pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Best selling VECTOR sites?  (Read 39896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 22, 2011, 22:52 »
0
Hello. I can find a TON of "top 10" and "bestseller" list for photography microstock, but not many for vectors. I've found that the best selling photo sites are NOT always the best for vectors.

I've been using PicWorkFlow for my vectors, and really like it. They offer a lot of sites, and I want to add new vector sites to sell my portfolio, but am not sure which new vector sites to add.

Here are my top 10 selling vector sites:
1. Shutterstock
2. iStock
3. ClipartOf
4. Vectorstock
5. Fotolia
6. Graphic Leftovers
7. iClipart
8. Veer
9. Canstock
10. Deposit Photos

For some reason, Dreamstime and BigStock have really declined for me over the past few months. They were in my top 10,  but have dropped out.

What are a few more sites I should be uploading vectors to?

THANKS!
~ Eli


« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2011, 08:55 »
0
I tried this question on "general stock discussions" but I had not answers so I try here. I have your same question but fot illustrations (no vectors).
Is ClipartOf good for illustration like this (to give you an example...):




and vectorstock is only for vectors?
I love Shutterstrock and I feel very well there but...only there. I'd like to find another good illustration's stock.

p.s. Like you can see I'm not english :(

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2011, 09:25 »
0
I tried this question on "general stock discussions" but I had not answers so I try here. I have your same question but fot illustrations (no vectors).
Is ClipartOf good for illustration like this (to give you an example...):

and vectorstock is only for vectors?
I love Shutterstrock and I feel very well there but...only there. I'd like to find another good illustration's stock.

p.s. Like you can see I'm not english :(

Vectorstock is for vectors only. And I think that ClipartOf does not accept new contributors at the moment. Maybe you could try to sell prints at DeviantArt.

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2011, 10:21 »
0
Nothing  better than deviantart? I know that there're good artists there but it's too dispersive...

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2011, 12:24 »
0
You might check out Rodeo. It is a Finnish stock site, and they do sell vectors. They have had some problems lately because the owner suffered a broken back in an accident on a photography shoot, but it looks like they may be getting back to normal.

At Rodeo I have been earning per month about the same as Veer and about half as much as Vectorstock.

http://www.rodeo.fi

The site is in Finnish but you can write them or email them in English:
Rodeo Ltd
PL 45, 00661 Helsinki
Finland

[email protected]

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2011, 21:53 »
0
I tried applying to ClipArtOf, but they said they didn't need another vector artist (?) What's up with that?

My vector top 10

High earners
---------------
1. Shutterstock/iStockphoto (about 50-50 in terms of $$$)

Low earners
-----------------
2. Dreamstime
3. Fotolia
4. VectorStock
5. BigStock
6. 123RF
7. Graphic Leftovers
8. Crestock
10. Veer (ZERO downloads)

iStockPhoto and Shutterstock account for 90% of my earnings.
I stopped uploading to sites 4-10, because with 75 images in my port, I make only a few dollars a month. Totally not worth it.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 22:00 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2011, 02:26 »
0
I tried applying to ClipArtOf, but they said they didn't need another vector artist (?) What's up with that?


I just talked with Jamie, the owner of ClipartOf, about accepting artists. Jamie is very passionate about taking care of her artists and only works with serious artists with a proven track record.

Here are the requirements at ClipartOf for accepting new artists:
1. The artist must offer completely unique style and content from what we already have so we dont dilute existing contributor sales. We do not frantically add contributors like other sites do because its unnecessary.
2. Must have at least 1,000 image available to us at time of signing. All files must be vector or high quality 3d renders.
3. Must be able to accept payments via paypal.

Jaime added, The difference between us and other sites is that we have very limited spots and will not always continuously add.

ClipartOf is not for all microstock and vector artists. I was lucky enough to get my portfolio accepted, and the results have been great. If you meet their requirements, I would recommend that you try and add your vector portfolio! If not, or if they turn you down, dont worry about it. I know that Jaime and her small staff are extremely busy, so they may not be able to answer each and every one one of your questions, or go into detail about why they turned you down. Dont take that personally. Instead, work on improving your portfolio and finding ideas and concepts that designers need.

I have worked with Jamie and ClipartOf a lot, and I know one of her primary goals is to help her artists be profitable and successful. Her guidelines are put in place to make that possible.

~ Eli
www.graphicgravy.com

« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2011, 09:39 »
0
I also work almost only with vector illustrations. I'm thinking of uploading my portfolio (about 400 works) to vectorstock.com. In shutterstock i sell average 28 images a day this month. In other agencies (fotolia, dreamstime, 123rf, etc) this number is much lower - only from 20 to 5 sales during whole month. What could i expect from vectorstock.com? Is it just another low earner, like depositphotos, cutcaster, or is it better for you? What kind (style, theme) of illustrations do You sell here best?

« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2011, 11:20 »
0
I also work almost only with vector illustrations. I'm thinking of uploading my portfolio (about 400 works) to vectorstock.com. In shutterstock i sell average 28 images a day this month. In other agencies (fotolia, dreamstime, 123rf, etc) this number is much lower - only from 20 to 5 sales during whole month. What could i expect from vectorstock.com? Is it just another low earner, like depositphotos, cutcaster, or is it better for you? What kind (style, theme) of illustrations do You sell here best?

It's entirely your decision whether to upload or not, but keep in mind they price 99% of their vectors at $1, severely undercutting the rest of the agencies.
My impression is they sell fairly well. Not surprising though, why wouldn't they with their prices. It's just a matter of time till all buyers know of the site and stop shopping at SS, DT, IS and the rest.

« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2011, 12:23 »
0
I didn't want to upload to Vectorstock because of low commissions and high payout. But then I wanted to try and I had few downloads with only eight images online. Now I have cca 100 images there and it looks that I will reach payout on Christmas. It's not that bad - with a few thousands of images it could be interesting.

« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2011, 09:54 »
0
For my part it looks like:

1. Shutterstock
2. Istock
3. CANSTOCK.. yes Canstock! :)
4. Dreamstime
5. Fotolia
6. Bigstock
7. 123rf
8. Veer
9. Crestock
10. Stockfresh

« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2011, 10:20 »
0
This month so far

1. Shutterstock
2. Fotolia
3. iStock (down from 2)
4. Dreamstime
5. Canstock (down from 4)
6. ClipartOf
7. Veer
8. Bigstock
9. 123RF
10. Graphic Leftovers
11. Crestock
12. FeaturePics
13. DepositPhotos
14. Cutcaster
15. Stockfresh

« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2011, 21:20 »
0
I have been playing around with selling stock vectors for a few months now. I have been active at Dreamstime, Fotolia, CanStock, & BigStock.

Dreamstime has been decent. I'm getting a decent number of sales, but most of them are subscription sales ($.35). I have my first "Level 3" file as of today, and still haven't broken the $4.00 mark on that image. Overall, I'm happy with Dreamstime, I just wish the commisions were better.

Fotolia has been a bit of a let down. They put a much lower value on the vector file, which doesn't make sense to me. At least with Dreamstime I get the occasional sale worth a few bucks. Every sale at Fotolia has been worth less than 1 credit.

CanStock has been a nice surprise, sales of vector files bring in up to $5 each. Although the volume isn't as high, the commisions are way better.  10 sales at CanStock has earned me more than the 40+ sales at Fotolia.

BigStock is flat, with two $1 commisions in the last 2 months.

Shutterstock is one I'd like to try, but their application process is a PITA, I have tried twice, with every single file being rejected both times. I uploaded proven sellers and still flat out rejected. Of course, then you have to wait a month to apply again.

« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2011, 00:11 »
0
Dave post in the Illustrators forum over there and let us know what they rejected them for.

For me Vector Stock has been a complete disapointment.  They rejected my top sellers across all my other sites and I can't even get to 100 in my port there so I quit uploading in April.  I get a sale here and there but nothing really to write home about.  This month has been really slow though across the board.

« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2011, 09:39 »
0
Shutterstock is one I'd like to try, but their application process is a PITA, I have tried twice, with every single file being rejected both times. I uploaded proven sellers and still flat out rejected. Of course, then you have to wait a month to apply again.

That surprises me. Shutter used to be easy to get in for vector artists. What exactly were the rejection reasons?

« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 11:27 »
0
Shutterstock is one I'd like to try, but their application process is a PITA, I have tried twice, with every single file being rejected both times. I uploaded proven sellers and still flat out rejected. Of course, then you have to wait a month to apply again.

That surprises me. Shutter used to be easy to get in for vector artists. What exactly were the rejection reasons?

At least half of them had no reason listed, a few were "too many on site", a couple "overly simple vector", and a couple with "format issues" although they were all eps 8 or 10.

helix7

« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2011, 19:32 »
0

I just talked with Jamie, the owner of ClipartOf, about accepting artists. Jamie is very passionate about taking care of her artists and only works with serious artists with a proven track record.

Here are the requirements at ClipartOf for accepting new artists:
1. The artist must offer completely unique style and content from what we already have so we dont dilute existing contributor sales. We do not frantically add contributors like other sites do because its unnecessary.
2. Must have at least 1,000 image available to us at time of signing. All files must be vector or high quality 3d renders.
3. Must be able to accept payments via paypal...

I'm sorry but that's crap. Quantity of images doesn't say anything about someone qualifications. There are a couple of six-figure earners in this business with portfolios smaller than 500 images. And plenty of folks with huge portfolios of garbage. It's pretty lame to say that they don't think someone is serious unless they have 1,000 images.


...ClipartOf is not for all microstock and vector artists. I was lucky enough to get my portfolio accepted, and the results have been great. If you meet their requirements, I would recommend that you try and add your vector portfolio! If not, or if they turn you down, dont worry about it. I know that Jaime and her small staff are extremely busy, so they may not be able to answer each and every one one of your questions, or go into detail about why they turned you down. Dont take that personally. Instead, work on improving your portfolio and finding ideas and concepts that designers need..

You're right, it's not personal. It's worse. It's completely arbitrary that they throw out this minimum number of images they want to see before they'll actually judge your work on it's value, instead of simply how many decent images you can crank out quickly. It's got nothing to do with improving anyone's portfolio or figuring out what designers need. Many folks around here already have that figured out, and some of the real pros are doing well in this business without 1,000 image portfolios.

« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 23:32 »
-1
I'm sorry but that's crap. Quantity of images doesn't say anything about someone qualifications. There are a couple of six-figure earners in this business with portfolios smaller than 500 images. And plenty of folks with huge portfolios of garbage. It's pretty lame to say that they don't think someone is serious unless they have 1,000 images.

You're right, it's not personal. It's worse. It's completely arbitrary that they throw out this minimum number of images they want to see before they'll actually judge your work on it's value, instead of simply how many decent images you can crank out quickly. It's got nothing to do with improving anyone's portfolio or figuring out what designers need. Many folks around here already have that figured out, and some of the real pros are doing well in this business without 1,000 image portfolios.


We judge by the quality and quantity. If you have 1,000 images but they are similar to what we already have, we're not interested. If you have 200 images and your details and concepts are out of this world, you're in.

If your portfolio doesn't make us go "WOW," we have no interest. We only need so many images of a waving American flag, shields, grunge elements, flowers or of cute puppies and we only want to add so many artists.

After being an image reviewer and library owner for over 8 years, I am rarely impressed and I'm disappointed in the lack of creativity and uniqueness these days.

I'm looking for diversity of images, quality, and the wow factor and for artists that contribute on a regular basis (weekly or even monthly) that are in this for the long haul so I don't have to add more artists later.

I looked up your portfolio and you are offering the same styles that others already have submitted to us.

Your green icons: http://www.emberstock.com/green_icons/

Our green icons: http://clipartof.com/-ecology_logos

Your sketches: http://www.emberstock.com/sketchy_notebook_elements/

Our sketches: http://clipartof.com/432394

Your grunge: http://www.emberstock.com/splatter_and_scratch/

Our grunge: http://clipartof.com/104474

Your shields: http://www.emberstock.com/shields_pack/

Our shield: http://clipartof.com/1065178

Your media icons: http://www.emberstock.com/social_icons/

Our media icons: http://clipartof.com/-media_icons

So after reviewing your portfolio, I don't see anything that we MUST have on ClipartOf.com This is why we would not accept you. You would not do well at ClipartOf.com because you don't have anything different to offer our clients.

The issue here is not lack of talent, but lack of imagination. Use both together and the outcome would be refreshing.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 23:42 by jvoetsch »

« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2011, 00:32 »
+1
^^  :o
Real classy... calling out anothers work. But the jokes on you.
If you actually had any eye for talent, you would be able to clearly tell that helix7's stuff that you posted is far superior than the shown items in your library. 8 years as a reviewer and you still cant tell quality?

Its ok, some people are slow learners and dont know that they dont know. ;)

« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2011, 02:03 »
-1
^^  :o
Real classy... calling out anothers work. But the jokes on you.
If you actually had any eye for talent, you would be able to clearly tell that helix7's stuff that you posted is far superior than the shown items in your library. 8 years as a reviewer and you still cant tell quality?

Its ok, some people are slow learners and dont know that they dont know. ;)

Its not about who's is better in this case. Its about who came to us first. I'm not going to boot off existing artists and replace them with new, similar work, nor am I going to add more of what we already have. If you actually paid attention to what I wrote, its about duplicate content. We need fresh, new, exciting imagery, not the same stuff over and over by new artists.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 02:06 by jvoetsch »

helix7

« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2011, 08:51 »
+1
Thank you, Jamie, for confirming exactly what I had guessed about you and your company and why I'd prefer to have nothing to do with Clipartof.

Also, thanks for judging my work on a very limited view of my portfolio. My website is new and has a very small percentage of my work available. I'd say you can see my complete stock portfolio here, but don't bother. I'm not interested in your opinion or your assessment of whether or not I'm good enough for Clipartof.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 08:54 by helix7 »

« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2011, 11:40 »
+1
Quote
Its about who came to us first.

This seems a rather strange policy. You'd keep on an artist who's work is not as good as someone who comes to you later, purely on the grounds of the date they joined, rather than a judgement on quality. If I'm understanding that right, that seems rather an odd way of stocking a library.

« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2011, 12:05 »
+1
Quote
Its about who came to us first.

This seems a rather strange policy. You'd keep on an artist who's work is not as good as someone who comes to you later, purely on the grounds of the date they joined, rather than a judgement on quality. If I'm understanding that right, that seems rather an odd way of stocking a library.

i was going to respond because i clearly wasnt paying attention to what she wrote but you hit the nail right on the head. i just thought the name of the company itself was odd.

« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2011, 12:35 »
-1
Quote
Its about who came to us first.

This seems a rather strange policy. You'd keep on an artist who's work is not as good as someone who comes to you later, purely on the grounds of the date they joined, rather than a judgement on quality. If I'm understanding that right, that seems rather an odd way of stocking a library.

i was going to respond because i clearly wasnt paying attention to what she wrote but you hit the nail right on the head. i just thought the name of the company itself was odd.

We aren't interested in adding more than a couple hundred artists, and I dont kick off artists to add new artists that offer similar content. That's how we work. I guess artists do like being bullied and abused and apparently expect it. helix7, I did not say anyone was better than you I was clearly saying you dont have anything different to offer us from what our existing artists already contribute. That is all. Take it how you want to but I didn't say so and so was better than you.

« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2011, 13:11 »
0
This seems a rather strange policy. You'd keep on an artist who's work is not as good as someone who comes to you later, purely on the grounds of the date they joined, rather than a judgement on quality. If I'm understanding that right, that seems rather an odd way of stocking a library.

That's kind of how a real artist agent or rep works. They represent a smaller number of artists and try not to have as much overlap so their artists aren't competing for the same freelance jobs. I don't really see a problem with applying that strategy to a stock library. You can more easily cater to the needs of a smaller group than a larger one. It sucks that not everyone is included, but we've all seen how that works too.

helix7

« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2011, 14:31 »
0
We aren't interested in adding more than a couple hundred artists, and I dont kick off artists to add new artists that offer similar content. That's how we work. I guess artists do like being bullied and abused and apparently expect it. helix7, I did not say anyone was better than you I was clearly saying you dont have anything different to offer us from what our existing artists already contribute. That is all. Take it how you want to but I didn't say so and so was better than you.

I never suggested you made such a claim. I understood what you said, that my work wasn't unique and you already have the sort of work I do on your site. And you could have just left it at that, but instead felt the need to compare images one-by-one. Which I'm sure you understand some people might view as being a way of saying that one image is better than the other.

I'm not offended by it. It's clear that you have a very unique view of what makes images common or similar. I don't share that view and I don't think that your one-set-of-green-icons-is-the-same-as-any-other approach to stock images is a way of building a quality collection.

« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2011, 14:46 »
-1
We aren't interested in adding more than a couple hundred artists, and I dont kick off artists to add new artists that offer similar content. That's how we work. I guess artists do like being bullied and abused and apparently expect it. helix7, I did not say anyone was better than you I was clearly saying you dont have anything different to offer us from what our existing artists already contribute. That is all. Take it how you want to but I didn't say so and so was better than you.

I never suggested you made such a claim. I understood what you said, that my work wasn't unique and you already have the sort of work I do on your site. And you could have just left it at that, but instead felt the need to compare images one-by-one. Which I'm sure you understand some people might view as being a way of saying that one image is better than the other.

I'm not offended by it. It's clear that you have a very unique view of what makes images common or similar. I don't share that view and I don't think that your one-set-of-green-icons-is-the-same-as-any-other approach to stock images is a way of building a quality collection.

I apologize of my comparing of styles offended you, but thats not what I intended. I was showing that we already have similar content; grunge, shields, eco icons and that we are not looking for more. I forget how sensitive everyone is via emails, forums and text, however if you had been having a face to face conversation with me, you would have a completely different understanding.

A lot of people also dont understand what we are doing over here. I'm not trying to stock a library as full as possible. I'm trying to fill one niche at a time. Once I've added an artist for that niche, I dont want to add more. I'm doing this in hopes of giving our contributors less competition with our other contributors, so they make sales and stay for long periods of time. Its worked so far.

Microbius

« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2011, 03:17 »
0
Makes perfect sense to me. They are contributor focused and want to have a collection large enough to appeal to customers. If they are only going to have a couple of hundred contributors of course they want each one to have a certain minimum number of images in their portfolio or the size of the overall collection will be too small.
It's a completely different way of doing things than the other sites, but it does make sense.

helix7

« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2011, 17:37 »
0

I apologize of my comparing of styles offended you, but thats not what I intended. I was showing that we already have similar content; grunge, shields, eco icons and that we are not looking for more. I forget how sensitive everyone is via emails, forums and text, however if you had been having a face to face conversation with me, you would have a completely different understanding.

A lot of people also dont understand what we are doing over here. I'm not trying to stock a library as full as possible. I'm trying to fill one niche at a time. Once I've added an artist for that niche, I dont want to add more. I'm doing this in hopes of giving our contributors less competition with our other contributors, so they make sales and stay for long periods of time. Its worked so far.

Understood, and thank you for that.

In hindsight, I think my biggest issue with ClipartOf was the implication that artists with less than 1,000 images weren't serious artists. However those implications were made by GraphicGravy and not ClipartOf, although the understanding from GG was that his knowledge of ClipartOf's policy was coming straight from Jamie herself. The fact of the matter is I don't know that Jamie would say the same things. And while I obviously disagree with Jamie's comments and tact in this thread, I think I at least owe her an apology for taking 2nd hand information as fact when it came to ClipartOf's stance on portfolio size and what that says about artists, which Jamie did clarify here.

My apologies, Jamie, for letting someone else's comments about your company fuel the fire. I still disagree with your assessment of my work and think that it was uncalled for to directly compare one image to another, but I was wrong to fly off the handle over someone else's unfortunate commentary about ClipartOf.


« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2011, 03:19 »
0
I personally think 'clipart' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view, although that is just my personal opinion.
I also think to base an image collection on whoever showed the organiser their work first in a particular category, rather than who can create the best work in a particular category, could result in a collection of images that possibly wasn't of the highest quality.

« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2011, 16:17 »
+1

If you actually had any eye for talent, you would be able to clearly tell that helix7's stuff that you posted is far superior than the shown items in your library. 8 years as a reviewer and you still cant tell quality?


I liked helix7's stuff better too. Much nicer quality, IMO. I'd love to see more on his site.

« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2011, 20:08 »
-1

If you actually had any eye for talent, you would be able to clearly tell that helix7's stuff that you posted is far superior than the shown items in your library. 8 years as a reviewer and you still cant tell quality?


I liked helix7's stuff better too. Much nicer quality, IMO. I'd love to see more on his site.

Again it wasnt about who was better (which the term "better" was never used on my behalf). It was about subject that we already have.

A lot of artists wont ever understand that because we do not add artist after artist, like all other sites out there that keep adding artists then refusing good images because they have too many. helix7 is a great artist, there's no question about that, however in order to get onto ClipartOf (since there are only 2 more spots remaining) I need niche artists such as medical, fantasy or retro. Someone with a large portfolio covering their specific niche.

« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2011, 20:15 »
-1
I personally think 'clipart' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view, although that is just my personal opinion.
I also think to base an image collection on whoever showed the organiser their work first in a particular category, rather than who can create the best work in a particular category, could result in a collection of images that possibly wasn't of the highest quality.

So you are saying that I should delete an artist's portfolio, who possibly has been with us for years, just to add a new artist? That doesn't make sense, especially since we do all of the key wording and descriptions over here. That would be a waste of our time. Would you like all agencies to work that way, kicking contributors off because they found a new artist that has "better quality" (all in opinion of what is better) images to offer?

Clipart is a term that was coined in Word programs before the internet even became available to civilians and is well known and used by customers. Clipart is a term that even if you think is not being used to identify your images, it probably is. While an artist may not like the term, a lot of customers dont think of "clipart" any differently than they do "illustrations."

While you as the artist are thinking of creative terms, the customer is not. The customer is looking for "clipart" or "pics" when using search engines and may not understand how artists feel about the term.

Not to mention that this entire post got completely off topic...
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 20:20 by jvoetsch »

« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2011, 20:20 »
+1
How can an agency talk like that? OMG I have no words to express what I am feeling after reading this thread.. OMG!

it just keeps getting better, high five ClipartOf!

« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2011, 20:31 »
0
IMO the input of an agency owner should be very, very welcome here. What does it matter whether or not I 'agree' with the agency? It's information which I find both interesting and useful.

'...since we do all of the key wording and descriptions over here...' That explains a lot. Clipartof is not looking forward to keywording and describing 1000 new images. So be it. They want a different kind of relationship with their submitters than other agencies have and want only new submitters who fill certain niches in their collection. So I won't be applying there, and some of my time is saved. Best of luck to them.

« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2011, 20:42 »
0
IMO the input of an agency owner should be very, very welcome here. What does it matter whether or not I 'agree' with the agency? It's information which I find both interesting and useful.

'...since we do all of the key wording and descriptions over here...' That explains a lot. Clipartof is not looking forward to keywording and describing 1000 new images. So be it. They want a different kind of relationship with their submitters than other agencies have and want only new submitters who fill certain niches in their collection. So I won't be applying there, and some of my time is saved. Best of luck to them.

I appreciate your post michaeldb. If I took it correctly. Hard to tell on this forum.

I just keyworded a 4,000+ portfolio covering many different topics. That's not a problem for me at all. I actually love key wording (strange, I know). However, I like to see that an artist has done this long enough to find what niche they favor the most so I can represent their best and what THEY are passionate about creating.

I do like to have a different relationship with our contributors. I am not an outsourced corporate robot. I am a human being and I like to have personable relationships with our contributors who also like to feel like they are human and not "just another contributor." I represent a library that I opened for a reason. Most of our contributors are aware of why I'm here and followed me from where I worked before, where they were harshly abused by the library owner. Those artists knew me very well and asked me to start my own site.

I am also not programmed to speak corporate bs, so I speak me.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 20:43 by jvoetsch »

« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2011, 20:45 »
+1

Clipart is a term that was coined in Word programs before the internet even became available to civilians and is well known and used by customers. Clipart is a term that even if you think is not being used to identify your images, it probably is. While an artist may not like the term, a lot of customers dont think of "clipart" any differently than they do "illustrations."

While you as the artist are thinking of creative terms, the customer is not. The customer is looking for "clipart" or "pics" when using search engines and may not understand how artists feel about the term.

Not to mention that this entire post got completely off topic...

Maybe i  think differently than you do but clipart has a cheap ring to it because the artwork i saw back in the days werent as good as illustrations. A company with money hires an artist to illustrate their idea or product. A company on the budget goes through a book full of thousands of generic cliparts. Times have changed and some amazing artists are producing stock imagery.

« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2011, 20:58 »
0

Clipart is a term that was coined in Word programs before the internet even became available to civilians and is well known and used by customers. Clipart is a term that even if you think is not being used to identify your images, it probably is. While an artist may not like the term, a lot of customers dont think of "clipart" any differently than they do "illustrations."

While you as the artist are thinking of creative terms, the customer is not. The customer is looking for "clipart" or "pics" when using search engines and may not understand how artists feel about the term.

Not to mention that this entire post got completely off topic...

Maybe i  think differently than you do but clipart has a cheap ring to it because the artwork i saw back in the days werent as good as illustrations. A company with money hires an artist to illustrate their idea or product. A company on the budget goes through a book full of thousands of generic cliparts. Times have changed and some amazing artists are producing stock imagery.

I understand that completely. However, what do customers think of the term? As strictly a customer (not a customer who is also an artist), you would think differently than an artist would about the term. While using the term illustration, a customer may expect an elaborate illustration like an etching or painting. I'm very curious of what the majority of customers would say on this subject.

Things have changed so fast in this industry. 5 years ago an artist would have been extremely offended to be offered a spot on a microstock site or even post in a microstock forum, now its common. How many RM artists are left? Maybe thats why clipart became more accepted as most images are being offered in a lower price bracket now. So many sites are even offering photos and calling them clipart.

I'm very curious from the customer's point of view, but I do understand it both ways; from our customer's (that have reported to me on this issue) and from an artist's point of view.

« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2011, 21:27 »
0
O n   T o p i c
- - - - - - - - - - -
I recommend Image Zoo (http://www.ImageZoo.com/).  They are a stock illustration library specializing with both Rights Managed (RM) and Royalty Free (RF) license types. For more information about contributing contact Stephanie at [email protected]

I do not recommend the following stock illustration sites because they do not credit the illustrators which should be a cybercrime - in my opinion
   
I personally think 'clipart' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view, although that is just my personal opinion.


I agree with you 100%, if you were basing that opinion on Clipart during its inception. These days Clipart is at the same level as Illustration. Why else would Google & Bing use the term "Clipart" over "Illustration" as an option to filter image results? Could it be that the term 'Illustration' does not have good connotations from a creative point of view?

iStockPhoto knows the term 'Clipart' and 'Illustration' are on the same level, that's why they went out of their way to associate every one of your illustrations with the term 'Clipart' in the keywords section.

ShutterStock also knows that when it comes to Clipart and Illustrations, they are virtually identical. That's why they include Clipart & Illustrations side-by-side under the category list on every page (25,400,000+ pages).

Screen capture:

I also think to base an image collection on whoever showed the organiser their work first in a particular category, rather than who can create the best work in a particular category, could result in a collection of images that possibly wasn't of the highest quality.

+1

« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2011, 21:47 »
+1

I'm very curious from the customer's point of view, but I do understand it both ways; from our customer's (that have reported to me on this issue) and from an artist's point of view.

Well, I'm strictly a buyer. While I appreciate your business model and limiting your library for your contributors sake, I think it limits your business. By excluding new artists, your library will eventually lack variety in genres and you will only be offering the same art to all your customers. I don't want that for my clients. I like a lot of variety, even within genres. I tend to look for images that have fewer downloads, because I don't want one of my customers to open up a magazine or find an ad online that has the exact same stock images as a competitor (it has happened to me and to other designers I know). So when I know that those are all the illustrations that will ever be offered on your site in any particular genre by the same artists, I will go somewhere where I know there is fresher content.

The other thing I notice is that I can get helix7's illustrations right off his own site for considerably less than you would be offering them on yours. Interesting.

« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2011, 23:38 »
0

I'm very curious from the customer's point of view, but I do understand it both ways; from our customer's (that have reported to me on this issue) and from an artist's point of view.


Well, I'm strictly a buyer. While I appreciate your business model and limiting your library for your contributors sake, I think it limits your business. By excluding new artists, your library will eventually lack variety in genres and you will only be offering the same art to all your customers. I don't want that for my clients. I like a lot of variety, even within genres. I tend to look for images that have fewer downloads, because I don't want one of my customers to open up a magazine or find an ad online that has the exact same stock images as a competitor (it has happened to me and to other designers I know). So when I know that those are all the illustrations that will ever be offered on your site in any particular genre by the same artists, I will go somewhere where I know there is fresher content.

The other thing I notice is that I can get helix7's illustrations right off his own site for considerably less than you would be offering them on yours. Interesting.


The thing about our site is that the artists price their own work. We have no control over that. The cheaper the images, the higher the chances of them being downloaded more often.

The other issue is that contributors usually supply their images to many many different sites, often under different usernames. Unless you know what sites the artist sells each image at, you really dont know how many times those images have been downloaded unless you have tracked the image sales from all of the sites and only if if the site displays the number of sales per image.

The new google image search tool will be really helpful for clients in finding them the best deals on images. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-drag-and-drop/

« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2011, 23:42 »
0
I can't speak to everyone's opinions about the name, their thoughts on policies, general views on the site or other thoughts. As a contributor though to Clipartof, I can say I'm pretty pleased. If there were more sites like it, there would be a lot less complaining on this forum. When I look at the chart to the right, there are only a couple sites that top it in earnings and probably none that top it in contributor satisfaction. This may sound cheesy, but I hold it as a shining beacon of what an agency should be. I'm sad to see this forum turn against a site that I respect.

« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2011, 00:02 »
-1
I can't speak to everyone's opinions about the name, their thoughts on policies, general views on the site or other thoughts. As a contributor though to Clipartof, I can say I'm pretty pleased. If there were more sites like it, there would be a lot less complaining on this forum. When I look at the chart to the right, there are only a couple sites that top it in earnings and probably none that top it in contributor satisfaction. This may sound cheesy, but I hold it as a shining beacon of what an agency should be. I'm sad to see this forum turn against a site that I respect.

Thanks cthoman. I feel like I'm getting ripped to shreds in here because I have the verified clipartof seal under my avatar. However, I know its probably because customers and artists cant fathom what ClipartOf stands for because I dont know if it exists anywhere else. If you know of any other libraries that take the same stand as us, please let me know so I can refer artists to them...

« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2011, 01:22 »
0
I tend to look for images that have fewer downloads, because I don't want one of my customers to open up a magazine or find an ad online that has the exact same stock images as a competitor (it has happened to me and to other designers I know).


If you are working with clients and they are expecting images that wont be used in their same industry, Royalty-Free is not the proper license type. You should be licensing Rights-Managed images for such clients. For rights managed images I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.


The other thing I notice is that I can get helix7's illustrations right off his own site for considerably less than you would be offering them on yours. Interesting.

You can get Helix7's images even cheaper at the following stock image sites. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2011, 01:41 »
0
   
   I tend to look for images that have fewer downloads, because I don't want one of my customers to open up a magazine or find an ad online that has the exact same stock images as a competitor (it has happened to me and to other designers I know).
   
   If you are working with clients and they are expecting images that wont be used in their same industry, Royalty-Free is not the proper license type. You should be licensing Rights-Managed images for such clients. For rights managed images I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.

I agree with that. I have customers coming to me wondering why images are still available on our site when their designer failed to mention that the images were Royalty-Free. The customers thought they owned the copyright to the images and their designer failed to give them a receipt and copy of the license from the site it was licensed from. I've worked with a customer regarding this issue last week. They had to buy another license because their designer (who went out of business and could not be reached) licensed the image for them, failed to mention which site it came from and did not provide a copy of the receipt for the customer. After looking through all of the extended licenses at other sites, they decided to license through us due to our simple license. Off topic but worth mentioning.

Wow Kenny, that's quite a difference in price.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 02:17 by jvoetsch »

Microbius

« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2011, 03:55 »
0
If you need the cheapest vector file without having to spend on subscriptions and bulk credits go with Vector Stock.

Although if I remember rightly Helix has become disillusioned about VectorStock (like a lot of us) so you might not find his latest work there. Is that correct Helix7?

« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2011, 05:26 »
0
[...]I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.


The attitude towards programmers/designers in there is horrible. Most bidders are people from Asia begging to do a months work for $30 (lowest possible bid) just to get the job, while buyers (who are for the most part from the Western world) are often very demanding.
I would suggest anyone who is looking to outsource tasks to pay a proper amount for the work and not always go for the lowest bid.

Interesting, by the way, how Google, Bing and Shutterstock spell the word differently
 - "Clip art"
 - "Clipart"
 - "Clip-Art"

So which is it ? :) Shutterstock won't let me add the word "Clipart" to images, but instead suggests "Clip-art"

helix7

« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2011, 09:15 »
+1
Although if I remember rightly Helix has become disillusioned about VectorStock (like a lot of us) so you might not find his latest work there. Is that correct Helix7?

Yep. I'm not really at a point anymore where I rely solely on my microstock income to get by, and that's led me to take a good look at the agencies I work with and reassess my level of commitment. I'm not yanking my vectorstock portfolio any time soon, but I'm also not uploading there anymore.

« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2011, 09:16 »
0

If you are working with clients and they are expecting images that wont be used in their same industry, Royalty-Free is not the proper license type. You should be licensing Rights-Managed images for such clients. For rights managed images I recommend working directly with the artist or the following sites.


Well, that would be great, but none of my clients can afford RM prices. They are all just small businesses. They don't "expect" anything, but I do what I can for them by trying to find them images that have low download numbers to decrease the chance for duplication, for my own piece of mind. There is enough selection in microstock that this is usually possible. And sometimes I do work directly with artists and photographers.

However, the issue I was addressing was the limitations of ClipartOf's library to the same downloads for all their customers by excluding fresh work from new contributors. I'm not trying to rip anyone. I'm just stating a fact. Without new content in the genres, it would only be the same stuff constantly being offered to all customers, right? Or am I missing something? Also, wouldn't some of the stuff become dated after a while?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 12:22 by caspixel »

helix7

« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2011, 10:06 »
0
Maybe i  think differently than you do but clipart has a cheap ring to it because the artwork i saw back in the days werent as good as illustrations. A company with money hires an artist to illustrate their idea or product. A company on the budget goes through a book full of thousands of generic cliparts. Times have changed and some amazing artists are producing stock imagery.

I think this is 100% accurate. Clipart has a cheap connotation. Old clipart catalogs and multi-disc clipart collections were loaded with thousands upon thousands of low-quality imagery. All simple stuff, often 1-color, and all the sort of stuff that would most likely be rejected by microstock agencies today.

The general terms buyers tend to use these days are "vectors" (as surprising as that is since it's a more technical term for these images), "illustrations" or just "stock graphics" or "stock images" (lumping all stock assets under the same general category of "design assets"). Graphic designers don't say they're looking for clipart when they talk about microstock images. If a designer says they're looking for clipart, they're most likely talking about the low-end stuff from the huge collections.

The odd thing about the name ClipartOf in the context of what clipart brings to mind is that Jamie appears to not want her company to be know for anything that clipart is associated with. Namely being a vast catalog of simple images and being low-end. It sounds more like she wants only the best stuff from any new artists, and very clearly doesn't want a large collection.  

FYI, I was a buyer long before I was a contributor and used to browse those clipart catalogs for graphic design projects. The term "clipart" was used mostly for the large, cheap collections, and was often used with complete disregard for licensing restrictions, if any such restrictions even existed. The guys doing the more complex stuff back then that is common in microstock today weren't calling their work "clipart". Even in the 1990s "clipart" had a certain negative connotation and many people were avoiding labeling their work as such.

« Reply #51 on: June 27, 2011, 10:35 »
0
I can see the connotation. As I think Kenny pointed out though, clip art is a pretty heavy traffic keyword on Google. Considerably more than illustration, vector, stock art, etc. I suppose in the end I don't care what people call my work as long as they are buying it.  ;D

« Reply #52 on: June 27, 2011, 15:00 »
0
Interesting, by the way, how Google, Bing and Shutterstock spell the word differently
 - "Clip art"
 - "Clipart"
 - "Clip-Art"

So which is it ? :)

Ive also seen the term 'Clip Arts' used.

Bing & Yahoo process all the variations of that term without displaying "Did you mean: Clip Art" in the results.

Google prefers 'Clip Art' and so do I :)

Screen capture:


I'm with helix7 when it comes to marketing illustrated graphics. If I had to choose between the terms; Clip Art, Illustrations, and Vectors, ... Vectors would be the primary term I market.

- - - - - - - - - -

Another stock vector site  available to illustrators is Draw Shop, http://www.DrawShop.com/. This site was developed by stock illustrator, Poul Carlsen. More information about why he started this site at the about page, http://www.DrawShop.com/aboutus.php

Currently they are paying out 50% commision on stock illustration sales and 85% commision for any custom orders you do. Sign-up and details available at the registration page, http://www.DrawShop.com/registration.php

« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2011, 18:49 »
0

Well, that would be great, but none of my clients can afford RM prices. They are all just small businesses. They don't "expect" anything, but I do what I can for them by trying to find them images that have low download numbers to decrease the chance for duplication, for my own piece of mind. There is enough selection in microstock that this is usually possible. And sometimes I do work directly with artists and photographers.

However, the issue I was addressing was the limitations of ClipartOf's library to the same downloads for all their customers by excluding fresh work from new contributors. I'm not trying to rip anyone. I'm just stating a fact. Without new content in the genres, it would only be the same stuff constantly being offered to all customers, right? Or am I missing something? Also, wouldn't some of the stuff become dated after a while?

I look for artists who contribute on a regular basis, not just offer their existing portfolio and then that's it. Most of our artists send us fresh content weekly, if not daily. I also love it when artists are available to offer alterations upon request so clients get what they need.

Good for you helix! I hope more artists start representing themselves and moving to their privately owned websites.

Regarding our name, ClipartOf is just one of our hundreds of sites that completely took off that attracted customers. We focused mainly on other sites and for some reason, ClipartOf was the one that ended up taking 200% of our focus. It wasnt what we expected.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 18:52 by jvoetsch »

Microbius

« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2011, 01:29 »
0
I think that the value of Clipart as a search term has more than proved itself. I think that CAO relies quite heavily on SEO for traffic as opposed to ads in mags etc. (Jamie, chime in if this is incorrect) and they seem to be doing very well for their contributors in terms of downloads, no?

« Reply #55 on: July 02, 2011, 01:02 »
0
I think that the value of Clipart as a search term has more than proved itself. I think that CAO relies quite heavily on SEO for traffic as opposed to ads in mags etc. (Jamie, chime in if this is incorrect) and they seem to be doing very well for their contributors in terms of downloads, no?

Correct on that Microbius.

« Reply #56 on: August 26, 2011, 18:53 »
0
I'm a newbie here trying to learn the ropes. This site is really helpful.

Is there a demand for the more traditional hand-drawn clip art? I still mean vector, but with cartoony hand-drawn lines.

« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2011, 04:34 »
0
Is there a demand for the more traditional hand-drawn clip art? I still mean vector, but with cartoony hand-drawn lines.

Sure. I think there is a big demand. But you should check the agencies to find topics which are not well covered.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
19561 Views
Last post May 31, 2008, 13:59
by steppysteph
14 Replies
7017 Views
Last post February 10, 2011, 14:54
by Morphart
2 Replies
5533 Views
Last post March 19, 2012, 01:55
by Metsafile
1 Replies
4748 Views
Last post December 29, 2015, 04:16
by Artist
0 Replies
4243 Views
Last post January 08, 2016, 01:10
by Artist

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle