MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?  (Read 30600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: July 31, 2011, 05:08 »
0
'1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'

You didn't ask for 'balanced'.  You asked for positive.  

And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.

A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.

"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."

I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion.  "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response.  Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.

It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.

Funnily enough I'm far less emotional than when it seemed like I was getting regular cuts in commissions or there was some other bad news that applied to me whenever I opened this forum. Sadly the days where SS gave regular increases are a distant memory, as are things like upload incentives from FT (remember those!).

Since then we've had:
- Dreamstime rate cut round 1 (50-30% for base images)
- Dreamstime rate cut round 2 (30-25% for "level 0")
- Dreamstime image culls for "similars"
- Crestock.
- Fotolia V2 (not intentional but what a disaster that was for many)
- Fotolia rate cut round 1
- Fotlia increase to goalposts round 1
- Fotolia (the never-ever subs site) introducing subscriptions
- Fotolias rate constant rate cuts by stealth as the value of the US$ diminishes
- Fotolia rate cut round 2
- iStock rate cut & RC introduction
- SS starts requiring withholding tax being paid
- Lucky Oliver closing
- StockXpert being sold to Jupiter & introducing commissions
- StockXpert being closed
- Jupiter being sold to Getty @ a fire sale
- Snapvillage being closed
- Zymetrical being closed
- Albumo.com being closed
(I'm sure I'm missing some of the low-lights reel of course)

Throw in the experience of images going through a gauntlet of 10+ sets of different reviewers mostly with varying degrees of competence or standards that they apply, and with the sum total I'm surprised not more of us are institutionalised.

Through that time the only 2 sites where I personally saw a consistent increase in both income and $ per download were IS and SS. The problem with both was that downloads were dropping at a rate that meant income was only barely rising. With IS I couldn't add enough images due to upload restrictions, with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".


Noodles

« Reply #76 on: July 31, 2011, 06:08 »
0
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.

Slovenian

« Reply #77 on: July 31, 2011, 06:29 »
0
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.

I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.

« Reply #78 on: July 31, 2011, 06:56 »
0
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.

I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.

Everyone's earnings are going to be different, but its actually not so hard to work out for yourself. Get a spreadsheet and punch in your last few months downloads - work out the file price based on how much you earned compared to the size downloaded and multiply that by the new percentage of the higher exclusive base rate prices. This will give you a minimum from the change without allowing for any vetta, E+ or agency files.

In practice download volumes don't drop from going exclusive - if anything they go up. I dropped from 35% to 30% with the new RC changes, but that was from not having only half a year worth of exclusive RCs. Despite this my income is still well up from pre-exclusive levels. If things keep up as they have been, I'm going to get back to the 35% well before the end of the year.

« Reply #79 on: July 31, 2011, 07:06 »
0
... with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".
I know 'feeding the beast' is often quoted as a complaint at SS but in my experience it is simply not true. I haven't uploaded anything to SS for several months and yet I'm enjoying my highest earnings ever for the last quarter. There has been a spectacular growth in PPD sales over the last couple of years and if anything that is still accelerating. If your images are good enough to gain high sort order placement at SS then they just go on earning. SS don't keep messing about with the sort algorithm so earnings tend to be comparatively stable.

Honestly, the worst site in my view for needing to 'feed the beast' ... is actually IS. Right now the best match is rewarding new images hugely which is why those (like Sean and others) who upload lots of images per month are just about able to maintain earnings. However if you take your foot off the throttle at IS then you will soon pay a heavy price in your earnings.

Slovenian

« Reply #80 on: July 31, 2011, 07:08 »
0
In practice download volumes don't drop from going exclusive - if anything they go up.

That's what they advertise and that's what I'd expect. The question is by how much? Only higher royalties and a handful of A/C sales/month and a dozen e+ wouldn't make enough of a difference (just saying for someone like me with only 400 files online)

« Reply #81 on: July 31, 2011, 07:13 »
0
That's interesting Holgs...  you seem to sell at a rate only slightly higher than me, and you have a few more Vetta, but not that much - and I don't expect to make the 35% level this year, or even anywhere near it. 

Perhaps you sell more larger sizes...  maybe I shall have to consider upgrading to a full frame sensor too...

rubyroo

« Reply #82 on: July 31, 2011, 07:15 »
0
[quote author=gostwyck
I know 'feeding the beast' is often quoted as a complaint at SS but in my experience it is simply not true. I haven't uploaded anything to SS for several months and yet I'm enjoying my highest earnings ever for the last quarter.
[/quote]

My experience this year has been very similar to this.  It's been wonderful to see the income at SS rising so effortlessly.  

Noodles

« Reply #83 on: July 31, 2011, 07:50 »
0
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.

I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.

No, I'm not in that league - I have a small portfolio of about 100 images and that brings in a consistent $300/month average - if I ever lose my day work then maybe I'll upload more than 1 image a month :)

Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS. My only issue with IS is that it is not a guarantee that every image you upload well be a seller and I only focus on producing sellers. So that can be disappointing.

Slovenian

« Reply #84 on: July 31, 2011, 07:55 »
0
I was non-exclusive until this time last year. Guess I got sick of feeding the beast and other sites were not producing enough income to make it worth while. Also, subscription makes me cringe and, here comes my positive, IS allows a non subscription option and this month is my best earning month this year.

I'd really like to hear how much the revenue rises for the newly converted exclusives. Are you going to at least hit the 30% royalties? Do you have a lot of V/A files? I can't imagine it could be worthwhile to be exclusive without a nice percentage of those files in your port. Sean and similar are only able to keep up with last years earnings with larger production than ever and lots of V/A files.

No, I'm not in that league - I have a small portfolio of about 100 images and that brings in a consistent $300/month average - if I ever lose my day work then maybe I'll upload more than 1 image a month :)

Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS. My only issue with IS is that it is not a guarantee that every image you upload well be a seller and I only focus on producing sellers. So that can be disappointing.

That's awesome, but you're not an exclusive. Let me know if you become, by how much your earnings rose.

Noodles

« Reply #85 on: July 31, 2011, 08:27 »
0
That's awesome, but you're not an exclusive. Let me know if you become, by how much your earnings rose.

Yes I am exclusive - Earnings are approx 50% higher than when non-exclusive. That means I'm earning less than when I also uploaded to SS and DT but not by much.

Slovenian

« Reply #86 on: July 31, 2011, 08:31 »
0
That's awesome, but you're not an exclusive. Let me know if you become, by how much your earnings rose.

Yes I am exclusive - Earnings are approx 50% higher than when non-exclusive. That means I'm earning less than when I also uploaded to SS and DT but not by much.

OK then, this sentence confused me into thinking u aren't:

Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS.

Just one more thing, photos or illustrations?

« Reply #87 on: July 31, 2011, 08:59 »
0
... with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".

I know 'feeding the beast' is often quoted as a complaint at SS but in my experience it is simply not true. I haven't uploaded anything to SS for several months and yet I'm enjoying my highest earnings ever for the last quarter. There has been a spectacular growth in PPD sales over the last couple of years and if anything that is still accelerating. If your images are good enough to gain high sort order placement at SS then they just go on earning. SS don't keep messing about with the sort algorithm so earnings tend to be comparatively stable.

Honestly, the worst site in my view for needing to 'feed the beast' ... is actually IS. Right now the best match is rewarding new images hugely which is why those (like Sean and others) who upload lots of images per month are just about able to maintain earnings. However if you take your foot off the throttle at IS then you will soon pay a heavy price in your earnings.

I've never noticed this feeding the beast scenario with shutterstock, although I think it may have existed before I started, which was April 2009. This year I've averaged 3.42 images new images online a month at ss. That's not even a snack. My downloads and income keep on increasing at a greater proportion than the effort I put in on getting new images online. The last 3 months which have been the highest for downloads, I've only added 9 images, which is even lower than my already low average. This a graph of my ss downloads so far this year. I think the beast is happy enough and we are being fed by it.


Noodles

« Reply #88 on: July 31, 2011, 09:07 »
0

OK then, this sentence confused me into thinking u aren't:

Maybe "feeding the beast" is not quite as it used to be at SS.

Just one more thing, photos or illustrations?

both though illustrations earn far more, which means I really should take it more seriously but its just Microstock  ::)

« Reply #89 on: July 31, 2011, 11:13 »
0
... It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.....
Funny, I always thought I had a reasonable command of English....
Use of the word institutionalised is slightly tongue in cheek with the intention of getting a reaction (which it has).  Nevertheless it isnt necessarily unfair or inaccurate or, indeed, negative as a generalisation (and there are always exceptions to any generalisation).  It simply means that exclusives have to be predisposed to be positive or admit to making bad decisions.  Id say exactly the same of DT, not an issue at SS and EU version of FT doesnt have much of a forum so cant form an opinion. 
In terms of the actual question, its an open one which has both yes or no options with no bias to either.  For the record (again), the question was posed out of curiosity as I dont see much positivity towards this site in particular I dont have any strong personal views except that, given all the sites are in the same business and have the same aim (making money for the site), it seems the others are playing the game with a bit more skill.  Some positives from my perspective (given Im plankton in that particular food chain):
As Madelaide pointed out, allowing smaller file sizes is sensible given the uses for lots of these downloads;
I believe one or two beatings in the critique forum has enabled me to be more critical possibly leading to the acceptance rates I have on the other sites.
Downloads per image and revenue per image are higher for me there than anywhere else but this probably more to do with the fact thats its really hard to get certain types of 3D accepted so most of the folks who do this kind of stuff well just arent there.

« Reply #90 on: July 31, 2011, 11:35 »
0
I haven't been feeding any microstock beast for over 2 years now (except for Warmipics and Stockfresh, but that's the same old material anyway) and always with a very small portfolio (I think around 240 in IS). My earnings at IS this year are reduced, but so are mine at DT and especially FT. Given the dillution of my images, this is no surprise. But what I notice more is the reduction of RPD because of commission cuts in all of the three and the even increasing subs prevalence in DT and FT.

I should consider moving some images to Photo+, as people seem to be satisfied. That would perhaps boost my IS earnings.

nruboc

« Reply #91 on: July 31, 2011, 15:14 »
0
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.

You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?

Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'

That's just your paranoia speaking.  When I read it, I assumed he meant institutionalized as in part of the institution, not belonging in one.

Exactly I read it the same way, someone is a little sensitive....lol

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #92 on: July 31, 2011, 16:07 »
0
... It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.....
Funny, I always thought I had a reasonable command of English....
Use of the word institutionalised is slightly tongue in cheek with the intention of getting a reaction (which it has). 
How strange, to make a post 'allegedly' aimed at independents only, while at the same time "intending" to provoke a reaction form exclusives.
An interesting double-think proposition.

« Reply #93 on: July 31, 2011, 16:19 »
0
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.

I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.

I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?

« Reply #94 on: July 31, 2011, 17:35 »
0
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.

I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.

I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?

how many months??  ;D

vonkara

« Reply #95 on: July 31, 2011, 17:42 »
0
As a exclusive who let sit my portfolio and get the incomes from it 2 times a month, I'm happy. I get between 0.70$ to 16$ for each downloads. I can request a payment after 20 downloads only, which is not the case with the 7 other big agencies I submitted before being exclusive.

This being said, I do not agree about how non exclusive are treated. We are all humans after all

« Reply #96 on: July 31, 2011, 17:48 »
0
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.

I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.

I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?

how many months??  ;D

Been shooting just over one year. The above numbers are for Year-to-date. Made $76 in January. Will make just over $900 in July. 751 images currently.

Slovenian

« Reply #97 on: July 31, 2011, 17:58 »
0
Positive for IS:
- my income increases about 35% each month
- my approvals are about 85% (could be higher but I've been pushing their limits)
- most images get approved in three days.

I have been at other sites but the subscription thing is a joke. Well for me.

I am OK with iStock (gasp) Now, who wants some cheese and crackers?

how many months??  ;D

Been shooting just over one year. The above numbers are for Year-to-date. Made $76 in January. Will make just over $900 in July. 751 images currently.

Illustrations, right? I hate u guys! ;D

lisafx

« Reply #98 on: July 31, 2011, 18:47 »
0
What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here.   ::)

lol ... haterade brigade versus the koolaid drinkers ... that's about right. When did istock get soo divisive? When they introduced exclusivity I would guess was the start of it ... 

I don't think Istock was every really divisive until the RC credit scheme was introduced.  That system put us all in direct competition with one another.  From early 2005 when I joined, until the RC system was put in place less than a year ago, I didn't really see this sort of division and hostility between exclusive and non-exclusive camps. 

Even now, I think it is silly to snipe at each other based on that association.  Any of us could have easily wound up in either camp.  It's a simple business decision, not a religion or a sports team, for heaven's sake. 

I still count some hard core exclusives among my good friends and I hope they would say the same :)

« Reply #99 on: July 31, 2011, 20:52 »
0
+1.

What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here.   ::)

lol ... haterade brigade versus the koolaid drinkers ... that's about right. When did istock get soo divisive? When they introduced exclusivity I would guess was the start of it ... 

I don't think Istock was every really divisive until the RC credit scheme was introduced.  That system put us all in direct competition with one another.  From early 2005 when I joined, until the RC system was put in place less than a year ago, I didn't really see this sort of division and hostility between exclusive and non-exclusive camps. 

Even now, I think it is silly to snipe at each other based on that association.  Any of us could have easily wound up in either camp.  It's a simple business decision, not a religion or a sports team, for heaven's sake. 

I still count some hard core exclusives among my good friends and I hope they would say the same :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2296 Views
Last post March 23, 2009, 20:07
by vonkara
27 Replies
8913 Views
Last post September 26, 2011, 21:23
by velocicarpo
3 Replies
4123 Views
Last post January 28, 2013, 20:32
by Suljo
22 Replies
4070 Views
Last post June 25, 2013, 13:12
by cobalt
18 Replies
7955 Views
Last post March 21, 2019, 11:23
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors