MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "3 Weeks Of Exclusive Prestige" Email  (Read 25973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
125 Replies
28035 Views
Last post June 07, 2008, 02:48
by Microbius
6 Replies
3810 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
39949 Views
Last post August 16, 2014, 09:21
by Beppe Grillo
66 Replies
4126 Views
Last post April 10, 2019, 08:16
by Uncle Pete
9 Replies
886 Views
Last post May 23, 2019, 13:19
by Trippy

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results