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

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.

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]

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 don�t 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, don�t 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. Don�t 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

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.

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

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.

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?

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 don�t 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, don�t 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. Don�t 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.

^^ 
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.

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.

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.

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.