Author Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers (Read 38565 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #75 on:** April 27, 2010, 17:37 »

Quote from: rene on April 27, 2010, 09:35

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2010, 08:59
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not making the point specifically about DT and people uploading there. That was just an example.

The point I am making (again) is that all the top people you mentioned have WAY LESS IMAGES on Istock than they do on other top sites.

Even accounting for IS upload limits they should all have larger portfolios on IS than they do unless the highest selling independents just aren't bothering with Istock anymore.

And the above, to repeat myself for the sake of clarity, is to support my opinion that IS doesn't necessarily have all the best of the best images anymore and shouldn't be considered the ONLY professional quality site.

loop · « **Reply #76 on:** April 27, 2010, 18:16 »

Well, as it is known, being exclusivisty anecdotal at other sites, Istock is the only one site were the buyer has access to lots different images, not the same that are everywhere else, a commodity. On a personal note, I would add my opinion about quality: I think that's superior --as a whole-- at IS, because, besides the conventional work, they favor a more artsy trend --Vetta and Vetta-like. I concede that this trend isn't very "stock stuff", but also has its public. it's different from the endless (and generally excellent) variations on the same themes from "big producers" and, anyway, as I said, it's just a personal opinion.

helix7 · « **Reply #77 on:** April 27, 2010, 19:37 »

Quote from: Vonkara on February 04, 2010, 11:46

Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister

What you get elsewhere... 0.35$

The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me

Like that's a good comparison... The largest image size rates compared to one of the lowest commissions in the business.

We all know that there are so many factors involved, that to simply say istock has the highest commissions is only telling a small part of the story.

VB inc · « **Reply #78 on:** April 27, 2010, 20:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2010, 17:37

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not making the point specifically about DT and people uploading there. That was just an example.
The point I am making (again) is that all the top people you mentioned have WAY LESS IMAGES on Istock than they do on other top sites.
Even accounting for IS upload limits they should all have larger portfolios on IS than they do unless the highest selling independents just aren't bothering with Istock anymore.

And the above, to repeat myself for the sake of clarity, is to support my opinion that IS doesn't necessarily have all the best of the best images anymore and shouldn't be considered the ONLY professional quality site.

Maybe the top independants upload more to other sites because they have less competition at those other sites and thus sell more and make more money. At istock, you have many exclusives with similiar content with a more favorable best match position that is as good as the top independants.
On another note, I would be worried in the coming months if i were an independant at istock with the inclusion E+. I would say that besides the few spectacular selling images, all other images will take another hit and go further down the pages.

cthoman · « **Reply #79 on:** April 27, 2010, 21:13 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 27, 2010, 14:46

Quote
a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all

You're wrong there. I've been contacted by some big buyers, one in particular, via iStock. Lots of people shop there.

Definitely true. I've done plenty of freelance jobs through micros. Some people scoff at higher prices, but many buyers completely understand why freelance projects cost more.

As far as IS having the best vector collection, that's tough to say. They definitely have a lot of great exclusive vector artists and a lot less garbage than others. But, they are also missing a ton of files from good contributors with larger portfolios. Also, they reject a lot of styles from illustrators that are more designer like or use text. Some of those illustrators are really good and just give up in frustration with IS.

lagereek · « **Reply #80 on:** April 28, 2010, 00:38 »

Quote from: VB inc on April 27, 2010, 20:50

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2010, 17:37

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not making the point specifically about DT and people uploading there. That was just an example.
The point I am making (again) is that all the top people you mentioned have WAY LESS IMAGES on Istock than they do on other top sites.
Even accounting for IS upload limits they should all have larger portfolios on IS than they do unless the highest selling independents just aren't bothering with Istock anymore.

And the above, to repeat myself for the sake of clarity, is to support my opinion that IS doesn't necessarily have all the best of the best images anymore and shouldn't be considered the ONLY professional quality site.

Maybe the top independants upload more to other sites because they have less competition at those other sites and thus sell more and make more money. At istock, you have many exclusives with similiar content with a more favorable best match position that is as good as the top independants.
On another note, I would be worried in the coming months if i were an independant at istock with the inclusion E+. I would say that besides the few spectacular selling images, all other images will take another hit and go further down the pages.

No need to worry at all, There are close to 100 Non-excl. Diamond contributors at IS, myself being one of them, Lisa, a double Diamond. That would be a BIG! chunk of serious contributors to slam down.

Dont forget, in the end of day, theyre all accountable to Getty, unfortunately.
Anyhow, all this is speculations, nobody knows where this is going to end and I still trust IS to come up with a reasonable solution, fair to everybody and if they cant well then be it, over and done with and then we know its time to move on. simple as that really.

VB inc · « **Reply #81 on:** April 28, 2010, 02:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 28, 2010, 00:38

No need to worry at all, There are close to 100 Non-excl. Diamond contributors at IS, myself being one of them, Lisa, a double Diamond. That would be a BIG! chunk of serious contributors to slam down.

Dont forget, in the end of day, theyre all accountable to Getty, unfortunately.
Anyhow, all this is speculations, nobody knows where this is going to end and I still trust IS to come up with a reasonable solution, fair to everybody and if they cant well then be it, over and done with and then we know its time to move on. simple as that really.

I was really talking about the rest of independants that arent at the top. You and the many others at the top need not worry too much since obviously you have the technical skills and know the market.

sharpshot · « **Reply #82 on:** April 28, 2010, 03:16 »

Sales have remained steady this year with istock but if they ever did move my images so far down the ranking that my sales slumped, I would stop uploading. I can live without my earnings from istock and I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good. If they don't keep that balance, independents will lose motivation to upload and their rival sites will get even more images that aren't available on istock. They wont force me to go exclusive, it has to be my own decision and they would have to pay higher commissions to make me interested. I just can't see that happening.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #83 on:** April 28, 2010, 09:16 »

Quote

I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good.

Of course if you were an exclusive with decent sales you'd be getting twice that.

sharpshot · « **Reply #84 on:** April 28, 2010, 09:39 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 28, 2010, 09:16

Quote
I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good.

Of course if you were an exclusive with decent sales you'd be getting twice that.

But istock make around 25% of my earnings at the moment, so at best it looks like I would be making half what I am now with all the sites I use. Going exclusive there might be right for some people but it obviously wouldn't be a good option for me at the moment, especially now it would take me years to get to the diamond level.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #85 on:** April 28, 2010, 10:04 »

I know someone who gave up her exclusivity last year, believing she would make more money spread across multiple sites. Once non exclusive her sales slumped and the additional income from other sites came nowhere near her previous IS income and she's now applied for exclusivity again.

lagereek · « **Reply #86 on:** April 28, 2010, 10:09 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 28, 2010, 09:39

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 28, 2010, 09:16
Quote
I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good.

Of course if you were an exclusive with decent sales you'd be getting twice that.
But istock make around 25% of my earnings at the moment, so at best it looks like I would be making half what I am now with all the sites I use. Going exclusive there might be right for some people but it obviously wouldn't be a good option for me at the moment, especially now it would take me years to get to the diamond level.

Its a pity really, I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.
Just feel its not business like to take that chance. However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.

fotografer · « **Reply #87 on:** April 28, 2010, 10:12 »

IStock has provided me with only 22% of my microstock earnings this year so even though I am at diamond level it wouldn't make sense to go exclusive. Even with Vetta, exclusive + etc it would be impossible to make up the lost 78%

Quote from: sharpshot on April 28, 2010, 09:39

But istock make around 25% of my earnings at the moment, so at best it looks like I would be making half what I am now with all the sites I use. Going exclusive there might be right for some people but it obviously wouldn't be a good option for me at the moment, especially now it would take me years to get to the diamond level.

fotografer · « **Reply #88 on:** April 28, 2010, 10:15 »

I made nearly 50% more than IS at Fotolia last month and even made over 100 euros more at DT.

Quote from: lagereek on April 28, 2010, 10:09

However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.

sharpshot · « **Reply #89 on:** April 28, 2010, 10:44 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 28, 2010, 10:04

I know someone who gave up her exclusivity last year, believing she would make more money spread across multiple sites. Once non exclusive her sales slumped and the additional income from other sites came nowhere near her previous IS income and she's now applied for exclusivity again.

I am sure it is difficult starting from scratch on the independent sites, as it would be for anyone starting with istock now. I hope there is a balance maintained and we can all do what works best for us.

vonkara · « **Reply #90 on:** April 28, 2010, 11:05 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 27, 2010, 19:37

Quote from: Vonkara on February 04, 2010, 11:46
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister

What you get elsewhere... 0.35$

The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me

Like that's a good comparison... The largest image size rates compared to one of the lowest commissions in the business.

We all know that there are so many factors involved, that to simply say istock has the highest commissions is only telling a small part of the story.

This was not intended to be a comparison, but my own reaction at this thread from my experience as independant. When I was independant, I was receiving between 50% to 70% of subs at SS, DT, FT, 123RF and StockXpert. It was intend to say how I feel better now at IS as exclusive, nothing more serious than that

alias · « **Reply #91 on:** April 28, 2010, 11:16 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 28, 2010, 10:09

I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.

I do not think that the best match is "shakey, unstable" and a large varied portfolio tends to be good insurance against best match shifts in my experience.

My guess is that best match changes are essential in order to prevent search feedback from producing results in which front page images continue to be front page images because they are front page images. Even with keyword relevance as a factor the search is going to need a regular refresh in order for it not to become basically self referencing.

You see these posts from people complaining that their special picture has lost ground in the search results.

The site seems to be very "shakey, unstable" again lately. That's definitely a concern. I hope they can get it all working properly again sometime soon.

Dook · « **Reply #92 on:** April 28, 2010, 16:09 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 27, 2010, 16:43

Quote from: Dook on April 27, 2010, 16:05
At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.

well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.

I just want to apologize to everyone I insulted last night (maybe there were other threads I replied to, I can't remember), because I was, well, you know...drunk. I'm not hiding this, because I find this forum great and I find you guys to be my friends, I know you by name, most of you. So, it's not nice thing to do, it is better to go straight to bed.
(I feel better now!)

lagereek · « **Reply #93 on:** April 28, 2010, 16:13 »

Quote from: Dook on April 28, 2010, 16:09

Quote from: lagereek on April 27, 2010, 16:43
Quote from: Dook on April 27, 2010, 16:05
At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.

well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.
I just want to apologize to everyone I insulted last night (maybe there were other threads I replied to, I can't remember), because I was, well, you know...drunk. I'm not hiding this, because I find this forum great and I find you guys to be my friends, I know you by name, most of you. So, it's not nice thing to do, it is better to go straight to bed.
(I feel better now!)

no problem, we have all been pissed from time to time, no hard feelings.

got a hangover then?

best.

lisafx · « **Reply #94 on:** April 28, 2010, 16:16 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 28, 2010, 10:04

I know someone who gave up her exclusivity last year, believing she would make more money spread across multiple sites. Once non exclusive her sales slumped and the additional income from other sites came nowhere near her previous IS income and she's now applied for exclusivity again.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I have known others with the same experience.

That isn't a fair comparison to what it's like for long time independents though. Just like at Istock, it takes time to gain a following at the other sites, it takes a time for images to work their way up to better search positions, and it takes a long time to build enough sales to reach the highest paying levels at FT,SS, and DT.

You really can't compare the experience or earnings of someone just leaving IS exclusivity and starting as a novice at the other sites with the experience or earnings of someone who has been independent for years.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #95 on:** April 28, 2010, 17:10 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 28, 2010, 00:38

No need to worry at all, There are close to 100 Non-excl. Diamond contributors at IS, myself being one of them, Lisa, a double Diamond. That would be a BIG! chunk of serious contributors to slam down.

Reading the other way, 85% are exclusive!

90% of the top 200 are exclusive.

15-20% is not a "big chunk". When people get a 20% commission, I don't see anyone calling it a "big chunk"!

No I'm not exclusive because I make more on SS and Alamy, but some people find that one agency is easier to manage and get along just fine. In fact about 85% of the top contributors to IS feel that way.

Could it be that the reason why many have less images is that the upload limits come into play? Or maybe similar images and rejections keep the volume down. The same thing that people complain about in a different thread, is now some sort of evidence for the other viewpoint in this thread? IS has higher standards, it's more difficult to dump large volumes of files and the review process is more restrictive in terms of time. Someone who wants to optimize earnings from IS wouldn't want to upload duplicates instead of adding new and different images with their allotment and time.

None-the-less, for some it's a good plan and works out well, with better earnings. For others it's better to be independent and spread the effort to make more money. The answer isn't a one size fits all, because the materials that individuals create are varied. I don't understand why this same question comes up over and over as some sort of Independents vs Exclusive, Us vs Them debate. It's a personal decision that seems to work out for the best in either case.

Still 84% are happy independents and 14% are happy exclusives, which would seem to be pretty good that almost everyone is happy? (except the 2% who are undecided and one person in Canada...)

dgilder · « **Reply #96 on:** April 28, 2010, 17:34 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 28, 2010, 10:09

Its a pity really, I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.
Just feel its not business like to take that chance. However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.

Yep, struggling with that a bit myself at the moment. This new best match change plus E+ weird backwards rankings appear to have hurt my portfolio. I'm going to give it awhile to settle out and see if things improve, but I have concerns that going forward I won't be making much more than I did as an independent. In which case I have to reconsider the risks of dealing through only one agency.

lagereek · « **Reply #97 on:** April 29, 2010, 01:22 »

I dont know too much about this E+ business, havent had the time to follow it, well, it doesnt concern me really. Somebody here also said its going to get pushed up in the best match or whatever, well if its a good commercial image, it would creep up anyway.

If an E+ image with more commercial value, more DLs jumps ahead in search, well thats only fair, isnt it? its done it on merit.

Should it jump ahead just for the sake of an E+, i.e. less DLs, less commercial value, well then its against all business thinking. Somehow I dont think the IS crew would let that happen, it would cost money.

sharpshot · « **Reply #98 on:** April 29, 2010, 02:09 »

Perhaps now they have E+ and Vetta, they will look at ways for non-exclusives to charge more for their images? Perhaps exclusive image uploads will be next? Not going to hold my breath on this one but if they really want to increase their profits and pull away from the other sites, it would make sense.

lagereek · « **Reply #99 on:** April 29, 2010, 02:19 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 29, 2010, 02:09

Perhaps now they have E+ and Vetta, they will look at ways for non-exclusives to charge more for their images? Perhaps exclusive image uploads will be next? Not going to hold my breath on this one but if they really want to increase their profits and pull away from the other sites, it would make sense.

Exactly!! image-exclusivity! not person-exclusivity. Thats the way it should have been years ago. Hard to poilce? not at all. Had IS done this some years back, by God they would flourish twice as much. They would have had 5-times more of exclusive files in their collections.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers (Read 38565 times)

lisafx

loop

helix7

VB inc

cthoman

lagereek

VB inc

sharpshot

vlad_the_imp

sharpshot

vlad_the_imp

lagereek

fotografer

fotografer

sharpshot

vonkara

alias

Dook

lagereek

lisafx

RacePhoto

dgilder

lagereek

sharpshot

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors