MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "3 Weeks Of Exclusive Prestige" Email  (Read 25572 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 13, 2008, 14:42 »
0
Following on from the "You deserve exclusivity email" I received this email earlier:



For the month of June, the Week One perk was a chance to win a trip to iStockalypse.

Week two is the chance for Silver Canister members to submit to Getty (along with Gold and Diamond members).

Week Three.... who knows?  ;D

The chance to submit to Getty is definitely not enough to entice me into exclusivity, so guess I'll wait for what they announce next week. Honestly thought it would something more exciting, but maybe they left the best announcement until last?


« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2008, 15:05 »
0
Yeah, submitting to getty is nice but definately not a HUGE deal.

And this announcement is nothing for people who are already gold or higher.

I am curious what will be the final announcement. My guess is that it will NOT be something HUGE and it won't convince people who are not convinced by now.

bittersweet

« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2008, 15:32 »
0
... maybe they left the best announcement until last?

They always do. I can't wait!  ;D I would love a $$ bump but not getting my hopes up. I still think it might be the unlimited uploads for the first 1-2 weeks of exclusivity in order to entice those with large portfolios elsewhere.

helix7

« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2008, 15:56 »
0

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that this Getty "opportunity" doesn't yield much in terms of earnings for those who have participated via istock.



bittersweet

« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2008, 16:04 »
0
You are right to some extent. There is a whole lot more red tape and hassle and you lose the instant gratification of seeing each download in real time (well, as real as it gets these days  ;) ). It has been worthwhile for some who have devoted entire shoots to it, but for those who have uploaded just some things they had lying around, it hasn't been too exciting.

And again the answer to the raise speculation, just posted by an admin:
Quote
(But no, it won't be a raise - sorry!)

« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2008, 16:19 »
0
... maybe they left the best announcement until last?
if my memory  isn't toying with me they were talking of some cash prizes yea?I might be just making it up though, let's wait and see what they will come up with.

as for to be given "the privilege " of uploading Getty sounds attractive but not tempting enough for me to go exclusive yet,since it not not the only way to contribute to Getty,is it?

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2008, 16:58 »
0
I am really excited about being able to submit to Getty sooner, even though I hope to be gold this year anyways.

I recently contemplated my exclusivity, just to see what other opportunities were out there, and the poking around REALLY made me appreciate being exclusive....I have decided to stay exclusive with iStock. I spoke to tons of people, seasoned microstock professionals, read tons about it, researched my hiney off....I would definitely recommend exclusivity to anyone on the fence.

bittersweet

« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2008, 18:32 »
0
Maybe they are rolling it into the Punctum Day annoucement.

« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2008, 19:36 »
0
As a person with a small portfolio on IS (353 images with silver canister)......

I really can't see the value in going exclusive.

So far this year they only make up just over 29%of my microstock income.  Is going exclusive going to tripple my income from them?  I think not.

I'd get a 10% hike in royalties, and I can't see the preferential search placement etc. helping enough to make up the difference.

If there was some hard evidence that it was hugely to my benefit I'd consider it, but for small contributors it doesn't seem to make sense.

« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2008, 22:29 »
0
Actually, you'd get a 50% rise in royalties, from 20 to 30 percent.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2008, 22:37 »
0
IS is now 80% of my revenue so I would at least be making the same money going exclusive. The trip isn't interesting to me. Getty is a little more interesting but these both seem like more teases to something more significant.

« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2008, 03:44 »
0
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think   for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 03:46 by thesentinel »

« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2008, 06:50 »
0
......I would definitely recommend exclusivity to anyone on the fence.

The problem for me is, I am still unable to find any real evidence of how much my income would increase by being exclusive. Since very few members talk about their earnings, us non-exclusives have no idea exactly what to expect.

I've seen posts from people saying they now earn "two or three times more" since becoming exclusive members, but it's still not solid enough evidence to risk taking a big loss of earnings. Is their Exclusivity Estimator even remotely accurate? I guess the 5% increase estimate may be, but again, I have no real evidence.

If there was any way I could be pretty certain that I'd (at least) double my monthly income, then it would be worth a shot. Just this week I found one of my best selling vectors for sale on a Japanese site, so I'm sure going exclusive would help cut down on theft which is a big bonus.

I'd also like to know how long the average exclusive has to wait for their images to be reviewed, as I really hate waiting 5 - 7 days for a review time.

bittersweet

« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2008, 08:33 »
0

I'd also like to know how long the average exclusive has to wait for their images to be reviewed, as I really hate waiting 5 - 7 days for a review time.


I've had files approved within 2 hours of being uploaded. The longest I've ever waited is 4 days and that was before they added several more vector inspectors. The great majority of the times it is around 24 hours.

As far as the earnings, nobody can offer you any guarantees, and I think you know that. The exclusive estimator is pretty worthless. It simply shows a formula for percentage increase and does not factor in any other benefits, such as the fact that once your files are only on istock, you won't be selling the same images elsewhere for less money as you are now. However, that also depends on the uniqueness of your images. If you have concepts that are not flooded and mass-copied by every "quick buck" contributor that happens along, you'll do well. Generic icons and floral grunge swirly backgrounds can be found anywhere, and if that is your specialty there is really going to be no point in going exclusive. (Note, these comments are generalizations and I have not looked at your portfolios. ;) )

« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2008, 19:51 »
0
I went exclusive when I reached gold and IS was 64% of my total income. My total monthly income went up by 25% and IS's 50%. This is what happened to me and doesn't have to be what will happen to you, obviusly.

« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2008, 22:47 »
0
I went exclusive when I reached gold and IS was 64% of my total income. My total monthly income went up by 25% and IS's 50%. This is what happened to me and doesn't have to be what will happen to you, obviusly.

Hmmm... 125% is roughly double 64%.  So your income doubled.

BUT, as you were already Gold, your income would have increased from 20% commission to 35%, an increase of 75%.

So (64/20)*35=112.  This suggests that the benefit to you from going exclusive in terms of SALES has been an increase from 112 to 125 or about 10%.

This doesn't square with your remark that IS's income went up by 50%.  Given that their cut went down from 80% to 65%, you would have needed a big increase in sales for IS's income to improve.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your numbers.

« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2008, 19:36 »
0
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think   for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.

I find this very interesting. I would think that being able to submit to Getty would be one of the prime reasons to go exclusive. Do they not market the Photodisc collection with the same vigor as the rest of their collection? Does the average Micro shooter not know what would sell on the Getty site?

bittersweet

« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2008, 19:40 »
0
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think   for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.

I'm curious where these "many" figures have been quoted. Can you post a link please? I've seen a lot of discussion in the hidden Getty forum on istock, but not much concrete anything posted in public. I'd love to see what you are referring to.

thanks!

« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2008, 02:03 »
0
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think   for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.

I'm curious where these "many" figures have been quoted. Can you post a link please? I've seen a lot of discussion in the hidden Getty forum on istock, but not much concrete anything posted in public. I'd love to see what you are referring to.

thanks!

For those that can access it look at the April Statements thread in the Getty Contributors forum on istock, which i fear I cannot quote here in case of consequences!

Selling the sizzle and not the sausage.

Microbius

« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2008, 05:10 »
0
The stat that I'd love to see is average number of downloads per image for exclusives versus non exclusives. This is the only thing that's difficult to calculate and would quantify all these "increased exposure" and "income boost" claims.
I know most non exclusives don't get 50% of there income through IStock so it's this extra claimed boost that would make the difference.

« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2008, 09:02 »
0

[/quote]

For those that can access it look at the April Statements thread in the Getty Contributors forum on istock, which i fear I cannot quote here in case of consequences!

Selling the sizzle and not the sausage.
[/quote]

No access to that area but have my own reports to view and find this interesting that what is implied here is no one is making any decent returns through the regular channels of Getty. The biggest problem with selling macro RF should be getting the images up on a site like Getty. True that not everything sells but I would have thought people would see a good return. If I was a gold exclusive or whatever it takes to submit to Getty I would forward my very best to Getty without a seconds hesitation.

« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2008, 11:22 »
0
I went exclusive when I reached gold and IS was 64% of my total income. My total monthly income went up by 25% and IS's 50%. This is what happened to me and doesn't have to be what will happen to you, obviusly.

Hmmm... 125% is roughly double 64%.  So your income doubled.

BUT, as you were already Gold, your income would have increased from 20% commission to 35%, an increase of 75%.

So (64/20)*35=112.  This suggests that the benefit to you from going exclusive in terms of SALES has been an increase from 112 to 125 or about 10%.

This doesn't square with your remark that IS's income went up by 50%.  Given that their cut went down from 80% to 65%, you would have needed a big increase in sales for IS's income to improve.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your numbers.
Sorry, Hatman, I don't understand your numbers... But there's one thing I can asure you, and it is that my total income had an increase of 25% when I went exclusive.

« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2008, 18:03 »
0
I went exclusive when I reached gold and IS was 64% of my total income. My total monthly income went up by 25% and IS's 50%. This is what happened to me and doesn't have to be what will happen to you, obviusly.

Hmmm... 125% is roughly double 64%.  So your income doubled.

BUT, as you were already Gold, your income would have increased from 20% commission to 35%, an increase of 75%.

So (64/20)*35=112.  This suggests that the benefit to you from going exclusive in terms of SALES has been an increase from 112 to 125 or about 10%.

This doesn't square with your remark that IS's income went up by 50%.  Given that their cut went down from 80% to 65%, you would have needed a big increase in sales for IS's income to improve.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your numbers.
Sorry, Hatman, I don't understand your numbers... But there's one thing I can asure you, and it is that my total income had an increase of 25% when I went exclusive.

Wow, latex, if I understand your figures correctly, that's quite a jump in earnings and very encouraging.

So purely as an example, and forgetting canister levels for a moment:

Say as a non-exclusive you were earning $500 total a month, of which iStock earnings were $250, and a few other sites made up the rest.

A 25% total increase takes you from $500 to $625 a month, which means your iStock earnings went from the original $250 to $625 a month once you became exclusive. If I've not miscalculated, then that's pretty impressive!!
« Last Edit: June 16, 2008, 18:05 by designalldone »

« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2008, 19:09 »
0
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think   for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.

I believe this is true.
Getty's shares have declined more than 55 percent before it got sold. Its shares fell 10 percent in August, when the company lowered its full-year profit estimate because of competition from microstock rivals. In November, it reported a third-quarter profit of $25.7 million, down 31 percent from a year earlier.
Can we give up our day job by submitting to Getty? I don't think so!

If there was some hard evidence that it was hugely to my benefit I'd consider it, but for small contributors it doesn't seem to make sense.

Good point. My portfolio is even smaller! And I don't need a higher upload limit because I don't work so fast.

« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2008, 12:41 »
0
Wow, latex, if I understand your figures correctly, that's quite a jump in earnings and very encouraging.

So purely as an example, and forgetting canister levels for a moment:

Say as a non-exclusive you were earning $500 total a month, of which iStock earnings were $250, and a few other sites made up the rest.

A 25% total increase takes you from $500 to $625 a month, which means your iStock earnings went from the original $250 to $625 a month once you became exclusive. If I've not miscalculated, then that's pretty impressive!!



Yes! You understood me... something like that. In my case, it was a very good move  :)
These were the stats when I went exclusive:


« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2008, 13:58 »
0

Yes! You understood me... something like that. In my case, it was a very good move  :)
These were the stats when I went exclusive:




That's great, thanks for the confirmation - any info I can get from exclusives is really appreciated as it all helps come decision time. Glad it's working out for you!  ;D

« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2008, 15:16 »
0
The point I was trying to make with my calculations above is that Latex doesn't appear to have gained a lot of sales from becoming exclusive.  The chart looks impressive, but as he/she was Gold anyway, going exclsuive would have automatically given a large % jump in income.

Instead of seeing the royalties chart it would be great to see the downloads chart because that would show the direct impact on image sales.

lisafx

« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2008, 17:37 »
0

Instead of seeing the royalties chart it would be great to see the downloads chart because that would show the direct impact on image sales.

Yes, exactly.  We all know your istock royalties will take a significant jump by going exclusive. 

The big question is whether or not your DL's take a big jump.  That's the graph I would like to see too....

abimages

« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2008, 18:08 »
0

Instead of seeing the royalties chart it would be great to see the downloads chart because that would show the direct impact on image sales.

Yes, exactly.  We all know your istock royalties will take a significant jump by going exclusive. 

The big question is whether or not your DL's take a big jump.  That's the graph I would like to see too....

Ooooh Lisa, are you considering it? ;)

« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2008, 19:39 »
0
Downloads stayed the same, but there's a reason for that. On February I had 2 very successful  files (one of them reached the most popular) for valentine's day, the same files had a significantly drop in sales on march, obviously. So I can't tell you for sure what would happend if those images weren't seasonal and they continued having downloads.

« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2008, 22:53 »
0
It would be a straightforward calculation to work out your sales in Jan/Feb excluding the two popular ones and then compare with April/May also exclusing those images.  But on the other hand it is probably best that you keep this sort of info to yourself.  It would be so tempting to many photographers to see a post from someone who says"wow, I went exclusive and my sales doubled..." and no doubt that would cause a huge rush of exclusive applications.  But I suspect that certain portfolios derive good benefits from the exclsuive deal, and others see no benefit at all; it probably all depends on the content and appeal of each individual portfolio.

Several of the black diamonds get a dl/image ratio of 2.8 every month (2800 sales for every 1000 images) but there are also many diamonds who get much lower returns (one I follow gets only 0.57 (570 sales for each 1000 images).  So the range is huge and as with most things in life the benefit or otherwise is very much down to the individual (or in this case the portfolio).

Good luck with your exclusivity Latex.  I hope it works out well for you.

DanP68

« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2008, 23:13 »
0
But I suspect that certain portfolios derive good benefits from the exclsuive deal, and others see no benefit at all; it probably all depends on the content and appeal of each individual portfolio.


This is true Hatman.  I follow several exclusive and non-exclusive portfolios at iStock to track sales trends.  I know of one exclusive with twice my portfolio size, but half of my monthly sales.  For whatever reason, I do very well at Shutterstock and Dreamstime, and lousy at Fotolia and iStock (comparatively speaking).

bittersweet

« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2008, 16:32 »
0
Wow. Seriously underwhelmed by the "best" announcement. It benefits those exclusives who are keyword spammers or careless keyworders by editing their files for them instead of rejecting their files on the grounds of crap keywording.

The promises of more aggressive rejection policies for keyword abuse is a benefit to everyone.

Again, two of the three "prestigious" announcements contain no love for current exclusives.  :-\

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2008, 16:36 »
0
Yep, latest announcement was not really what I was expecting. I'm was planning on going exclusive anyway, so oh well.

abimages

« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2008, 16:51 »
0
Well...just received the third installment myself too!
I doubt very much that this will tempt anyone on the fence to go exclusive. Me included :D

Are there anymore to come or is that it? If so I'll get back to uploading at DT.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 16:54 by abimages »

« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2008, 16:53 »
0
the last announcement is pretty mean, first they tried nice way now they threaten.

bittersweet

« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2008, 16:55 »
0
I can't imagine ANYone being swayed by this announcement. It goes into the "who cares" column for me.

It's exciting news for whom? The person who plans to upload files with crap keywording? Surely to them,  if they are intentionally uploading crap keywords, the thought of their spamming being reversed at point of entry isn't something positive?

I don't get it.  ???

« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2008, 16:58 »
0
I had several files rejected for keywords and when asked for second opinion from scout they were accepted after all. It depends a lot on reviewers' linguistic point of view

« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2008, 19:32 »
0
So Let me see if I understand this right. Exclusives can fill in all the crap they can get up to, and we just supply 4 or 5 keywords and finish the rest later if the files are accepted?  ;D

That's a dumb move if you ask me. That's a lott of extra manpower for all the lazy exclusives. And the non-exclusives who will have to be extra carefull, supply less keywords--- files will be less accessible for customers--- bad business for Istock as well!

helix7

« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2008, 20:06 »
0
I can't imagine ANYone being swayed by this announcement. It goes into the "who cares" column for me...

I couldn't agree more.

I wrote a post a while back suggesting that istock get rid of all the frivilous junk they offer with the exclusive contract (biz cards, Getty program, EL bonus, etc), take the regained funds from dropping those bonuses and the manpower required to maintain them, and roll it into a raise for exclusives. Seems they prefer to go the other direction and add more worthless crap to the program, acting like it's such a nice incentive.

I've said before that i have nothing against the exclusive program per se, and I always consider it an open option for myself if my istock percentage of total earnings ever hits 60%. But it could be so much better, and realistically feasible for people like me to do it if the pay percentage was closer to 50%. Throwing more junk like this 3 Weeks of Prestige nonsense doesn't help me, and i doubt it points any of those on the fence in the direction of exclusivity.



« Reply #40 on: June 19, 2008, 21:14 »
0
well, english is not my native language, but I got a rejection for the keyword "tall" of a "tall office building"  ???


bittersweet

« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2008, 21:41 »
0
well, english is not my native language, but I got a rejection for the keyword "tall" of a "tall office building"  ???



Which box did you check when you disambiguated your keywords: Tall (physical description) or Tall (human height)? You did disambiguate your keywords, I assume?

jsnover

« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2008, 22:36 »
0
This has to go down with the forometer as one of IS's really dumb ideas. I can't imagine what they were thinking. As someone seriously considering exclusivity for the first time it's actually had the reverse effect - making me want to slow down a bit.

Maybe there were Friday afternoon beer bashes at which these ideas were hashed out?!

bittersweet

« Reply #43 on: June 19, 2008, 22:50 »
0
i agree, and not only that, but it is creating as divisive an environment in the community as I have seen in quite some time. The "us vs. them" mentality is already out of hand. I for one do not appreciate the generalizations being made which imply that all exclusives are lazy conniving keyword spammers who plan to purposely monopolize the inspectors' time. It's ludicrous.

I'm sure that the wiki system will still be in effect (please God let it be part of this overhaul) and those few who add back in keywords will stick out like a sore thumb, due to the fact that their files will have already been past an inspector who (theoretically) will have already removed any irrelevant terms.

However, I still think this is a dumb idea and is already proving to be doing more harm than good, and is not even yet in full effect.

DanP68

« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2008, 23:04 »
0
i agree, and not only that, but it is creating as divisive an environment in the community as I have seen in quite some time. The "us vs. them" mentality is already out of hand. I for one do not appreciate the generalizations being made which imply that all exclusives are lazy conniving keyword spammers who plan to purposely monopolize the inspectors' time. It's ludicrous.


I agree.  But as you say, it is iStock which is creating this divisive environment.  They have made some real head scratcher decisions in the last year.  And I think they need independents a lot more than they apparently think they do.

« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2008, 00:00 »
0
well, english is not my native language, but I got a rejection for the keyword "tall" of a "tall office building"  ???



Which box did you check when you disambiguated your keywords: Tall (physical description) or Tall (human height)? You did disambiguate your keywords, I assume?

yes I disambiguate all my keywords since the system was implemented. Also disambiguated all images with 1 or more sales from before the time of implementation.

I selected Tall (physical description) . i don't care too much about the rejection. It's just funny that I got the rejection and the IS exclusive keywork statement mail pretty much at the same time ...


bittersweet

« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2008, 00:12 »
0
well, english is not my native language, but I got a rejection for the keyword "tall" of a "tall office building"  ???



Which box did you check when you disambiguated your keywords: Tall (physical description) or Tall (human height)? You did disambiguate your keywords, I assume?

yes I disambiguate all my keywords since the system was implemented. Also disambiguated all images with 1 or more sales from before the time of implementation.

I selected Tall (physical description) . i don't care too much about the rejection. It's just funny that I got the rejection and the IS exclusive keywork statement mail pretty much at the same time ...



Well if that was the only reason listed for your rejection, it was clearly a mistake (as was the example posted by Lisa on the istock forums) and you should submit it for appeal.

« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2008, 00:58 »
0
che che...

These IS "exclusive prestige" emails belong to "you were chosen to win 1 million euros..." or "my father sheik died in Africa and I would like to transfer 20 millions in your account.." group.

Maybe one or two will decide to became exclusives from thousands emails..

It's a nonsense. Calculate from beginning to the end and back million times, anyhow you will not earn more with IS exclusive than without exclusive on several agencies. To say nothing about restrictions to sell your photos, stupid rejections etc...

Ach, yes, I forgot about all "benefits"!.. LOL
I really don't understand... I seemed  IS administration is clever...

Exclusive? Not today.
Exclusive with IS? Never.
Not for me.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 01:34 by 4seasons »

« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2008, 03:59 »
0
I for one do not appreciate the generalizations being made which imply that all exclusives are lazy conniving keyword spammers who plan to purposely monopolize the inspectors' time. It's ludicrous.

Said who?   ???

Microbius

« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2008, 04:49 »
0
It's increasingly looking like they are penalizing non exclusives rather than rewarding exclusives, extremely ungrateful when you look at the huge percentage they already take from us.

They're soooo shooting themselves in the foot.
The more income is reduced for non exclusives the less it'll make sense to go exclusive for those doing the 50% income calculation.

What they should be doing is concentrating on increasing their market share and getting new customers, increasing IStock income as a share of our totals.


Microbius

« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2008, 04:52 »
0
I for one do not appreciate the generalizations being made which imply that all exclusives are lazy conniving keyword spammers who plan to purposely monopolize the inspectors' time. It's ludicrous.

Said who?   ???
"We've given Inspectors a mandate to aggressively reject non-Exclusive files with poor metadata.Exclusives will not receive any rejections for keywords we're working hard to stop the influx of bad keywords right at the source. "
Could be read as implying the above?

« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2008, 07:21 »
0
Maybe could be better worded, but that's just something that has been asked for hundreds of time: more keyword control. Looking at Recent Downloads you often find awfully extra-spammed files. Now, spammig would be a motive for rejection, but exclusives will have the extra-service of being re-keyworded in house. Maybe it's not enough to convnce those in the fence, I don't know, but it's good news.

« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2008, 07:36 »
0
I dont know if this is good news or not, may be good for spamming, but this give me the feeling that istock is trying to drive non-exclusive out of their site. They are very hard on rejections, photos that sell real well in other sites they reject for stupid reasons, now this is another excuse to reject your non-exclusive images even more. Sales have dropped very much for me at this site and I dont see them coming back at the level I was before. As a matter of fact after being my second best selling site has gone to be the worst.

bittersweet

« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2008, 07:53 »
0
I for one do not appreciate the generalizations being made which imply that all exclusives are lazy conniving keyword spammers who plan to purposely monopolize the inspectors' time. It's ludicrous.

Said who?   ???

Are you asking who said these implications are ludicrous? Or are you asking who made these generalizations? I assume it is the former and not the latter since you yourself said:

Quote
So Let me see if I understand this right. Exclusives can fill in all the crap they can get up to  ... That's a lott of extra manpower for all the lazy exclusives.

« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2008, 08:13 »
0
Are you asking who said these implications are ludicrous? Or are you asking who made these generalizations? I assume it is the former and not the latter since you yourself said:

Quote
So Let me see if I understand this right. Exclusives can fill in all the crap they can get up to  ... That's a lott of extra manpower for all the lazy exclusives.

No I was asking who made these generalizations, because I sure as hell didn't.
"All the lazy exclusives" leaves enough room for exclusives who are not lazy. Where did I say that all the exclusives where lazy?
And in the context of the subject it was not necessary to mention that there are also lazy non-exclusives. ( note; not all of them)

« Reply #55 on: June 21, 2008, 00:46 »
0
I dont know if this is good news or not, may be good for spamming, but this give me the feeling that istock is trying to drive non-exclusive out of their site. They are very hard on rejections, photos that sell real well in other sites they reject for stupid reasons, now this is another excuse to reject your non-exclusive images even more. Sales have dropped very much for me at this site and I dont see them coming back at the level I was before. As a matter of fact after being my second best selling site has gone to be the worst.

I would edit this: it's not only feeling, i's a fact.

Almost the same here. I'm with IS from the beginning and long time IS was my No1 earner, now it's No7, even BS earns more...

They should write very clear about rejections: "We don't like nonexclusives so all your images have been rejected" instead of stupid reasons..

« Reply #56 on: June 21, 2008, 01:24 »
0
For some reason I didn't get the 3rd announcement.

Maybe they realised that I've no intention of going exclusive with them and tried to save on a teeny bit of bandwidth   ;D

Could someone post it here please ... or at least the text. I'd like to see what I'm not going to accept.   ;)

P.S I've calculated that, for me, it would require a 6-7 times increase in earnings to make exclusivity even remotely interesting. Of course, it's obviously an individual thing, but I've simply added up all the income I got from all the other agencies I sell through over a certain period of time and offset that against what I've earned at IS over the same period. As far as I'm concerned it's the bottom line that counts. Forget about all the win a free trip, get your images approved faster, contribute to Getty crap.

jsnover

« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2008, 02:29 »
0

« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2008, 02:31 »
0
Thanks   :)

Exclusives will not receive any rejections for keywords.  If your upload has any incorrect tags and terms, the team will remove them and approve your files.

That's a benefit? As an exclusive you can keyword spam to your heart's content and the poor underpaid inspectors will kindly remove all the rubbish for you.

What's next? No need to remove the dust spots, the inspectors will do it? Don't worry about noise, we'll work on it? Hey! Why not just send us your RAW files straight out of the camera - we'll do all the post processing.

I'm probably a bit old fashioned here, but I believe in getting things right yourself - even the keywords. It's a good way to improve your work.


« Last Edit: June 21, 2008, 02:45 by Bateleur »

« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2008, 03:27 »
0
Could it be that they are a bit strict about keywords  last few days , cause I got few strange rejections , like rejecting rosemary plant for keyword "spice" etc.

« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2008, 05:12 »
0
So with inspectors spending more time messing about with exclusives keywords, it will mean that non-exclusive files now take even longer to review....

Seriously, what a waste of time and resources - if contributors can't be bothered to take the time and effort required to keyword their images correctly, then the images don't deserve to be on the site in the first place. Why on earth would you reward contributors for doing something incorrectly?


« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2008, 05:51 »
0
There is nothing wrong with extra advantages for exclusives.
But this looks like they do it the other way around, bullying the non exclusives!
I first thought that this new service would require extra manpower. But come to think of this; reviewers have to spent time checking keywords anyway, so why not deleting one or two irrelevant keywords if there is no blatant spamming involved? The sooner the image appears online the sooner the image brings in money for both parties. I wonder why all stocksites are not doing this already. Rejecting the image means more work for the contributor and more work for the next reviewer as well. So actually I think this is a wise business move.
BUT... denying this service to non exclusives and even announcing to aggressively reject more non exclusive images is very unprofessional in my opinion. Punish the real spammers, give them warnings, no matter if they are exclusive or not.
Istock makes me feel like a dope dealer who is doing business at the backdoor of a pharmaceutical factory.
They don't make me feel like a worthy contributor anymore. How should I be motivated to become exclusive this way?
I made the top 50 twice on SS last week, SS is my nr 1 earner again.
StockXpert is doing great, several credit sales every day, receiving 50% commission.
Had an XXL sale the other day--$7,50 for one download.
My last few uploads which are doing great everywhere, are doing miserable on Istock.
Is all this due the non-exclusive search ranking? Can Istock reassure more steady sales if I become Exclusive?
I can find enough exclusives with less sales than I do, so why should my sales increase so spectacularly?
I don't need business cards because I don't do commission work.
I don't need higher upload limits because I don't work so fast.
I don't need lotteries ( again very unprofessional, you're dealing with professionals here, not with Cola drinking-teenagers watching Mtv !)

Now give me a good reason to go exclusive Istock!

« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2008, 07:46 »
0

Now give me a good reason to go exclusive Istock!


It gives me more opportunity with the other agencies   ;D

« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2008, 08:33 »
0
They have a unique faculty to indispose people toward themselves and mischief contributors between istockers and others. It's a spirit, not only business. Kind of religious sect.

jsnover

« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2008, 11:05 »
0
Maybe could be better worded, but that's just something that has been asked for hundreds of time: more keyword control. Looking at Recent Downloads you often find awfully extra-spammed files. Now, spammig would be a motive for rejection, but exclusives will have the extra-service of being re-keyworded in house. Maybe it's not enough to convnce those in the fence, I don't know, but it's good news.

Poorly worded? That's being exceedingly generous. There's a long thread about what a truly dreadful idea this is on the IS forums, so I don't think there's much point in summarizing that here.

I'm just hoping they're willing to eat a large helping of humble pie and fix this mess by removing this idea, doing something that actually deals effectively with serial spammers, and having something meaningful (commission percentage anyone?) as the third item in their incentive program.

« Reply #65 on: June 21, 2008, 17:39 »
0
It seems the longer and harder iStock works to make independent content on their site rare, the larger the advantages of looking elsewhere for images will be. I for one have at least double the images elsewhere than at istock, and I imagine that many have much larger imbalances. Instead of trumpeting the exclusive content, they will have to try to hide how many great images they don't have.

I did get one Keyword rejection in my last batch, but since they rejected it for artifacts and light or miscolored pixels or something else like that, I won't even bother looking at what keywords they didn't like. probably something they keyword mapped to something rediculous and I didn't catch.

Rather than an added bonus for exclusivity, this latest "offer" is more of an added stick for independents.

They do get points for trying to fix ambiguous keywords and spamming, but they are doing a rather poor and annoying job of it as far as I'm concerned.

« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2008, 03:39 »
0
jsnover,

just red your post on IS forum. Good questions. Interesting to see how no one, I mean exclusives, has nothing to answer

« Reply #67 on: June 22, 2008, 04:42 »
0
A thought ...

Does anyone know, or is it Written anywhere ... will the exclusives be told what keywords have been kindly removed from their images?

I know they'll be able to check by comparing what they've submitted with what's accepted, but that's kind of unwieldy and not many people will have the time to do that.

What if a relevant keyword is removed and they don't know anything about it?

Sounds like a disadvantage to me.

bittersweet

« Reply #68 on: June 22, 2008, 08:32 »
0
jsnover,

just red your post on IS forum. Good questions. Interesting to see how no one, I mean exclusives, has nothing to answer

Jo Ann has made several very thoughtful remarks in that thread. However, the only question that I see is the one where she is asking "why all this independent sniping?" (or something to that effect) to which I must question whether she is reading the same thread I am. There are a total of two individuals (in 11 pages of discussion) who have made even remotely snarky comments against independents. The overwhelming majority of exclusives seem to have their grievances directed where it rightly should be, toward istockphoto.

Interesting to see how you expect exclusives to answer on their behalf.

bittersweet

« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2008, 08:43 »
0
Does anyone know, or is it Written anywhere ... will the exclusives be told what keywords have been kindly removed from their images?

There has been absolutely NO official statement made on this subject. There is a ton of wild speculation and the ranting responses to go along with it.

The announcement said that bad keywords would be REMOVED. There was NOTHING stating that good keywords would be added. Yet there are plenty of people ticked off because now "lazy exclusives" can just add the "minimum 5" and let the inspectors do the rest of the work. Then there are others who are ticked off and ranting because they don't want any keywords added to their files. THEY HAVE NEVER SAID THAT KEYWORDS ARE GOING TO BE ADDED.

I'm with everyone else in thinking this whole announcement is absurd, but I don't understand why people get all up in arms based on some random person speculating about their worst case scenario.

« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2008, 09:05 »
0

The announcement said that bad keywords would be REMOVED. There was NOTHING stating that good keywords would be added. Yet there are plenty of people ticked off because now "lazy exclusives" can just add the "minimum 5" and let the inspectors do the rest of the work. Then there are others who are ticked off and ranting because they don't want any keywords added to their files. THEY HAVE NEVER SAID THAT KEYWORDS ARE GOING TO BE ADDED.

You're right! But by "lazy" I mean people who copy/paste keywords from similar files without bothering to delete the irrelevant ones! Sorry for the confusion.

bittersweet

« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2008, 10:23 »
0
Hi Gregor,
While we are clarifying, let me say that my comments in reference to negative generalizations being made were not referring to a single comment, nor a single person's comments. It is pretty obvious that there is plenty of animosity towards exclusives, and I'm not sure why that is. We have absolutely zero to do with what policies are put into place.

I personally respect everyone's right to make their own choice as to whether or not exclusivity is right for them. I just wish there was a little more reciprocity in regards to others respecting my right to make that choice for myself. I don't feel the need to "convince" anyone that they should become exclusive, and I don't like being characterized as stupid, foolish, crazy, whatever because I have made that choice. Why do you care and why so much energy being put into such negativity when my choice does not concern you in the least? (And by "you", again, I'm being very general in my reference. I do not mean you personally.)

jsnover

« Reply #72 on: June 22, 2008, 10:32 »
0
It is pretty obvious that there is plenty of animosity towards exclusives, and I'm not sure why that is.
I'm sorry if I should know you from IS, but I don't, so I don't know how long you've been around there. The animosity has grown from a long history of very unpleasant comments in the forums, by some exclusives, that were scathing about the work and the role of independents at IS.

Many, many exclusives there are wonderful folks with a great attitude, but there is an undercurrent of anti-independent sentiment that surfaces periodically - as it often does in any two-tier system of this sort. When IS seems to make policy decisions that drive a bigger wedge - not just more money or faster inspections, but which images get into the collection and where they get placed in search results - the flames tend to flare up again. Exclusives saying they have a right to this and independents that they're being dissed and or forced out.

bittersweet

« Reply #73 on: June 22, 2008, 10:38 »
0
So your comment was partially based on past experiences, and not entirely on the contents of that thread. I understand. When I read that thread (yes, all 11 pages of it) I see more anti-exclusive comments coming from independents than the other way around. That's why I was confused. :)

I know what you mean about the divisive nature of these types of policies (I think I mentioned that somewhere in this thread). Still, I didn't really see too many exclusives saying that they agreed with this latest issue. I think it is productive to focus on the issue at hand, rather than bring any unnecessary baggage to the table. I guess it's human nature though.

Cheers.

« Reply #74 on: June 22, 2008, 13:45 »
0
"When I read that thread (yes, all 11 pages of it) I see more anti-exclusive comments coming from independents than the other way around. "

... And you will see this pattern in any forum, no matter what other people can say. It's plain obvious. And useless, because, there's no point in an animosity exclusives/non exclusives.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2008, 15:39 by loop »

« Reply #75 on: June 22, 2008, 20:14 »
0
Here are some random thoughts:

It seems clear to me that stock photography has entered a bear market (dire economic conditions resulting in reduced demand etc etc).

It also seems reasonably clear that the new owners of Getty will want to make the businesses cleaner and leaner to maximise profits.

I understand that Getty does all the keywording etc for submissions.  Does it seem reasonable that the new owners would sanction the recruitment of 20 new keyword people for iStock when there is already a team in place at Getty (who might be underemployed)?

Does it also seem reasonable that Getty employs people to do RF and iStock also employs people to do RF?  Doesn't this seem like duplication?

So perhaps this new keyword facility is just one more step towards the eventual integration of Getty RF and iStock RF.  And perhaps the 20 new employees aren't going to be 'new' at all, but a reallocation of resources from elsewhere.

And perhaps when iStock does the keywording, more Getty photographers will be inclined to also contribute to iStock.

The dividing line between Getty RF and iStock RF is closing all the time.

« Reply #76 on: June 22, 2008, 21:04 »
0
Depending on the number and quality of exclusive artists iS signs on, it is entirely possible for iStock, i.e. daddy Getty to decide to close submissions to nothing but the exclusive photographers. I mean, it was not along ago that most traditional agencies dealt with photographers on an artist exclusive basis. The key is to attract the top talent. iStock is hardly interested in representing everything that is shot considering the teeny submission allocations they allow for non exclusives and trigger happy reviewers. If you want in, maybe now is the time. Before it's too late!!

« Reply #77 on: July 02, 2008, 12:18 »
0
I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

« Reply #78 on: July 02, 2008, 12:51 »
0
I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...

« Reply #79 on: July 02, 2008, 13:30 »
0
Just want to add, if a company applies artistic double standard and discriminatory practice towards a certain segment of its contributors, eventually it may hurt its credibility. Don't forget, many contributors are buyers or in the position to influence the buying decisions.

bittersweet

« Reply #80 on: July 02, 2008, 13:36 »
0
I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...

While I agree that it is not a major perk upon which anyone should base huge life-altering decisions, I respectfully disagree that these can be printed online for "under a fiver".

1. The 200 free cards can include an assortment of up to 50 different images from the artist's portfolio.

2. Each card is printed with a code which entitles the bearer to 10 free credits. Each code is linked to the artist on the card. Each referral that results in a purchase of credits beyond the free ones will result in a referral bonus of $10 being paid to the artist.

So they are a bit more than just ordinary business cards.

lisafx

« Reply #81 on: July 02, 2008, 14:32 »
0
I agree that the business cards, particularly with the referral link, are a nice bonus for exclusives. 

It was suggested awhile back in istock's forums that istock consider offering the cards - for a fee - to non-exclusives.  Don't see how that would be anything but good for istock, since it would ensure that more independent contributors would refer people to istock over their competitors.

I would certainly buy them and I imagine a number of others would too.   

« Reply #82 on: July 02, 2008, 14:41 »
0
After istock rejected a few of mine for keywords once, I just give them the minimum and add more when the images are approved.  This makes their last incentive pointless for me.  I would rather control my keywords than let an inspector do it.

« Reply #83 on: July 02, 2008, 16:11 »
0
still getting pictures rejected for Keywords - upload 06/21/08 rejected 06/27/08 :(

« Reply #84 on: July 02, 2008, 19:49 »
0
I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...

Actually the cards that iStock gives to exclusives would have cost $87.96. I wouldn't even consider handing out a business card that only cost $5 for 250. Cheap cards send the wrong impression and is something that potential business partners and clients notice (especially when I'm in Japan).

http://www.moo.com/products/business_cards.php?gcid=S31011x232-M_pr&keyword=Moo%20business%20cards
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 19:56 by yingyang0 »

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #85 on: July 03, 2008, 19:24 »
0
I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...

While I agree that it is not a major perk upon which anyone should base huge life-altering decisions, I respectfully disagree that these can be printed online for "under a fiver".

1. The 200 free cards can include an assortment of up to 50 different images from the artist's portfolio.

2. Each card is printed with a code which entitles the bearer to 10 free credits. Each code is linked to the artist on the card. Each referral that results in a purchase of credits beyond the free ones will result in a referral bonus of $10 being paid to the artist.

So they are a bit more than just ordinary business cards.

What strikes as odd to me is the number of exclusives (based on my own observations and relatively speaking) who have very few referrals.  I would think the cards would make for an advantage.

Perhaps strictly 'freebie referrals' don't  show in an exclusives 'referral listing' if they only take advantage of the 10 free credits as opposed to a bonifide (credit buyer) referral?

I'm an independant (4 years) with a small portfolio (less then 200 images- I actually didn't upload for the entire past year until just recently) but I have over 30 bonifide referrals to my credit - which seems like an awful lot in relative terms when I've browsed similar sized exclusive portofolios.  Not sure what to make of that.

I'm don't think business cards are much of a perk - but maybe I'm missing something.  Maybe those 10 credits are the true perk? - but I obviously don't know the policy/policing of their use.

Like the others, who have the option to go exclusive on a moments notice, I think this was a beautifully presented but very poor offering.  If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

« Reply #86 on: July 03, 2008, 21:04 »
0
What strikes as odd to me is the number of exclusives (based on my own observations and relatively speaking) who have very few referrals.  I would think the cards would make for an advantage.
Well I for one had just thrown away the old batches because they were printed on bad cardboard stock. I have one referral and I have no idea how it happened, however I've never tried to promote my photography.

bittersweet

« Reply #87 on: July 03, 2008, 22:07 »
0
Perhaps strictly 'freebie referrals' don't  show in an exclusives 'referral listing' if they only take advantage of the 10 free credits as opposed to a bonifide (credit buyer) referral?

The only referrals listed are paid referrals. If the referral used the free credits and then purchased credits at a later date, then they would be listed and the bonus would be paid to the referring artist. If they do not eventually purchase credits, then there is not referral bonus.

The previous business card system was a farce with many delivery frustrations, crappy quality, etc. I suspect these new ones will be handed out with much more frequency.

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: July 04, 2008, 08:59 »
0

 If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

They know what matters to us - Money! As in a 50% or better stake in the earnings from our own images.   

And that is one thing they don't seem prepared to give...

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #89 on: July 04, 2008, 14:45 »
0

 If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

They know what matters to us - Money! As in a 50% or better stake in the earnings from our own images.   

And that is one thing they don't seem prepared to give...

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Microbius

« Reply #90 on: July 07, 2008, 03:56 »
0

 If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

They know what matters to us - Money! As in a 50% or better stake in the earnings from our own images.   

And that is one thing they don't seem prepared to give...
Well said!

« Reply #91 on: July 07, 2008, 10:12 »
0

 If Istock really wants to attract the die hard independants they should find out what matters to them.

They know what matters to us - Money! As in a 50% or better stake in the earnings from our own images.   

And that is one thing they don't seem prepared to give...

I think they must be prepared in the near future

bittersweet

« Reply #92 on: July 07, 2008, 12:39 »
0

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Can you explain more about what you mean with this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

« Reply #93 on: July 09, 2008, 04:48 »
0
So with inspectors spending more time messing about with exclusives keywords, it will mean that non-exclusive files now take even longer to review....

Seriously, what a waste of time and resources - if contributors can't be bothered to take the time and effort required to keyword their images correctly, then the images don't deserve to be on the site in the first place. Why on earth would you reward contributors for doing something incorrectly?



I can just agree with you in that point! And I keep on thinking that the inspectors seem to be too busy with "other things" and seem to have less and less time to do what they are supposed to do first: inspect photos. And besides that: I would not even trust the inspectors to add the right keywords to my images. Some of them are very special, like certain artwork. They might not even know about the technique and the material that I have used for the painting.

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #94 on: July 10, 2008, 19:50 »
0

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Can you explain more about what you mean with this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Sorry, you'll have to get your juicy steak elsewhere.

bittersweet

« Reply #95 on: July 10, 2008, 22:13 »
0

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Can you explain more about what you mean with this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Sorry, you'll have to get your juicy steak elsewhere.

I thought you might like to clarify your comment beyond vague innuendo, since the lack of response to your post suggests that I wasn't the only one who hadn't a clue what the heck you were talking about.

This one is even more random than the other. I'm certain I can live without further explanation.

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2008, 11:31 »
0

More control would also go a long way, IMO.   There is far too much potential for confict of interests on too many fronts.

Can you explain more about what you mean with this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Sorry, you'll have to get your juicy steak elsewhere.

I thought you might like to clarify your comment beyond vague innuendo, since the lack of response to your post suggests that I wasn't the only one who hadn't a clue what the heck you were talking about.

This one is even more random than the other. I'm certain I can live without further explanation.
Well then, my work here is done :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
125 Replies
27782 Views
Last post June 07, 2008, 02:48
by Microbius
6 Replies
3763 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 04:51
by StockCube
"Confidential" email from Dreamstime

Started by Beppe Grillo « 1 2 ... 14 15 » Dreamstime.com

372 Replies
39469 Views
Last post August 16, 2014, 09:21
by Beppe Grillo
66 Replies
3606 Views
Last post April 10, 2019, 08:16
by Uncle Pete
8 Replies
536 Views
Last post Today at 02:31
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results