pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exclusively everywhere but IStock  (Read 8206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« on: March 31, 2009, 06:07 »
0
I've just been uploading to all the sites I contribute to and a thought occurred to me.
IStock's exclusivity is designed to draw buyers in by having a big chunk of their collection available only on IStock, fair enough, but by having such restrictive upload limits on nonexclusives there will be a hefty chunk of images in the microstock market at any given time available everywhere but IStock. Those images we have uploaded to the others while waiting for the IStock weekly slots to free up. Isn't this totally self defeating? Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?


michealo

« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2009, 06:17 »
0
Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

No, IS has the exclusive content and it is likely that non exclusives upload their most saleable images first, so it is likely that the upload their best work first.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 06:32 by michealo »

« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2009, 06:51 »
0
Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

No, IS has the exclusive content and it is likely that non exclusives upload their most saleable images first, so it is likely that the upload their best work first.

Yep.  They aren't going to upload garbage to IS, they'll upload the best stuff.  It weeds out the chaff.

Microbius

« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2009, 06:52 »
0
I think maybe I haven't made my point clear. What I'm saying is that IStock has the exclusive contributors, but at any given time when a buyer might search there will be a huge amount of images (of varying quality, including top notch ones) available on all the other microstock sites while not available on IStock. A consequence of their upload limits on nonexclusives. So for a buyer there is no real advantage to searching IStock's image library over any other. They may even have a wider selection of quality images on other sites as a consequence of exclusivity rules not working with the upload limit rules.

Modified after last post:

I disagree, those with the biggest backlogs will be the big producers like Yuri et al. there will me a huge amount of top notch images on other sites not represented on IStock at any given time

« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 06:54 by Microbius »

« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2009, 07:47 »
0
Nope, we get it.  If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best.  The other sites that take everything will have the best as well, as then the seconds, the duplicates etc.  One business image from a person, is likely as good as the next, so if one isn't there, no loss.

« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2009, 08:24 »
0
I think maybe I haven't made my point clear. What I'm saying is that IStock has the exclusive contributors, but at any given time when a buyer might search there will be a huge amount of images (of varying quality, including top notch ones) available on all the other microstock sites while not available on IStock. A consequence of their upload limits on nonexclusives. So for a buyer there is no real advantage to searching IStock's image library over any other. They may even have a wider selection of quality images on other sites as a consequence of exclusivity rules not working with the upload limit rules.

Modified after last post:

I disagree, those with the biggest backlogs will be the big producers like Yuri et al. there will me a huge amount of top notch images on other sites not represented on IStock at any given time



There's a main difference: more or less, worse or better, you will find the same content everywhere but at istock.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 10:47 by loop »

« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2009, 08:28 »
0
Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

No, IS has the exclusive content and it is likely that non exclusives upload their most saleable images first, so it is likely that the upload their best work first.

It looks like there are a bunch of people producing hundreds of saleable images a week and istock only gets a fraction of them.  Has anyone worked out what their most saleable images are before they upload them?  I am often wrong when I try to do that and it looks like most people have the same problem.

I do think that over the years the restrictive uploads policy will hinder istock.  I can't understand why they don't let the most successful contributors upload more and restrict those that have a high rejection rate.

« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2009, 09:41 »
0
The times will change they always do.

« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2009, 09:55 »
0
The times will change they always do.

That about says it. 

Also, Getty has it covered.  They own StockXpert so they make money any way you slice it. 

« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2009, 10:05 »
0
There are a lot of exclusives at istock providing high quality images. I don't think they need to open the gates to get more images or better images. As others stated, the restrictions on non-exclusives make sure that istock stays unique - with exclusive files, and only the better files from non-exclusives. I think they have it figured out, and I would be surprised if they made any changes making it easier for non-exclusives. There is no shortage of contributors - exclusive or non-exclusive. Don't hold your breath for changes to non-exclusive at istock.

KB

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2009, 10:40 »
0
Nope, we get it.  If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best. 

You've been exclusive too long, Sean!  :P

The weekly upload limit for a black diamond is only 35/week. Mere mortal golds can upload only 25/week.

michealo

« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2009, 10:52 »
0
Nope, we get it.  If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best. 

You've been exclusive too long, Sean!  :P

The weekly upload limit for a black diamond is only 35/week. Mere mortal golds can upload only 25/week.

For Gold thats still a theoretical 1300 images a year ...



lisafx

« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2009, 10:59 »
0
I've just been uploading to all the sites I contribute to and a thought occurred to me.
IStock's exclusivity is designed to draw buyers in by having a big chunk of their collection available only on IStock, fair enough, but by having such restrictive upload limits on nonexclusives there will be a hefty chunk of images in the microstock market at any given time available everywhere but IStock. Those images we have uploaded to the others while waiting for the IStock weekly slots to free up. Isn't this totally self defeating? Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?


I've been making this same point for over a year, since the UL limits shrank to a pitiful 30/week for diamonds.

As it has been brought up many times before and istock persists in the tight upload limits, clearly they are not worried about it. 

Of course the assumption that everyone who wants to upload more than 15, 20, or 30 images a week is uploading duplicates or crap is totally false IMO.   With moderate effort a FT stock shooter can produce 50 - 100 good images a week, nearly every week of the year.  The conglomerates can produce quite a bit more.   

« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2009, 11:16 »
0
Getty doesn't care.  The non-exclusive "Istock" content is available through StockXpert.  Either way Getty gets the coin.  It would only matter if non-exclusive boycotted StockXpert as a protest to Istock's low limits and that's both unlikely and warped.  :)

« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2009, 13:33 »
0
Nope, we get it.  If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best. 

You've been exclusive too long, Sean!  :P

The weekly upload limit for a black diamond is only 35/week. Mere mortal golds can upload only 25/week.

Whoops, my bad.  I thought I remembered Yuri at UGCX saying it was 60.

« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2009, 13:35 »
0
The times will change they always do.

Oh, ye anonymous stock sage.  If only we knew who you were, to be able to assign a level of knowledge to your name, wouldst color us all with delight.  One would expect someone with your experience should be able to rise above the retribution rumored from some stock sites to unveil thyself.

Milinz

« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2009, 14:05 »
0
I really don't know what to think... Again iStock reviewer rejected my illustrators application with 'we don't need' reason... Now it is 180 days to be able to upload again and that means I will have at least 500 vectors more on all other agencies... Quite interesting is point that my vectors sell as well as anyone else on iStock... I really don't care anymore about they don't give me chance to earn money on iStock selling vectors.

The other is inconsistency in PHOTO rejections:

Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST...

Maybe there is only fully relevant keywords as BOAT and SEA... Nothing else is
there relevant at all....

Quite interesting when knowing that image is sellable stock photo accepted on many other agencies ;-)

What to think and what to say except I am really confused.


I think I will continue with quite not having hope for iStock sales and that is the truth I must accept.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 14:16 by Milinz »

« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2009, 14:16 »
0
As usual, griping about keyword rejections without showing the image is a useless venture.  Please post the image in question if you want critique or sympathy.

Milinz

« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2009, 14:17 »
0
As usual, griping about keyword rejections without showing the image is a useless venture.  Please post the image in question if you want critique or sympathy.

No need to post: just pick any other agency from big ones in my portfolio links and you'll see it.

« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2009, 15:12 »
0
As far as uploading only your best to IS when the limits are lower than what you are producing, I find that often IS accepts what is rejected at other agencies, even some of the best sellers (and vice versa). After I found deepmeta I prepped a heap if images and just uploaded my limit every week. I didn't try to pick the best ones I just submitted them all in order. I found about no difference in acceptance rates. It does seem like there is the IS image library, and the other image libraries, and it would make sense for someone searching for an obscure image to check both IS and somewhere else, preferably one with a decent search system.

helix7

« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2009, 15:26 »
0
...The other sites that take everything will have the best as well, as then the seconds, the duplicates etc.  One business image from a person, is likely as good as the next, so if one isn't there, no loss.

And it shows. Just look at SS and all the garbage they have in the collection, clogging up the search results. I really wish they were tougher with reviews. I'll take a few rejections if it's for the greater good of the collection. I really don't think exclusivity is hurting the istock collection at all, and buyers probably appreciate that they find fewer duplicates or similars in searches.



KB

« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2009, 16:03 »
0
Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST..
Zeljko, I took a look at the image in question. I have to agree with the inspector on most of those.

Beach - No beach in sight, only water.
Excursion - Seems ok to me.
Island - No land in sight, only water.
Oasis - An oasis from our hectic life? Maybe; I don't know if you'd get many hits because of it, and it certainly isn't the typical meaning of the word.
Sand - No sand in sight, only water.
Sun - I prefer to use the keyword "day" or "daytime" for images that were taken in the daytime, and reserve the word "sun" for when it actually appears in the frame.
Taxi - Implies an automotive taxi, IMO. Use "water taxi" instead. But I do see there are a dozen or two images which have been accepted with the terms "boat" and "taxi". There's that inconsistency you mentioned.
Tourism - Seems ok to me.
Tourist - I don't see anybody, so how could "tourist" be applicable? Use "tourist boat" instead (and DA to tourboat, not ferry!). And don't forget "nobody"!

I hope that helps.

Microbius

« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2009, 16:37 »
0
I didn't try to pick the best ones I just submitted them all in order.
Exactly what I do too. I doubt very many choose their best to upload to IStock if they produce more than 30 images a week. We just end up with a big que of equally good images "exclusively available everywhere but IStock" till the upload slots free up. Keeping track of what has and hasn't been uploaded would be too much hassle when IStock is just one of many sites you upload to.

With the exception of SS, which accepts all kinds of sh*te, especially as far as illustrations go, no one of the big six agencies has a greater concentration of garbage than any other.

RT


« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2009, 17:02 »
0
With the exception of SS, which accepts all kinds of sh*te, especially as far as illustrations go, no one of the big six agencies has a greater concentration of garbage than any other.

I disagree, some of the sh*te on SS is much more sh*te than on other sites, but if you read the forums you'll see that some contributors there have trouble getting their sh*te on other sites so they stick only with SS safe in the knowledge that no matter how sh*te it is SS will take it as long as it passes their technical standards.

Milinz

« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2009, 19:27 »
0
Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST..
Zeljko, I took a look at the image in question. I have to agree with the inspector on most of those.

Beach - No beach in sight, only water.
Excursion - Seems ok to me.
Island - No land in sight, only water.
Oasis - An oasis from our hectic life? Maybe; I don't know if you'd get many hits because of it, and it certainly isn't the typical meaning of the word.
Sand - No sand in sight, only water.
Sun - I prefer to use the keyword "day" or "daytime" for images that were taken in the daytime, and reserve the word "sun" for when it actually appears in the frame.
Taxi - Implies an automotive taxi, IMO. Use "water taxi" instead. But I do see there are a dozen or two images which have been accepted with the terms "boat" and "taxi". There's that inconsistency you mentioned.
Tourism - Seems ok to me.
Tourist - I don't see anybody, so how could "tourist" be applicable? Use "tourist boat" instead (and DA to tourboat, not ferry!). And don't forget "nobody"!

I hope that helps.


Thanks for taking your time to see about keywords... There are 3 people on that boats actually - 1 man and one woman are sleeping and third one looks at beach... But, never mind - they are so tiny and hardly to say recognizeable.
Sand is visible through water, as well I used sun due to reflections on the water.
I've also read rejection mail again... They found artifacts on full size... I wonder where but never mind... I really don't earn much there and all effort I need to upload just one image is not worth of doing it.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 19:30 by Milinz »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
9934 Views
Last post August 22, 2006, 15:49
by amanda1863
5 Replies
3606 Views
Last post October 14, 2009, 15:46
by Sean Locke Photography
1 Replies
1831 Views
Last post July 18, 2012, 19:15
by Poncke
12 Replies
1983 Views
Last post February 24, 2013, 19:59
by Silken Photography
12 Replies
4758 Views
Last post February 12, 2017, 03:19
by izustun

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results