some. I see no sense in that.
Perharps some of the exclusives can explain why they accept that neck-restraint.
As for me, I do have some exclusives for Alamy, even though they do not require it. I just like the idea that my best images that require very little post processing getting the best quality in upsizing for Alamy, so I simply leave them there
for RM. The others are RF which I submit to micro as well, but not all, only the choice 2 or 3 top sellers for me.
So , in a way, I am already practising exclusiveness (exclusivity??) for some sites, even micro Dreamstime , for example, without saying I am. I just want to test the water.
But IS is certainly not on my agenda. I don't have enough there, and I don't like the culture. At least the way it has turn this lately.
No offense meant, just basing it on the consensus of both the exclusives and non-exclusives.
But hey, tomorrow can change everything. That's the only constant in this game... unpredicatability.
-
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....
AVAVA
-
Not only that, but shooting outside the box is also likely to result in rejections because the reviewers are specifically trained to think inside the box with respect to subject, lighting, color, composition, etc. This motivates a contributor to be a boring copycat and to use other, not-merit based factors to get sales, such as keyword spamming and best match spamming using whatever techniques happen to work with the current algorithm.
I speculate that this tendency is more pronounced right now because the prevailing economic pessimism is leading to generally conservative and cautious business attitudes. A more optimistic business climate would presumably lead to more originality and creativity in business-related graphic arts.
It's also true that if you upload an image that depicts an idea that has been done to death, the reviewer may be inclined to judge it more harshly, given that it's just a repetition of things that are already over-represented on the site. The benefits of being original are even greater when you're independent - you're not locked into one site's vision of what constitutes a good stock image.
...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?
-
As mentioned, exclusives are locked to one server, or master, if you like. So it's not surprising that you get their goad when you come here or IS to make hell about being unfairly treated, or worse, threaten the downfall of IS.
It is their pocket book you're threatening to cut, their life support.
What I feel is unfair, and cannot understand why IS exclusives even accept this , is that , from my understanding, if IS rejects 2000 of your images, you cannot submit them elsewhere. This is croc to many, and scary to some. I see no sense in that.
Perharps some of the exclusives can explain why they accept that neck-restraint.
To your first point, I have no problem with anyone criticizing istock policies, assuming their criticism is based in fact and not speculation. I do not think it is necessary to criticize exclusives in order to make your point.
To your second point, if I was getting that many rejections, I am sure I would be questioning (a) whether I might need to get some additional education on the technical aspects of my work, and/or (b) whether iStock is the best match for my portfolio. Since the rejections I have gotten are reasonable, or I have appealed through Scout, it has not been difficult for me to accept these terms.
On a side note, the fact that you even ask this question suggests that you do not buy into the belief some have that any old crap can get approved as long as it is from an exclusive. That's good news.
-
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....
AVAVA
;D
I'd rather stomp my feet, but if you insist...
-
While we're on the subject of exclusivity, do you suppose that buyers receive some sort of discount to purchase exclusive only images?
-
While we're on the subject of exclusivity, do you suppose that buyers receive some sort of discount to purchase exclusive only images?
No, they do not.
-
Thanks WhataLife,
That was excellent! Got a hearty chuckle out of me. ;D Touche.
AVAVA
-
Why not take some pride in your work?
i put an incredible amount of pride in some of my work but this is not the work i sell for one dollar a pop ;)
-
whatalife, thanks.
my point wasn't so much about rejections, as my percentage is more or less 1 of every 2 ie. 20 acceptance now, 12 rejections, so it's not a big issue with me.
my question is more the other issue. if you had those images rejected as an exclusive. you cannot submit them elsewhere, right?
that doesn't make sense to me. what good does it do for IS to hold those images captive if they don't want them?
finally, do i think exclusives are treated better than free agents?
well, in the real world, i treat my regulars better than those who pop in once in a blue moon, so really, in some objective way, i would not be surprised or go into "micro - rage" ;D if IS do give their exclusive some leeway.
-
...
It's also true that if you upload an image that depicts an idea that has been done to death, the reviewer may be inclined to judge it more harshly, given that it's just a repetition of things that are already over-represented on the site. The benefits of being original are even greater when you're independent - you're not locked into one site's vision of what constitutes a good stock image.
...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?
These are very good points in favor of originality. Everyone has to find their own niche in which they trade off the competing factors of pride, integrity, hunger, creative satisfaction, ethics, etc.
It's possible to be too original for your own good ... Here is a story by Dave Brubeck about how he failed the audition for an army band because he played cutting edge, challenging jazz whereas all they wanted to know was if he could play the blues:
"... I was playing in two keys at once. This key was probably in G in this hand and B flat in the other hand, which was a device I was using a lot, I think before anybody in jazz. And it kind of shocked Paul and it wasn't smart of me to audition for the band playing at my wildest, which was very wild in those days and I didn't get into the band and I did go overseas in the infantry."
http://www.puredesmond.ca/bru-91.htm (http://www.puredesmond.ca/bru-91.htm)
-
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....
AVAVA
;D
I'd rather stomp my feet, but if you insist...
ROFLAMO!
as for copying been plenty of times I thought gee what a great idea and then gone to look and seen that a hundred other people have had the same idea :(
(* them and their bell peppers on white background! ;D)
Phil
-
as for copying been plenty of times I thought gee what a great idea and then gone to look and seen that a hundred other people have had the same idea :(
( them and their bell peppers on white background! ;D)
Phil
i was at least a little more original, even when copying, i added a large thick sausage to the bell peppers, ;D
-
Pet Chia,
Great story on Brubeck one of my all time favorites. Did you here the remakes of some of his greats with his sons. Called two generations of Brubeck. A fun album, their remake of " Blue Rondo a la Turk " rocks. A real genius and just performed here a few months back at age 84. Still cranking it out.
I remember as a child listening to Take 5 with my father and saying " He is only playing one note there, even I could do that " My fathers reply was " you don't get it yet " He was so right.
Best,
AVAVA
-
avava, pet_chia,
even today, many so called jazz musicians can't figure out how to play 5/4.
so really, if you're not a musician, not understanding odd metres and singularity , is quite forgivable. but if you're a musician, then that's something else.
remember they used to call robert johnson's blue "garbage", now they're taking anything clapton does from robert, and charlie parker's music "chinese music", and now everyone is playing donna lee since jaco pastorius.
a sign of genius is that they're always ahead of their time.
-
Can't disagree with you there Hali,
All increadible musicians. Thelonious especially for me.
Best,
AVAVA
-
It's a little-known fact but there is an MSG member who is a famous jazz musician and has played for decades with A-list musicians. Not sure if he wants this to be promoted so I won't name him.. but my jaw for one hit the floor when I saw his background. Also a very successful photographer. Just thought i'd chime in while you're on the jazz theme. :)
-
It's on his website, so why wouldn't he?
-
Come on now no teasing... spill the beans I won't bug him I promise. ;D
Oh masked musician please send me a PM.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is?
There are loads of posts on the istock forum about how great going exclusive is.
So you don't see the difference? One is criticizing the choice made by others; one is cheering the choice made by themselves.
What is there to debate? Nobody is arguing with you or trying to convince you otherwise. You are preaching to the choir. That's the part I don't get. It is just pure commiseration.
Maybe you are all just trying to convince yourselves. ;)
Oh never mind. Like a wise woman said somewhere recently, once you've got an idea in your head, there isn't much chance of changing your mind if you won't listen to anybody saying something different.
I think we are rejoicing in our non-exclusivity :)
-
Can't disagree with you there Hali,
All increadible musicians. Thelonious especially for me.
Best,
AVAVA
well, actually, playing in G and Bb is nothing new if you go way back to Coltrane.
on the guitar (which i play) Gm is based on Bb , and playing Gmajor and Gminor is like alternating between the major and the minor. Something we all learn from Coltrane, way before Brubeck.
But among the Berklee circle, Brubeck was certainly one of the first proponents.
Keith of Zymmetrical, so who is this jazz reknown? It would be wonderful to chat with him.
It's been over 15 years since I had to talk music with anyone. Haven't touch my guitar that long too.
But a few art students here in this new city of mine, are trying to get me to come out of retirement and pick up the guitar once again. What a coincidence that we're talking about music here, only a night ago that was the revival topic for me ;D
(Sorry to get so off topic , people).
-
@ getalife whatalife : ( ;) sorry, couldn't help it ;D )
the exclusives aren't the problem. They are just people like we are who just made a different choice.
The 'problem' (if we can call it that way) is that IS treats non-exclusives very different then exclusives. And this is what some people don't accept.
Well, hello? That's the point. To be treated differently. If you were treated the same, there wouldn't be a difference.
Btw, regarding copying, I just helped out a contributor who had another blatently ripping off her more successful images. The other is being dealt with.
-
Well, hello? That's the point. To be treated differently. If you were treated the same, there wouldn't be a difference.
yes of course, but what I really mean is 'being treated beyond the point of fairness'
But it will always be a game of yes or no.
-
Well, hello? That's the point. To be treated differently. If you were treated the same, there wouldn't be a difference.
I think what is more annoying is to see differences that haven't been officially described, or have been even denied. It's ok that they have their rules - it's their site - but it's not ok that they make hidden rules to priviledge the exclusives.
As far as I know, the only offcial rules are the uploading facilities and the higher commissions. Yet we see other things, such as the more lenient inspection and the distorted best match sorting.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
I dunno. I'm sure you could find an accepted crappy independent image for every crappy exclusive image. People just tend to get tweaked because my image of "X" was rejected while this exclusive crappy image of "X" got in. But there may be another perfectly crappy X insependent image that did get in, just not yours.
I'm not sure where the idea came about that everything needs to be spelled out in crystal clear terms, but everyone here has seemed to come to the same conclusion about various things, so why not just accept whatever that is as a starting point and go from there?
-
Most of the comments I see here seem to be from non-exclusives who think they know how things work for exclusives. I went exclusive recently and since I can tell you both sides, here's what I see:
- My acceptance rate is the same
- I get treated the same
- I get a higher % of sales
- I get access to a few more things like business cards and Getty
- Sometimes I get faster reviews, sometimes I don't
- The Best Match tanked my downloads and sales by about 30%
- My best selling images are at the back of my portfolio
When you decide to buy the VIP card, you get right in the nightclub while everybody else stands in line. When you decide to be a high roller at the casinos you get free rooms and meals while everybody else pays. The key word is "decide". The exclusive perks are pretty clear and when you decide to make that commitment you get the perks in return.
What I don't understand is how anyone doesn't understand this.
-
Yet we see other things, such as the more lenient inspection...
I just don't buy this point of view. I think the only thing I noticed was that I was more likely to get a Can Resubmit on a rejection (such as for overfiltering) than before I went exclusive. I'm honestly staggered at some of the stuff I see getting accepted, particularly from new (gray cannister) contributors. Obviously it must be fine technically, but dull/gray/snapshot/not stock. I chalk that up to wanting to encourage newbies to keep contributing. For other cannister levels I just chalk it up to the variance in the inspection process.
-
...What I don't understand is how anyone doesn't understand this.
People get it. You just have to consider the crowd that is looking at the options here. Look back at the monthly earnings threads, and you won't see istock breaking 30% of total microstock earnings for many people. Maybe just 1 or 2 in most cases. So this forum is mostly populated by a group of artists who would stand to do very poorly if they became exclusive istock contributors. It's not that people don't get the exclusive deal, what it's about or what the perks are. It's just that most people here wouldn't benefit from it, most would actually be harmed financially by it, and many just don't know why . anyone would do it. I think the animosity towards istock and the exclusivity program in general comes out most often when things take a turn for the worse (such as in this current best match disaster) and the solution proposed by some is "Well you could just become exclusive if you want to boost your earnings." It's not an option for most people around here, and I think people tend to get a little peeved that this is ever offered as a serious solution. As if things are ever just that simple, and we could all make our lives so much easier by going exclusive. If only things were ever so black and white.
I do know that some people are doing quite well as exclusive contributors. Would they be better off as independents? Who knows. Are they happier as exclusives? Usually yes, and so I'm happy for them.
-
I think the animosity towards istock and the exclusivity program in general comes out most often when things take a turn for the worse (such as in this current best match disaster) and the solution proposed by some is "Well you could just become exclusive if you want to boost your earnings." It's not an option for most people around here, and I think people tend to get a little peeved that this is ever offered as a serious solution.
With the obvious exception of one person, I don't really see a whole lot of people here trying to recruit new exclusives or promote becoming exclusive as a cure for the current best match disaster (which also harmed many exclusives, by the way). In fact, it's quite the opposite.
-
Not only that, but shooting outside the box is also likely to result in rejections because the reviewers are specifically trained to think inside the box with respect to subject, lighting, color, composition, etc. This motivates a contributor to be a boring copycat and to use other, not-merit based factors to get sales, such as keyword spamming and best match spamming using whatever techniques happen to work with the current algorithm.
I speculate that this tendency is more pronounced right now because the prevailing economic pessimism is leading to generally conservative and cautious business attitudes. A more optimistic business climate would presumably lead to more originality and creativity in business-related graphic arts.
It's also true that if you upload an image that depicts an idea that has been done to death, the reviewer may be inclined to judge it more harshly, given that it's just a repetition of things that are already over-represented on the site. The benefits of being original are even greater when you're independent - you're not locked into one site's vision of what constitutes a good stock image.
...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?
Great statement.
-
...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?
Well said.
-
With the obvious exception of one person, I don't really see a whole lot of people here trying to recruit new exclusives or promote becoming exclusive as a cure for the current best match disaster (which also harmed many exclusives, by the way). In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Who do you think is here is trying to recruit exclusives?
-
With the obvious exception of one person, I don't really see a whole lot of people here trying to recruit new exclusives or promote becoming exclusive as a cure for the current best match disaster (which also harmed many exclusives, by the way). In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Who do you think is here is trying to recruit exclusives?
No, Sean, I was not referring to you.
-
And so you were referring too...
-
And so you were referring too...
to me :)
Yeah go all exclusive with iSuck äh i meant iStock and leave the other sites for me ;D
-
And so you were referring too...
Oh never mind. I guess the exception wasn't as obvious as I thought. It's not important to whom I was referring. The point is, the excuse that it's okay to treat exclusives here like crap because all they do in response to complaints is say "go exclusive and all will be well"—and so this breeds righteous animosity towards them— is just a load of garbage. That just isn't happening. The animosity stems from frustration with istock, and we have no more control over what they do than we would if we were independent.
-
I agree there is no conspirital wave of exclusives here trying to convert anyone.
-
OK, I'm not interested in opinions like "it's fully safe" or "it's a hobby so I'm too lazy to upload to many more agencies".
I agree, exclusivity can put an agency in a good light but from the contributor's viewpoint I don't see the reason.
I was looking at my exclusivity estimator and multiplied these numbers with 3 and I still got a number of 1/3 of what I earn when I'm present at multiple agencies. If I produce something why sell this only in one store???
I think about putting all eggs in one basket. Risky? It's good to live in the shadow of a big but when something good/worse happens this big pulls everybody with him. See the new iStock's best match search algorithm. Except non-exclusives, many exclusives had BME/WME in November while at StockXpert, FL, DT, etc. there are no changes. Do they expect this???
Again, except a 'fully safe' and 'hobbyist' membership, an exclusive contributor only looses money not selling material with other agencies. We need to find the roots of exclusivity in the human behavior?
I am mostly exclusive with Fotolia. I have a very small portfolio with Istock and Alamy which hold the photos which Fotolia rejects (Istock) or which I want to manage the rights in some way (Alamy). I would probably earn more money if I was not exclusive and submitted all my images to every micro site out there. But I don't have time or the want to keyword and categorise at numerous sites. Fotolia offers a good percentage of the sale price if you're exclusive and as you climb the ranking you can set a fair and reasonable price for your images. I am at silver rank now and can charge 3US$ for the smallest size photo and up to $21 for the largest size image. Extended licence sales can be sold for $100. For each sale I get 54% of the sale price. With the increase to my prices I have not noticed a considerable drop in number of sales. Very important to me in this deal too is that I can opt out of subscription sales. And this brings me to the reason I don't sell through every agency. I hold very strong opinions about subscription sales, it is unethical to pay a photographer such a small amount for an image and buyers through the subscription program in my opinion are fueling an unethical way of doing business. It is wrong and I will not have any part in supporting subscription sales. I know that through the volume of sales I well might earn more money if I offered my images at say shutterstock, but for me it's the principle of the sale price. I simply won't sell my work at that price, it's where I draw the line morally. Istock fortunately offers the option of opt out of subscription sales and is why my fotolia rejects go there. So bottom line is that I feel fotolia offers me flexibility in what I can charge for my images, they offer me a fair share of the sale price and I can keep well away from subscription sales. The types of images I produce seem to sell well at fotolia and I am lucky that I seem to have a very successful approval rate there.
-
I agree there is no conspirital wave of exclusives here trying to convert anyone.
euh, no. I think it's more the other way around. non-exclusives try to convince other non-exclusives not to become exclusive ::)
-
Note to Sophie - the istock plan is nothing like a ss type plan.
-
I agree there is no conspirital wave of exclusives here trying to convert anyone.
euh, no. I think it's more the other way around. non-exclusives try to convince other non-exclusives not to become exclusive ::)
Glad we are all in agreement.
-
And so you were referring too...
Oh never mind. I guess the exception wasn't as obvious as I thought. It's not important to whom I was referring. The point is, the excuse that it's okay to treat exclusives here like crap because all they do in response to complaints is say "go exclusive and all will be well"—and so this breeds righteous animosity towards them— is just a load of garbage. That just isn't happening. The animosity stems from frustration with istock, and we have no more control over what they do than we would if we were independent.
I don't feel I'm being treated like crap with Istock and didn;t either when I wasn't exclusive. I feel they are making business adjustments to cope with the economy and other issues and it's going to affect somebody. I do feel like I was being treated like crap with the other sites or at least didn't have any confidence in their decision making. Shutterstock freezing accounts based on heresay? Fotolia making massive changes and not bothering to tell anybody? Dreamstime and their hugely inconsistent review process? I'm not going to bother with the other dozen because they represented a drop in the bucket income-wise.
I don't see anybody here pushing exclusivity. I see the exact opposite. Non-exclusives pushing non-exlusivity.
-
Okay I am being wildly misunderstood. :P Is anyone actually reading what I'm saying???? I will try once more to explain.
I was not referring to istock treating exclusives like crap. I was referring to the attitudes of some people here who lob insults towards exclusives like beads at Mardi Gras.
As an apparent justification for these attitudes, helix posted this statement (emphasis mine):
I think the animosity towards istock and the exclusivity program in general comes out most often when things take a turn for the worse (such as in this current best match disaster) and the solution proposed by some is "Well you could just become exclusive if you want to boost your earnings." It's not an option for most people around here, and I think people tend to get a little peeved that this is ever offered as a serious solution. As if things are ever just that simple, and we could all make our lives so much easier by going exclusive. If only things were ever so black and white.
I replied (apparently incoherently) that I don't see anyone pushing exclusive, but the exact opposite. The meaning was muddied by my reference to one person who replies with statements to the effect of "tough shite, if you don't like it then become exclusive".
-
Frankly, I don't see any benefit to either exclusives pushing exclusivity or independents pushing non-exclusivity.
IMHO we have all made our decisions based on what business model works best for us, and in no way benefit from convincing anyone else to go our way.
For example, if most independents were to become istock exclusive it would very much dilute exclusive benefits.
At the same time, if a significant number of exclusives (or just a few of the best ones) were to begin uploading to the other sites it would most likely mean a dilution of sales for many independents.
The system as it works now seems like a good balance (my complaints about the recent best match notwithstanding). I think it is in everyone's best interest for istock to keep its exclusives happy and preserve that balance.
-
I don't think this started as a thread about exclusivity in IS especifically, but about the concept of exclusivity. Of course the recent discussions led to concentrating on IS. My concerns about how they treat non-exclusives vs exclusives still remain.
I don't have anything against the decision of being exclusive to any site, but it is not a decision that suits everyone. It certainly doesn't suit me.
I like the option of having exclusive images, however. If there is an image or a subject that sells much better in one site than in others, it is an interesting choice to make it exclusive, I did this with two images in DT.
-
Hi All,
I have no problem with anyone choosing whatever they want for their business and I respect everyone's choice here. I do take notice when an industry standard is being changed by a company. That is my only concern with IS is the change in the industry standard that takes away opportunity from an image provider that never existed until IS introduced it. I have nothing against people making that their choice. I do worry about certain standards that have protected photographers in this industry from the start being altered and I am concerned about the possible negative affect it might have on the industry because of it.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Frankly, I don't see any benefit to either exclusives pushing exclusivity or independents pushing non-exclusivity.
IMHO we have all made our decisions based on what business model works best for us, and in no way benefit from convincing anyone else to go our way.
For example, if most independents were to become istock exclusive it would very much dilute exclusive benefits.
At the same time, if a significant number of exclusives (or just a few of the best ones) were to begin uploading to the other sites it would most likely mean a dilution of sales for many independents.
The system as it works now seems like a good balance (my complaints about the recent best match notwithstanding). I think it is in everyone's best interest for istock to keep its exclusives happy and preserve that balance.
Rigth. And what's more; I tend to doubt that some of the other site's improvements for contributors (ranks at fotolia, extra bonus per no. image dl's at dreamstime, etc...) would had happen if not for the fact that these sites were losing contributors, and sometimes top contributors to istock-exclusivity . Have not proof, of course, is just an opinion, but I think that IS exclusivity has been and is positive for all shooters, IS exclusives or independants.
-
... but I think that IS exclusivity has been and is positive for all shooters, IS exclusives or independants.
I agree with this statement but would add also that i think it has been really positive for buyers too - because the really top professionals tend NOT to be exclusive, buyers have more choices in terms of where they can purchase their images - 3 even 2 years ago I would say that istock was the only micro in town for most buyers ... that is absolutely NOT the case anymore. With the stringent limits on uploads for non-exclusive contributors (and other issues such clunky uploaf process etc) - this means these top photographer contributors have significantly larger portfolios on sites other than istock - buyers now actually have more choice outside of istock than they used to and no one site can dominate in terms of prices, policies, etc So, as a buyer, I see istock's exclusivity program as having in a real way hurt istock in the longer term by allowing for increased competition among the micros ... and increased competition is always good for the buyers!!
-
...but this goes both ways. Te effort tha some sites have had to do to keep some top contributers, means that this contributer's files can cost there 2 or three times what cost at istock.
-
...but this goes both ways. Te effort tha some sites have had to do to keep some top contributers, means that this contributer's files can cost there 2 or three times what cost at istock.
Not in our experience .... istock is by and large the most expensive site out there for micro buyers - SS, D-time, Fotolia, etc are all cheaper ...
-
...but this goes both ways. Te effort tha some sites have had to do to keep some top contributers, means that this contributer's files can cost there 2 or three times what cost at istock.
Not in our experience .... istock is by and large the most expensive site out there for micro buyers - SS, D-time, Fotolia, etc are all cheaper ...
The only images I buy from DT are those that are still yellow. Anything more than that is not really cheaper since I always buy medium size and I can get my istock credits for 1 dollar by converting my earnings. If I was wanting web resolution, DT would be more expensive since their "S" (800 total pixels - 2 creds and up) is actually smaller than istock's "XS" (always 1 credit).
Anytime I find an image by a non-exclusive I will look for it on DT before buying it on istock.
-
The only images I buy from DT are those that are still yellow. Anything more than that is not really cheaper since I always buy medium size and I can get my istock credits for 1 dollar by converting my earnings. If I was wanting web resolution, DT would be more expensive since their "S" (800 total pixels - 2 creds and up) is actually smaller than istock's "XS" (always 1 credit).
We buy in excess of 100 images a week .... we use the subs plans by and large offered at the various micro sites ... the only sub plan we have not purchased is istock's because it is rather more expensive compared to the others without providing a better selection of images ....
-
The only images I buy from DT are those that are still yellow. Anything more than that is not really cheaper since I always buy medium size and I can get my istock credits for 1 dollar by converting my earnings. If I was wanting web resolution, DT would be more expensive since their "S" (800 total pixels - 2 creds and up) is actually smaller than istock's "XS" (always 1 credit).
We buy in excess of 100 images a week .... we use the subs plans by and large offered at the various micro sites ... the only sub plan we have not purchased is istock's because it is rather more expensive compared to the others without providing a better selection of images ....
Yes, high volume purchasers make out best with dirt cheap sub models... contributors, not so much. Is the average buyer purchasing hundreds of images a week? (This is an honest question; I don't know.) I kinda think that the majority are regular purchasers on a smaller scale, but I could be completely wrong about that.
-
[/quote]
Yes, high volume purchasers make out best with dirt cheap sub models... contributors, not so much. Is the average buyer purchasing hundreds of images a week? (This is an honest question; I don't know.) I kinda think that the majority are regular purchasers on a smaller scale, but I could be completely wrong about that.
[/quote]
I do know that we buy that many images because we can afford to with the sub plans - I also know that if we did not have the subs plans we would not be buying anything close to that many images - so I am not sure I agree that subs hurt the contributors - we buy hundreds and hundreds of photos we would never have purchased otherwise - and those are sales the contributors never would have had either ....
-
I do know that we buy that many images because we can afford to with the sub plans - I also know that if we did not have the subs plans we would not be buying anything close to that many images - so I am not sure I agree that subs hurt the contributors - we buy hundreds and hundreds of photos we would never have purchased otherwise - and those are sales the contributors never would have had either ....
That's my point: I prefer not to sell dozens of images, but just one at a fair price. Whether a subs buyer uses all the images he buys or not, is irrelevant. He has the images, he can use them, he pays too little for them.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
I do know that we buy that many images because we can afford to with the sub plans - I also know that if we did not have the subs plans we would not be buying anything close to that many images - so I am not sure I agree that subs hurt the contributors - we buy hundreds and hundreds of photos we would never have purchased otherwise - and those are sales the contributors never would have had either ....
That's my point: I prefer not to sell dozens of images, but just one at a fair price. Whether a subs buyer uses all the images he buys or not, is irrelevant. He has the images, he can use them, he pays too little for them.
Regards,
Adelaide
I absolutely agree with this.
-
I do know that we buy that many images because we can afford to with the sub plans - I also know that if we did not have the subs plans we would not be buying anything close to that many images - so I am not sure I agree that subs hurt the contributors - we buy hundreds and hundreds of photos we would never have purchased otherwise - and those are sales the contributors never would have had either ....
That's my point: I prefer not to sell dozens of images, but just one at a fair price. Whether a subs buyer uses all the images he buys or not, is irrelevant. He has the images, he can use them, he pays too little for them.
Regards,
Adelaide
With all due respect what is the difference between selling your image one time for $100 or 4 times for $25? And at the end of the day isn't it the buyers who determine what something is worth? Isn't that what a market is all about?
I do understand - and respect - that you are taking a position as a matter of principle so I am just playing devil's advocate here and please don't take offense - but it seems to me that the market has already determined what images are worth - I mean by and large micro is the Walmart of the photo industry if you will - and I am really not trying to be offensive here because I think Walmart has real merit in that it has allowed people with limited income access to goods they otherwise would not have access to ...like micro - it allows buyers access to images they otherwise would never have been able to purchase.
Sometimes I think the photographers are unaware of the impact micro has had on the world of the buyers - I think many photographers see the buyers as big greedy companies who could afford to pay lots of money but are just cheapsters and looking to drive down prices for the poor photographers - but believe me I would bet that at least 95% of the buyers of microstock are small and medium sized companies out there that could never ever afford images from the traditional agencies and therefore could never have competed with the huge multinationals who could afford huge art budgets - as much as micro gave opportunity to photographers who never would have been able to sell their images otherwise, they also provided small companies with access to a product they could never previously afford and therefore an opportunity to enter markets they never could have .... I think this is good ... I think this increases the opportunity for all parties .... I really don't see a loser here ....
I have a dear friend who is a painter and she was offered $10,000 for one of her paintings ten years ago and she turned it down because she thought her painting was worth more than that --- today that painting is still in her studio and she is working a desk job to try and make ends meet - and as much as I love and respect her I often wonder whether she bit off her nose to spite her face?
-
Micro is similar to Wal-Mart as you say. Prices used to be around $100 for an image and then were available through micro sites for a price starting from $1 to lets say $12 depending on the size. But now 30 cents? For a large size photo. Is that fair? I have been a buyer in the past, as a web design business creating websites for small businesses, often self employed people. Micro was great because these small businesses could not in the past afford $100 for each photo on their website. $1 or even $10 was a fair price to pay. I was happy to pay that price and so were my customers. Afterall, the photographer has had to invest in equipment, insurance, business running expenses, props, models and everything else that goes with creating good images. The only reason a buyer pays 30cents for a photo is because he/she can, not because that's the value of the photo or because it's all he is prepared to pay.
Let me ask any buyers out there a question. If subscriptions dissapeared overnight, they were outlawed as being unethical. Would you no longer buy imagery, or would you be prepared to pay a few $s for an image you or your customer needed? You might not be wasteful in your buying habits buying up photos you don't need "because they're cheap", but websites, advertising etc would go on and the demand for imagery would still be there. Would you and your customer be willing to pay a few $s for an image if there was no such thing as 30c subscription imagery?
Although I have strong feelings about subscription sales I do not blame the buyers. They are only taking advantage of a good deal being offered. I blame fellow photographers for fuelling subscription sales by offering their images for sale at such a ridiculously low price. Until all photographers think the way I do and only offer imagery through agencies who allow you to opt out then this will not stop any time soon.
-
Let me ask any buyers out there a question. If subscriptions dissapeared overnight, they were outlawed as being unethical. Would you no longer buy imagery, or would you be prepared to pay a few $s for an image you or your customer needed? You might not be wasteful in your buying habits buying up photos you don't need "because they're cheap", but websites, advertising etc would go on and the demand for imagery would still be there. Would you and your customer be willing to pay a few $s for an image if there was no such thing as 30c subscription imagery?
We would be prepared to pay the $ for the image yes ... BUT - and this is the thing - instead of buying 10 images we would only buy 1 - that means less sales for the photographers - our budget would not change so the number of purchases we make would have to be drastically less .... I do not see how this helps the micro photographer - when we are talking about micro I honestly think that its more about volume and less about price ....
-
I cannot answer for anyone else but it would make me feel that my image has a fair and honest value. For me this is not about earning more or less, I would expect that if our buyer's budgets remain the same we would earn around the same, we would sell less images but we would earn probably around the same. It's not about total earnings, it's about feeling that our work is valued, it's about pride and respect. This is just my personal opinion and I expect that my opinion is in the minority.
-
We would be prepared to pay the $ for the image yes ... BUT - and this is the thing - instead of buying 10 images we would only buy 1 - that means less sales for the photographers - our budget would not change so the number of purchases we make would have to be drastically less .... I do not see how this helps the micro photographer - when we are talking about micro I honestly think that its more about volume and less about price ....
That's the point. Even in that extreme example 1/10, 35 cents or so can't compare with the 11 dollars I can get and get often for an XXL sale.
Subs can be good for certain buyers, but bad for contributors.
-
With all due respect what is the difference between selling your image one time for $100 or 4 times for $25?
The difference is that I don't want to sell them for $25 and there are enough people who pay $100 to keep me happy. The difference is that a buyer is getting them at $25 because we are giving a permanent discount. He might not buy 4 at $100 each, but he might buy 2, or maybe even just one.
And remember we are talking about smaller numbers and bigger ratios. If people need an image, I'm sure he will pay $5 or 10 for the one he needs. What we do with subs is let him get 10 or 20 for the price of one. We, through the sites, are giving them this option. If someone is a heavy buyer, he is probably making money (designer, whatever) and I'm sure the image costs would be marginal in his expenses (if he would buy only the ones he really needs or prefers).
I would be ok if I just could opt out in any site. I would happily leave all the subs buyers with people who don't mind that.
As I said before, microstock have made images already very affordable, we don't need to put them even cheaper.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
That's the point. Even in that extreme example 1/10, 35 cents or so can't compare with the 11 dollars I can get and get often for an XXL sale.
Subs can be good for certain buyers, but bad for contributors.
[/quote]
Yet many many photogrpahers have huge success at SS which is almost entirely based upon this principle ... non-exclusives also get a grand total of 20 cents or so on sales of small images at istock ... with digital cameras - and in terms of the set-up of the shot - does it really make any difference whether what you sell is a large, medium, small ... etc file? Is it about your work product or is it about what the buyer does with the image? If it is about your work product then how does the size of the file impact that? And if it is about what the buyer does with the image then why is it OK for a big company to buy a small file for 20 cents to help them sell thousands of vitamins (for example) on their website that is viewed by thousands of people every day who make hundreds of purchases but somehow the printed bulletin distributed to 200 people at church on Sunday or temple on Friday or the community activist group or the homeless organisation costs 5 times as much because their medium is print and they need a larger print resolution file?
-
Kind of demagogic. We can't know in advance who will buy each file, nor what the buyer will do with it, and if for printing big, any microstock buying cost will be and almost irrelevant percentage of printing costs, you must know that. We were talking of revenue comparing subs to regular sales. About that, having in the last six months an RPIS (Return per Image Sold) of 2.20 dollars I just can state that it's almost 8 times more than 0.30 cents.
-
Kind of demagogic. We can't know in advance who will buy each file, nor what the buyer will do with it, and if for printing big, any microstock buying cost will be and almost irrelevant percentage of printing costs, you must know that. We were talking of revenue comparing subs to regular sales. About that, having in the last six months an RPIS (Return per Image Sold) of 2.20 dollars I just can state that it's almost 8 times more than 0.30 cents.
But on SS you are likely to have sold that file 8 times more no? We have these discussions here about people's average return per image and SS seems to be right up there with the rest .... and isn't this the very same argument we make against the pros who think micro is destroying their traditional business? .... don't we argue with them that it is better to sell one image 500 times for a "micro" amount than once every 2 years for a traditional commission amount?
-
At every micro site you and me will have files that won't sell anyhing, zero, or one or two dowloands every six months. But obviously, nobody's files sell all only one time, not at SS not a IS, nowhere. So, you could sell the same file 500 times at a subs micro or 500 times at IS or to Fotolia or whatever, and you can get 0,30 dollars x 500 (150 dollars) or until 11 dollars x 500 (5,500 dollars). There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.
-
Each person has their comfort level. Personally I'm at the point where the thought of selling at ss is completely unacceptable, and if anyone asked, I would steer them away.
-
I think we need to redefine what an image is. We are really selling concepts. If you hire a few models, create a set and add some props and take 1000 frames, what then? You could select the best frame (in your own judgement), and attempt to sell it once for a high price. Or you could make all 1000 frames available, maybe at lower prices, giving designers more flexibillity in fitting your concept into their design. Or anywhere in between. The real measure is ROI, not return per image. The value of any given file is irrelevant. If you can't sell it, you might be able to recreate the concept slightly differently, and time and tide might be on your side. Investment, in this case, is the totality of your creative imagination, technical skill, and investment of physical resources.
-
At every micro site you and me will have files that won't sell anyhing, zero, or one or two dowloands every six months. But obviously, nobody's files sell all only one time, not at SS not a IS, nowhere. So, you could sell the same file 500 times at a subs micro or 500 times at IS or to Fotolia or whatever, and you can get 0,30 dollars x 500 (150 dollars) or until 11 dollars x 500 (5,500 dollars). There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.
What I mean is that volume of sales is much higher from a subs model ... certainly I know for me that an image may sell 10 times on istock but that same image has probably sold over a hundred times on SS because with the subs model buyers simply purchase more than they would otherwise (subs allow for far more impulse buying for example) ... there is a reason SS is many people's top earning site ...I sell 3 times as many images on SS every month than I do elsewhere ...
But in the end sjlocke is right (not about SS - I disagree with him on that as it's a good money maker for many) - it does come down to comfort levels ... the great thing about all of this is we do have choices .... exclusive or not ... that site or not .... subs model or not .... diversity is good ... choice is good .... I really hope this industry continues in this fashion ...
-
There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.
you are absolutely correct - I mis-wrote - I meant to say ROI ... cheers ...
-
At every micro site you and me will have files that won't sell anyhing, zero, or one or two dowloands every six months. But obviously, nobody's files sell all only one time, not at SS not a IS, nowhere. So, you could sell the same file 500 times at a subs micro or 500 times at IS or to Fotolia or whatever, and you can get 0,30 dollars x 500 (150 dollars) or until 11 dollars x 500 (5,500 dollars). There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.
What I mean is that volume of sales is much higher from a subs model ... certainly I know for me that an image may sell 10 times on istock but that same image has probably sold over a hundred times on SS because with the subs model buyers simply purchase more than they would otherwise (subs allow for far more impulse buying for example) ... there is a reason SS is many people's top earning site ...I sell 3 times as many images on SS every month than I do elsewhere ...
But in the end sjlocke is right (not about SS - I disagree with him on that as it's a good money maker for many) - it does come down to comfort levels ... the great thing about all of this is we do have choices .... exclusive or not ... that site or not .... subs model or not .... diversity is good ... choice is good .... I really hope this industry continues in this fashion ...
Unfortunately there may come a time when we don't have choices whether or not we want to sell through subs. I'm relatively new to microstock but has SS always offered the subs system? It is my understanding that originally subs were not heard of, until SS created the idea. Now I don't think there are many "on demand" sales at SS. I was a member at SS for a few months and I made one on demand sale during that time. All the other sales were subs. I removed all my images from my account there because I could not get around the fact that a large international company could pay 30cents for one of my images and use it for any purpose they want, possibly used as part of an advertising campaign that might earn them millions. It seems downright wrong and unfair. Even a religious group, charity, one-man business can afford to pay more than 30c for an image. Hell, I'm not asking $100s, I'm asking a few $s, is that not a fair and affordable price?
The trouble I see for the future is that other agencies, in order to compete with SS, are offering the same packages now. I can understand their move to this because how else are they meant to compete. One company has driven down the price and so all the others must follow in order to stay competitive. A certain agency I believe indicated some time ago that they would not introduce subscriptions, I don't have details of who said this and exactly what was said but I believe it was said because they, at the time, felt it was an unfair deal for the photographer. But sadly now they have also had to introduce subs, more than likely to stay competitive.
Will there come a time at these other agencies where an "on demand" download is a rarity?
I really don't understand why other photographers are happy to submit to subs sites. I really can't understand why someone is happy to accept 30c for an image when it's worth more. Perhaps the reason is that people don't want to lose earnings in the short term in order to make a change to the industry, a change that I believe is the morally right thing to do.
I absolutely agree that each person has his or her own comfort level and obviously many photographers and illustrators are happy to accept this deal.
I'd also like to mention something else as someone above mentioned being able to sell 1000 files from one shoot as opposed to selecting one file from the shoot and selling it for a higher price. I don't know one agency who will accept 1000 photos from one shoot without rejecting a good majority of them for being too similar. Also remember that it's not only photos we sell, I sell a lot of illustrations, some of which might take me a couple of days creating just that one image.
-
It was fotolia who said they would never offer subs, which now doesn't seem surprisingcinsudering their recent scummy levels adjustment.
-
What I mean is that volume of sales is much higher from a subs model ... certainly I know for me that an image may sell 10 times on istock but that same image has probably sold over a hundred times on SS because with the subs model buyers simply purchase more than they would otherwise (subs allow for far more impulse buying for example)
I agree, but I don't want to support this model just because it gives higher return. I think subs images are way too cheap, and it's unfair to compair sub vs credits with macro vs micro. Microstock opened a huge market that did not exist before. I know people who buy images for their kids' school assignments. They would never do that if only macro or even midstock were available. The hairdresser at the corner here would never buy a macrostock image for her flyer. But this also made other heavy buyers switch to micro, because it was so much more affordable. Subs are a even a better deal for them, even though buying at a decent price isn't expensive for them - IF they spend some time pre-selecting what they really need.
I think microstock, with credits, already made images very cheap and affordable to a wide range of clients, most of which never existed before - this, for me, was the great step done by the introduction of microstock industry. Subs however don't create new clients, just make clients switch to what is more favorable to them.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Hi All,
I must say I am a bit surprised by such a young part of the industry starting to sound like some of the older guys from Macro were just a couple years ago when Micro started picking up steam. I was making a great deal more money before Micro came along in my Macro work but I am not in a position to make changes to this new price point. The market will bare what price it can for any given product and adjust accordingly.
I think the entire industry of Micro is sorely underpriced for most to be able to make a living on. I said " Most " the numbers back me up on this. As the Micro industry grew I heard so many Micro shooters say " to bad so sad " to an industry before them. and the guys in Macro were saying " you are killing the industry " to the new Micro players coming up.
Now you guys are doing it to each other in your own industry. I don't think you can expect people to not compete because you don't think it is fair. If you do not like the company that represents your work you should not do business with them. I don't like the price on subs but I don't like the price in Micro period. Am I participating, yes and I made that choice as an independent business person to try and stay competitive.
The market will adjust according to supply and demand as it always has. During that time some businesses ( you and me ) will survive through the changes and their choices others will not. I think it is great that we can talk about this openly as a group but I wonder if any can see the irony playing out here if you follow the history of our industry, it's like a broken record playing over and over.
Best,
AVAVA
-
If you do not like the company that represents your work you should not do business with them.
I agree, and is exactly why I choose not to sell my images through subs, why I choose to offer some images exclusively with an agency who will market them at a "fair price" as far as micro goes, some images through macro and some images I won't sell at all. It brings us back to my answer to the original question of this thread.
I also want to add, I do see the irony of this when we look at macro vs micro. But I think there is a difference here. Micro made imagery available to people who simply couldn't afford macro prices, as in Adelaid's hairdresser example and as I have seen from helping very small businesses set up websites. Macro prices were simply just too much for these buyers. Micro addressed this problem and made imagery available at an affordable price. However subs in my opinion is different in that it is taking an already affordable image and making it unncessarily cheaper, the buyers could afford the image at a few $s so why was there a need to offer them the images at an even much cheaper price.
-
Hi Sophia,
I really think people could have paid 10 dollars a picture if they are in business instead of 30 cents or a dollar. That is where the first mistake was made by Micro but I believe it will start to correct itself over time. Good to hear your feedback.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Unfortunately there may come a time when we don't have choices whether or not we want to sell through subs. I'm relatively new to microstock but has SS always offered the subs system? It is my understanding that originally subs were not heard of, until SS created the idea. Now I don't think there are many "on demand" sales at SS. I was a member at SS for a few months and I made one on demand sale during that time. All the other sales were subs.
Actually, Shutterstock was ALWAYS a sub site. On demand sales are a very new thing there - like within the past few months. In fact (someone correct me if I am wrong here) wasn't SS and their subscription model the second microstock site in the business, after istock?
Of course anyone can choose to upload or not if they don't like the way a company does business. My average RPIS is .87, vs. the 2.20 mentioned by loop, largely because of SS's volume of subscription sales.
Some people might not be comfortable selling at their work at an average of .87 and I totally respect that, but fore me, at the end of the day it is my total monthly earnings that count and I am satisfied in that department.
-
It felt strange selling photos with shutterstock at first but they have been my highest earning site for all of the 28 months I have been doing this, often beating the next site by over 100%. I now get $0.38 for subs with a nice growing amount of pay per download sales and more EL's than with most of the sites at $28.
Just checked last months numbers and I made $0.48 per download there. I can understand why people don't like subs but it is hard to avoid them now without going exclusive with istock or taking a big cut in earnings. If I was going to avoid subs, I would drop microstock entirely.
-
Quote from: loop on December 03, 2008, 10:35
Quote from: Perrush on December 03, 2008, 05:09
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them
Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this. Actually one of the greatest copycat of all is the famous Lise Gagne and i don't see her get banned either so relax!
First time I'm logging in and I don't know how to make a quote, sorry... I'm quite amazed by your post grp_photo. Send me some samples at [email protected]. I'm curious to see those images you are talking about. Thank you kindly! Lise
-
to quote just press the quote button and start typing below everything that is already in your post.
welcome here Lise :) I am sorry to see it wasn't due to nicer circumstances. :(
-
to quote just press the quote button and start typing below everything that is already in your post.
welcome here Lise :) I am sorry to see it wasn't due to nicer circumstances. :(
thank you :) you are a sweetheart :).. don't worry, I'm not mad though, just sad... ;) a little bit
-
I'm sure there is plenty of copying of ideas, but then I dont know how many times something has happened and I've gone 'what a great idea I've just had' then searched and found there is plenty of that concept. Happened during the week, searched shutterstock and found 17000+ hits for my original idea!! , * them, it seems a few hundred people managed to copy me before I'd thought of it :o ;D
Phil
-
it seems a few hundred people managed to copy me before I'd thought of it :o ;D
Phil
hahahahaha, brilliant!! ;D
However, this is an unwritten rule of microstock. There is no single successful image (in the "most popular" or whatever similar sorting, top, first page in search) that doesn't get copied.
-
First time I'm logging in and I don't know how to make a quote, sorry... I'm quite amazed by your post grp_photo. Send me some samples at [email protected]. I'm curious to see those images you are talking about. Thank you kindly! Lise
I doubt he will be able to produce any valid example, Lise.
-
it seems a few hundred people managed to copy me before I'd thought of it :o ;D
Phil
hahahahaha, brilliant!! ;D
However, this is an unwritten rule of microstock. There is no single successful image (in the "most popular" or whatever similar sorting, top, first page in search) that doesn't get copied.
;D ;D ;D
no, seriously, although i am almost certain a large number of micro newbies and some established ones started out by ripping off Yuri, i just don't think that blatantly copying Yuri has hurt him.
it's much like the old illustrations of Norman Rockwell. you can be a perfect clone but the buyers will still look for the name Norman Rockwell before planting their cash down, even if it 's a measly dollar.