Author Topic: Exclusivity - Has the crown lost its shine? (Read 27162 times)

hiddenstock · « **on:** September 07, 2009, 14:36 »

I am an iStock exclusive and I am wondering if exclusivity still gives the increase sales potential claimed.

Are there any former exclusives who have found it better without the crown?

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #1 on:** September 08, 2009, 09:29 »

I've heard enough negative stories from people who have gone non-exclusive (negative from a sales point of view) to put me off.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 08, 2009, 10:09 »

I've heard stories both ways, that is, exclusives who have given it up and don't regret it (see one in this thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=104171&messageid=1685671&source=rssforums#post1685671, 5 posts down), and from exclusives who've given it up and then gone back after finding it didn't work so well.

For the latter, see http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=84027&page=1 - but it's in the "Exclusive Program" forum so any of you who aren't won't be able to see it.

You can always try it and see how it goes... they will take you back!

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** September 08, 2009, 12:08 »

Another set of opinions would be the ones from long time independents who went exclusive late in the game, like tacojim and jsnover. They also have a unique perspective of what exclusivity looks like from both sides.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** September 08, 2009, 12:20 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 08, 2009, 12:08

Another set of opinions would be the ones from long time independents who went exclusive late in the game, like tacojim and jsnover. They also have a unique perspective of what exclusivity looks like from both sides.

I guess you know where I end up in the balancing of pros & cons given that I'm still exclusive, just about a year after making the switch. There's a lot to recommend being independent, and I think for people starting out, it actually makes a ton more sense to be independent - the small increase in iStock commission just doesn't cover the loss from other sites.

iStock was in a state of best match turmoil right after I went exclusive, and the first few months were very rocky. There was also the burial of vector files in the search results which caused me to change plans to emphasize vectors more. Ever since BM2.0 (with a minor hiccup when Vetta was introduced and virtually nothing else showed up on the first few pages of searches) things have been doing well from a sales point of view.

I realize the risks involved in dealing with one one agent for RF licenses, but for me, that's outweighed by reward of not getting involved in trying to deal with anti-contributor moves at multiple sites.

I'm part of the iStock middle class - not a newbie or one of the top sellers. I have had second thoughts once or twice - last time was when the partner program was anounced - but then one or other site I used to submit to is kind enough to pull some asinine stunt and I stop having them

hiddenstock · « **Reply #5 on:** September 08, 2009, 15:05 »

Thanks for the input.

I guess I am frustrated that my sales are less than they were a year ago and my dl/image figure has dropped to pre-exclusivity numbers. I have increased the size of my portfolio considerablly in that time too (and some of those images have done well). I guess we all wonder if the grass is greener.

I am unsure on the partner program and vetta and I am not taking part in either. Maybe this is a bad idea?

gostwyck · « **Reply #6 on:** September 08, 2009, 15:20 »

Quote from: hiddenstock on September 08, 2009, 15:05

Thanks for the input.

I guess I am frustrated that my sales are less than they were a year ago and my dl/image figure has dropped to pre-exclusivity numbers. I have increased the size of my portfolio considerablly in that time too (and some of those images have done well). I guess we all wonder if the grass is greener.

I am unsure on the partner program and vetta and I am not taking part in either. Maybe this is a bad idea?

Why would you not take part in Vetta? I don't see any downside to it all and I'd like to be part of that if I could (but exclusivity would be too high a price to pay).

Trust me, if your sales stagnate at IS then in my experience they tend to stagnate also pretty much everywhere else too. The only real cure is an improvement to the portfolio.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** September 08, 2009, 15:52 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 08, 2009, 15:20

Why would you not take part in Vetta? I don't see any downside to it all and I'd like to be part of that if I could (but exclusivity would be too high a price to pay).

This is another of those decisions that is going to vary from person to person but my view is that Vetta is great for diamonds. For those like me who are gold, I think I'm better off getting the download numbers as high as possible (which means leaving files in the regular collection IMO) to get to diamond and 40% commission. That will affect every sale I make, not just the few Vetta sales. After that the extra money seems like a much more clear win.

There's also a fairly dark mood to the bulk of the Vetta work, and I'm much more bright colors and happy stuff

hiddenstock · « **Reply #8 on:** September 08, 2009, 16:46 »

I agree with jsnover here that I would prefer to move up the levels and increase my overall commission. Also vetta doesn't like me. I shoot stock not art. Shooting something that appeals to a very small number of people seems a bit strange for microstock. Sticking it at the front of the search is questionable too. The higher production value doesn't wash with me either. A lot are single person portraits, yes they are good but... It seems more like club for certain contributors.

Gostwyck, I take on board your point about a portfolio. It could just be that I suck or maybe my work is more useful/boring and hence easily replicatable (I don't think people are intentionally copying me, they're just shooting the same stuff).

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #9 on:** September 14, 2009, 08:58 »

I was exclusive with IS for a number of years. Broken promises, cattiness, and a decline in revenue, despite uploading more images, helped me decide to drop the crown. Last Oct I started submitting to several other sites. My annual sales numbers are just about the same as when I was exclusive with a month left before I hit a full year.

The other upside to this is that while my IS numbers have been relatively flat, other sites have started to have an increase in sales as my portfolio integrates with the search engine and people can find me there.

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** September 14, 2009, 09:09 »

Nancy, do you find overall that you are making more or less per month as an independent over being exclusive?

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #11 on:** September 14, 2009, 10:20 »

Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.

bittersweet · « **Reply #12 on:** September 14, 2009, 12:16 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 14, 2009, 10:20

Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.

That seems like very little financial benefit and a whole lot more work. I would think if you factored in the extra time you spend uploading to multiple sites, you would have definitely incurred a substantial loss as a result of your decision. Or am I missing something?

Graffoto · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2009, 12:42 »

@Whatalife, you took the words out of my mouth.
If one only gets a 1% increase in sales vs all the time spent uploading to other sites, that translates to a net loss.

I personally do not regret going exclusive.
It means that I can submit to Vetta. That in itself is enough to keep me
there as exclusive to IS.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2009, 12:58 »

I don't have any regrets either. I haven't missed a beat from my non-exclusive days and spend a lot less time uploading. 1% is pretty insignificant.

abimages · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2009, 13:07 »

Exclusivity - Has the crown lost its shine?

I really hope it hasn't

Gannet77 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2009, 13:15 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on September 14, 2009, 12:58

I don't have any regrets either. I haven't missed a beat from my non-exclusive days and spend a lot less time uploading. 1% is pretty insignificant.

It's a little early to tell from that. What's important is the trend - you would expect it to take a while for the other sites to pick up enough to recoup the lost income from the exclusive bump, but if the income from them is still rising while that from IS is still flat, that would be a positive sign.

Me though, I'm happy being exclusive too.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** September 14, 2009, 14:39 »

I think things are looking pretty shiny:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=116061&page=1
"iStockphoto exclusive contributors have been invited to contribute to Rights-managed at Getty Images. "

cathyslife · « **Reply #18 on:** September 14, 2009, 16:02 »

^^^ at Sean only 50 contributors were chosen though (phase 1), not EVERY exclusive gets to contribute. Phase 2 more will be chosen.

If one only gets a 1% increase in sales vs all the time spent uploading to other sites, that translates to a net loss.

That is only one person talking about their experience. I have been non-exclusive for about four years now. In Dec. of 2008, I was seriously contemplating exclusivity and started pulling photos and stopped uploading to other sites to prepare for that move. The first week of January, I ran reports of my sales for 2008 at IS and reports of my other sites. The sales I have at other sites, at that point, were right around 25% more than I would have made if I went exclusive. To me, that translates to a net gain.

Needless to say, I stayed non-exclusive.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** September 14, 2009, 16:08 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 14, 2009, 10:20

Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.

Thanks for the honest answer. Very sorry it hasn't turned out to be more lucrative.

I can't help but think that over the next year as you become more established on other sites you may see your royalties there improve.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #20 on:** September 14, 2009, 22:13 »

No regrets. If your crown has lost its shine I have a special exclusive polish for the low cost of only...

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** September 15, 2009, 02:24 »

Non-exclusives with a good portfolio can boost their earnings quite significantly by using some of the sites outside the big 6. Canstockphoto is doing well with their link with Fotosearch, Yaymicro are on the up, Veer marketplace looks promising, Panthermedia, Rodeo and Zymmetrical are going well. Last month I made about half as much as I did on istock with just those sites.

Then there are the traditional sites that sell RF, I am with alamy but haven't tried Corbis or any of the others yet.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #22 on:** September 15, 2009, 07:54 »

For me the 1% difference is a positive sign. In my last year as an exclusive I made less money per image then when I was non-exclusive only submitting to IS and struggling to get to 500 dls so that I could be exclusive. In that same year 1/4 of my portfolio was sent to the dollar bin. Some of the images I agreed with, others went on to get flames while in the bin. I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved. For me the choice was about more than just the money. It was about being able to get a fair chance to sell my work.

I expected to loose money the first year as I became established on the other sites. I'm pleasantly surprised that I didn't. The lost income from lower royalties at IS was easily replaced by the income from the other sites. In addition to that I am now seeing an increase in my sales on the other sites which means that while IS sales continue to go down I'll not only be able to cover the loss but may also be able to add more revenue through the other sites.

It doesn't take me any more time to upload to the other sites than it does to upload to IS. I use FF tabs and set each site to upload then open DM and upload to IS.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 15, 2009, 08:08 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 07:54

I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved.

I find this statement astounding! Do you mean "not available to Bronze" perhaps?

I wasn't aware there was any approval required other than having sufficient downloads (and, now, a 50% acceptance rate). Did they give a reason?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** September 15, 2009, 09:05 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 07:54

I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved.

Yes, this sounds bizarre. I've never heard of anyone being denied exclusivity.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2009, 09:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 15, 2009, 09:05

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 07:54
I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved.

Yes, this sounds bizarre. I've never heard of anyone being denied exclusivity.

Quite bizarre. I asked, and as long as you have 500+ downloads, then you will be accepted. If you have more then 250 but less than 500, you will need a 50%+ acceptance ratio.

bittersweet · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2009, 09:56 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 07:54

I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved.

I'm glad that you are happy with your decision and that after 10 months 1% gain is satisfying to you, but I find this second part really hard to believe, as there has never been a review process to becoming exclusive, other than the stated DL requirements, and especially so during the time frame in which you became exclusive.

On that first part, I'm assuming that you meant to say not available to silver, and you'll never make gold (though it does include some silvers now). You put this in quotes as if to imply that yet another staff member issued some disparaging remark towards you. Is that what you're saying, Nancy?

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #27 on:** September 15, 2009, 10:00 »

At the time it was said only Diamonds were eligible to apply to Getty which I felt was wrong. Either allow all exclusives the same perks or don't offer them. They later changed it accept some gold canisters with the promise of allowing Silver canisters to apply at a later date.

My disgust at the playing favorites game lead to the other statement as well. Admins have even posted in exclusive forum that certain exclusives have "earned" the right not be scrutinized. This explains why reports of copying and spamming against those particular contributors falls on deaf ears. Between that and noticing that it's only ever the same 10 to 15 exclusives whose images are "hand picked" for special projects made me realize that the only perks I was getting by being exclusive was free business cards and a slight increase in royalties (while downloads were tanking)

I complained about not receiving the same perks and options as other exclusives which irritated the admin. They resented that I was demanding that they provide what was promised to me when I signed up. It's also the same argument that they used to use to justify the 500 dl requirement - you needed to "prove" that you were good enough for the honor of being listed as an exclusive.

bittersweet · « **Reply #28 on:** September 15, 2009, 11:19 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 10:00

At the time it was said only Diamonds were eligible to apply to Getty which I felt was wrong. Either allow all exclusives the same perks or don't offer them. They later changed it accept some gold canisters with the promise of allowing Silver canisters to apply at a later date.

I personally do not see anything wrong with setting goals for their exclusives to work towards. As far as the other, this was a promise they kept, as all golds have been accepted to Getty, and silvers have been permitted to apply. I was accepted as a silver, and I am certainly not, and never have been, one of the so-called "favorites".

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 10:00

My disgust at the playing favorites game lead to the other statement as well. Admins have even posted in exclusive forum that certain exclusives have "earned" the right not be scrutinized. This explains why reports of copying and spamming against those particular contributors falls on deaf ears.

I believe I know the statement to which you refer, and it was in no way implying that those individuals were above the rules. It was specifically speaking as to the image inspection process, as related to their earned approval rating. Nowhere did it state that the rules did not apply to them, nor that they had free reign to break them at will. That is something you concocted fully on your own.

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 10:00

Between that and noticing that it's only ever the same 10 to 15 exclusives whose images are "hand picked" for special projects made me realize that the only perks I was getting by being exclusive was free business cards and a slight increase in royalties (while downloads were tanking)

Can you give an example of one of these special projects for which only 10 to 15 people were asked to participate? While I'm not doubting your claim, I just don't recall such a project.

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 10:00

I complained about not receiving the same perks and options as other exclusives which irritated the admin. They resented that I was demanding that they provide what was promised to me when I signed up.

Getty was not even part of the picture when you signed up, so I'm not sure how it could be considered a broken promise that you weren't invited to contribute there.

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 10:00

It's also the same argument that they used to use to justify the 500 dl requirement - you needed to "prove" that you were good enough for the honor of being listed as an exclusive.

Because they do utilize more resources for their exclusives, I don't think there is anything at all wrong with limiting it to contributors who have been around long enough to collect really a nominal number of downloads (the limit is currently 250 with a certain approval rating, but even 500 didn't seem too high to me). Even if you only take into account the greater upload limits, and the huge drain that would be created by allowing brand new contributors to flood the queue while they are still learning what will pass inspection, surely most reasonable people can understand the rationalization for having some criteria in place.

As I stated before, I really believe the only one who needs to be comfortable with your decision is you. You feel you made the right decision, and if you're happy with it, great. I know that over the years many of your comments here and elsewhere have made it very clear that you felt greatly persecuted by istock. I've often wondered why you ever remained there at all, much less signed up to be exclusive.

It is always a shame when someone has a bad experience with an agency. If someone wants to share their experience, I'd prefer hearing a factual account of events over a dramatized version. I gave up my crown and I have my reasons, but I would never be advising someone based on my hurt feelings as opposed to hard evidence.

To each her own, I guess.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #29 on:** September 15, 2009, 12:15 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 10:00

At the time it was said only Diamonds were eligible to apply to Getty which I felt was wrong. Either allow all exclusives the same perks or don't offer them. They later changed it accept some gold canisters with the promise of allowing Silver canisters to apply at a later date.

My disgust at the playing favorites game lead to the other statement as well. Admins have even posted in exclusive forum that certain exclusives have "earned" the right not be scrutinized. This explains why reports of copying and spamming against those particular contributors falls on deaf ears. Between that and noticing that it's only ever the same 10 to 15 exclusives whose images are "hand picked" for special projects made me realize that the only perks I was getting by being exclusive was free business cards and a slight increase in royalties (while downloads were tanking)

I complained about not receiving the same perks and options as other exclusives which irritated the admin. They resented that I was demanding that they provide what was promised to me when I signed up. It's also the same argument that they used to use to justify the 500 dl requirement - you needed to "prove" that you were good enough for the honor of being listed as an exclusive.

Allow all exclusives the same perks? Why should Getty let in any exclusive whose only qualification is that they have over 250 downloads?

I'd be willing to bet Getty's main factor when deciding whether or not to accept someone is if they feel the person has a handle on what sells. An easy way to prequalify this is to give the opportunity to top Istock performers, like Diamonds and Golds. And then selectively let Silvers in who they see have potential.

I think you may be confusing sales performance with favoritism.

travelstock · « **Reply #30 on:** September 15, 2009, 14:03 »

For me Istock seems to have recovered significantly in sales in the last month or so. The new announcements re: editorial images to Getty and the chance to submit RM are both things that would make me consider taking up the crown... in many ways it would make my workflow a whole lot easier. Interesting developments...

Eyedesign · « **Reply #31 on:** September 15, 2009, 15:05 »

Here is something even better.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=116351&page=3

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #32 on:** September 15, 2009, 15:58 »

I was at IS before there was exclusive and non. The whole implementation of the program was the first slap in the face but eventually I thought that if I made it to 500 and became exclusive things would change. I was very naive back then. When I signed on there were promises made - business cards, increased royalties, "additional marketing", faster queue and the inside scoop on changes to the site.

"additional marketing" - I have asked for a more specific definition of this - the answer was never given. There is the Vox free use to bloggers deal that has an imbedded link back to your portfolio. Either you sign up (called "promotional use" and "Third Party Use") or you are are not eligible to participate in any other "promotions" like demo discs, tradeshow booth images, IS ads, Image of the Week, Artist of the Week etc. I had asked for specifics because the marketing of my images was no different from the marketing that was done before I was exclusive.

Advanced notice of changes never came either. After all the fuss, getting to 500 dls, being hyped as the best of the best and the only true "team players" they didn't trust their exclusive to have any knowledge about changes to the site. No notice of DA, no notice of the sale to Getty, no notice of projects in the works - heck we were finding out about things the same way everyone else was - by reading stuff on non-IS websites. If exclusives are the best of the best and the elite of what IS has to offer then why are they not trusted?

There are two multi-image proposals that I know about for Exclusives only. The first was a deal with Microsoft where images were hand picked by the admins and then the company picked the final images they liked. The press release states that buyers can "browse" the exclusive collection but in the exclusive forums we were told that they were looking for certain images (no details as to what) and that images were hand picked by the admin. This was supposed to be phase 1 of several.
Press release http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/03/microsoft-offic.html
Forum Threadhttp://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=66678&page=1] [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=66678&page=1[/url]

The other project was scrapped but no one knows why. It was supposed to be a partnership with an office supply store so that if their client created a document they could use the images from IS to dress it up. The images were to be integrated into the stores in house systems. After they announced the partnership something happened and everything about it was deleted except this.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/istock-pitney-bowes-and-fedex-kinkos/?wap2

I wasn't always bitter about IS, in fact I spent years defending them on forums like this. Not any more. I think that if you are considering exclusivity then you need to have all the facts to know what is really best for you. Not just the published "why you should join facts" but the real "this is how it really works" facts.

PixelBitch · « **Reply #33 on:** October 25, 2009, 14:12 »

The only reason to give one company or stock site exclusivity is for Rights Managed...the day has passed when this is a good idea for RF...even for macro rf...best to place them with a distributor who them puts them non exclusive on every macro rf site out there...and it is insanity to go exclusive with one Micro site...how to cripple your career in one step.

loop · « **Reply #34 on:** October 25, 2009, 15:24 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 15, 2009, 07:54

For me the 1% difference is a positive sign. In my last year as an exclusive I made less money per image then when I was non-exclusive only submitting to IS and struggling to get to 500 dls so that I could be exclusive. In that same year 1/4 of my portfolio was sent to the dollar bin. Some of the images I agreed with, others went on to get flames while in the bin. I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved. For me the choice was about more than just the money. It was about being able to get a fair chance to sell my work.

I expected to loose money the first year as I became established on the other sites. I'm pleasantly surprised that I didn't. The lost income from lower royalties at IS was easily replaced by the income from the other sites. In addition to that I am now seeing an increase in my sales on the other sites which means that while IS sales continue to go down I'll not only be able to cover the loss but may also be able to add more revenue through the other sites.

It doesn't take me any more time to upload to the other sites than it does to upload to IS. I use FF tabs and set each site to upload then open DM and upload to IS.

That 1 per cent doen't takes in account what could have went up at istock should you had remained. Righ now I'm more than 25% up from last year at istock. Sure, that include new files, new prices and Vetta (still hasn't upload to Getty), but it is a progress.
On the other had I have legacy files at Vetta that didn't sold almost at all, and now, at Vetta are selling.

vonkara · « **Reply #35 on:** October 25, 2009, 17:58 »

I sell exactly or more than 60% subscription everywhere except at Istock. Seeing my incomes goes from 27.15 to 30.15 with 10 (XXL or XXXL) sales at StockXpert for example, is just too absurd to me. Even worst if they are downloaded from photos.com where they can use my images as extended licence for that price.

I like better uploading at one place and make buyers unable to get away with my pictures at full sizes, that I probably took over 2 hours for shooting, photoshop and upload.

madelaide · « **Reply #36 on:** October 25, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 25, 2009, 17:58

Even worst if they are downloaded from photos.com where they can use my images as extended licence for that price.

Not meaning to be rude, Vonkara, wasn't is something you agreed upon? Possibly on the expectation that the high-priced sales would compensate the subscription, but this is what you accepted - or were the terms changed later?

vonkara · « **Reply #37 on:** October 25, 2009, 18:44 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 25, 2009, 18:18

Quote from: Vonkara on October 25, 2009, 17:58
Even worst if they are downloaded from photos.com where they can use my images as extended licence for that price.
Not meaning to be rude, Vonkara, wasn't is something you agreed upon? Possibly on the expectation that the high-priced sales would compensate the subscription, but this is what you accepted - or were the terms changed later?

I don't remember what I said when the "deal" have been discussed. What is sure now is that I never seen the 50$ sale. I think they can download up to L size or XL. Obviously all sales on photos.com are the higher size they can get. This is way enough for them to print as large as they want.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #38 on:** October 25, 2009, 19:23 »

Quote from: loop on October 25, 2009, 15:24

That 1 per cent doen't takes in account what could have went up at istock should you had remained. Righ now I'm more than 25% up from last year at istock. Sure, that include new files, new prices and Vetta (still hasn't upload to Getty), but it is a progress.
On the other had I have legacy files at Vetta that didn't sold almost at all, and now, at Vetta are selling.

Your sales went up 25% but mine have dropped at IS and continue to do so. I need another $700 in sales before Dec. just to stay at the same level I was at last year with IS. If I stayed exclusive with IS that would be $700 less in earnings.

sam100 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 25, 2009, 19:43 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 25, 2009, 17:58

I sell exactly or more than 60% subscription everywhere except at Istock. Seeing my incomes goes from 27.15 to 30.15 with 10 (XXL or XXXL) sales at StockXpert for example, is just too absurd to me. Even worst if they are downloaded from photos.com where they can use my images as extended licence for that price.

One of the perks being exclusive at I stock..:-)

Patrick.

cidepix · « **Reply #40 on:** October 25, 2009, 20:40 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 14, 2009, 10:20

Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.

I think you are not submitting to enough agencies. It would be impossible for me to make more money on IS alone, even If I was a black diamond exclusive.

Actually it was possible for IS to make more when I was only submitting to 7 agencies. At that time IS was 1/2 of the whole story. But now that I am submitting to 13 agencies, IS is 1/3 of the revenues.

I recently started to realize that my loss would have been huge, had I gone exclusive before testing the possibilites and thinking that 7 agencies was the best I can do

The web is huge. It is not called world wide web for no reason. Don't limit yourself to big 6. Also, don't limit yourself to the list on the right. Web is HUGE! And I am very sincere when I say it is huge.

Thank god I didn't make that huge mistake to go exclusive when I was evaluating the pros and cons of exclusivity. Instead, I decided to expand my market before making a rushed decision. Expansion turned out to be one of the best things I have ever done since starting microstock.

vonkara · « **Reply #41 on:** October 25, 2009, 21:19 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 25, 2009, 20:40

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 14, 2009, 10:20
Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.

I think you are not submitting to enough agencies. It would be impossible for me to make more money on IS alone, even If I was a black diamond exclusive.

Actually it was possible for IS to make more when I was only submitting to 7 agencies. At that time IS was 1/2 of the whole story. But now that I am submitting to 13 agencies, IS is 1/3 of the revenues.

I recently started to realize that my loss would have been huge, had I gone exclusive before testing the possibilites and thinking that 7 agencies was the best I can do The web is huge. It is not called world wide web for no reason. Don't limit yourself to big 6. Also, don't limit yourself to the list on the right. Web is HUGE! And I am very sincere when I say it is huge.

Thank god I didn't make that huge mistake to go exclusive when I was evaluating the pros and cons of exclusivity. Instead, I decided to expand my market before making a rushed decision. Expansion turned out to be one of the best things I have every done since starting microstock.

Did you say you make any money with some agencies like Imagecatalog or Zoonar??? Are you with those 2 agencies as example?

cidepix · « **Reply #42 on:** October 26, 2009, 07:44 »

I definitely didn't say that

I don't think those are the ones to make money. But who knows!

I need to remind you that I am an illustrator btw. For example vectorstock on the right column (eventhough I don't submit to them) makes more than BigStock, Crestock, CanStockPhoto and like. Not sure how much more but easily more, as I know some people who contribute there. I will not contribute to them because they sell all the vectors for $1. Maybe If they increase the price I will.

I made those comments because I got the impression that she/he does not contribute to more than 6-7 agencies. There are very easily 10 if you have a good port.

The most important downside of exclusivity is they won't let you sell from your own personal website if you are exclusive. That's a big issue because I think everyone must have a personal store. I don't use my portfolio site for this purpose yet, but you just can't give up that possibility, because once you drive traffic to your site there is no way agencies and their worsening conditions will be better for us. Driving traffic is not as difficult as people believe. Some people are just not brave enough and that's why they hand their destiny in the hands of X agency as an exclusive.

Quote from: Vonkara on October 25, 2009, 21:19

Quote from: cidepix on October 25, 2009, 20:40
Quote from: azurelaroux on September 14, 2009, 10:20
Comparing my last 10 months as a true exclusive to the 10 months that I have been a full non-exclusive the difference in royalties is less than 1%.

I think you are not submitting to enough agencies. It would be impossible for me to make more money on IS alone, even If I was a black diamond exclusive.

Actually it was possible for IS to make more when I was only submitting to 7 agencies. At that time IS was 1/2 of the whole story. But now that I am submitting to 13 agencies, IS is 1/3 of the revenues.

I recently started to realize that my loss would have been huge, had I gone exclusive before testing the possibilites and thinking that 7 agencies was the best I can do The web is huge. It is not called world wide web for no reason. Don't limit yourself to big 6. Also, don't limit yourself to the list on the right. Web is HUGE! And I am very sincere when I say it is huge.

Thank god I didn't make that huge mistake to go exclusive when I was evaluating the pros and cons of exclusivity. Instead, I decided to expand my market before making a rushed decision. Expansion turned out to be one of the best things I have every done since starting microstock.
Did you say you make any money with some agencies like Imagecatalog or Zoonar??? Are you with those 2 agencies as example?

loop · « **Reply #43 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:37 »

cidepix:

The most important downside of exclusivity is they won't let you sell from your own personal website if you are exclusive. That's a big issue because I think everyone must have a personal store. I don't use my portfolio site for this purpose yet, but you just can't give up that possibility, because once you drive traffic to your site there is no way agencies and their worsening conditions will be better for us. Driving traffic is not as difficult as people believe. Some people are just not brave enough and that's why they hand their destiny in the hands of X agency as an exclusive.

Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.

cidepix · « **Reply #44 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:45 »

Quote from: loop on October 26, 2009, 10:37

Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.

Actually what I said is the exact opposite. Being exclusive is closer to what you said there. I know you are going to say how:) Here is how: Having your personal store where you pay %0 commission to agents and get %100 of the revenues mean you will be getting more money everytime you drive a new customer to your website. You make money by more customers, not by more shooting. Whereas if you are an exclusive the only way to increase revenue is to shoot harder:) Driving more customers to IS does not help you at all because they keep getting more photoraphers and you keep sharing the revenues with everyone.

Had you had a personal store, the increase in customers would mean the increase in your revenue regardless you keep shooting or not. An exclusive will never have this opportunity as istock prohibits this in it's exclusivity agreement.

bittersweet · « **Reply #45 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:54 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 26, 2009, 10:45

Quote from: loop on October 26, 2009, 10:37
Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.

Actually what I said is the exact opposite. Being exclusive is closer to what you said there. I know you are going to say how:) Here is how: Having your personal store where you pay %0 commission to agents and get %100 of the revenues mean you will be getting more money everytime you drive a new customer to your website. You make money by more customers, not by more shooting. Whereas if you are an exclusive the only way to increase revenue is to shoot harder:) Driving more customers to IS does not help you at all because they keep getting more photoraphers and you keep sharing the revenues with everyone.

Had you had a personal store, the increase in customers would mean the increase in your revenue regardless you keep shooting or not. An exclusive will never have this opportunity as istock prohibits this in it's exclusivity agreement.

I think loop was referring to the amount of time spent physically uploading files to all those sites.

loop · « **Reply #46 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:12 »

Yes, I meant that.

cidepix · « **Reply #47 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:49 »

Istock takes more time than 12 other sites combined together. I am serious. I only prepare the IPTC data once and then upload with my fast internet connection. IPTC data is no use for IS controlled vocabulary at all. I have to go through every single word which is plain boring. I think everybody will agree about IS upload speed being quite slow.

Anyway, It is less risky business wise to submit to 13 sites and be cool about IS search engine changes. Especially if IS is only 1/3 of the earnings.

Having your own personal store is only a plus. Even without it my revenue as a non-exclusive is just so clearly bigger than what it would be if I was a black diamond IS exclusive. IS would have to pay me about %70 royalty to make up for it:)

Quote from: whatalife on October 26, 2009, 11:54

Quote from: cidepix on October 26, 2009, 10:45
Quote from: loop on October 26, 2009, 10:37
Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.

Actually what I said is the exact opposite. Being exclusive is closer to what you said there. I know you are going to say how:) Here is how: Having your personal store where you pay %0 commission to agents and get %100 of the revenues mean you will be getting more money everytime you drive a new customer to your website. You make money by more customers, not by more shooting. Whereas if you are an exclusive the only way to increase revenue is to shoot harder:) Driving more customers to IS does not help you at all because they keep getting more photoraphers and you keep sharing the revenues with everyone.

Had you had a personal store, the increase in customers would mean the increase in your revenue regardless you keep shooting or not. An exclusive will never have this opportunity as istock prohibits this in it's exclusivity agreement.

I think loop was referring to the amount of time spent physically uploading files to all those sites.

cidepix · « **Reply #48 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:52 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 26, 2009, 11:54

I think loop was referring to the amount of time spent physically uploading files to all those sites.

I should add that loop quoted the wrong part. I could have no chance to sense that he was referring to that because he seemed like he was referring to having personal website. Anyway, the rewards of being non-exclusive more than make up for the time spent uploading.

If you say otherwise, you obviously are not taking full advantage of being a non-exclusive.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #49 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:53 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 26, 2009, 12:49

Istock takes more time than 12 other sites combined together. I am serious. I only prepare the IPTC data once and then upload with my fast internet connection. IPTC data is no use for IS controlled vocabulary at all. I have to go through every single word which is plain boring. I think everybody will agree about IS upload speed being quite slow.

Anyway, It is less risky business wise to submit to 13 sites and be cool about IS search engine changes. Especially if IS is only 1/3 of the earnings.

Having your own personal store is only a plus. Even without it my revenue as a non-exclusive is just so clearly bigger than what it would be if I was a black diamond IS exclusive. Is sould have to pay me about %70 royalty to make up for it:)

Quote from: whatalife on October 26, 2009, 11:54
Quote from: cidepix on October 26, 2009, 10:45
Quote from: loop on October 26, 2009, 10:37
Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.

Actually what I said is the exact opposite. Being exclusive is closer to what you said there. I know you are going to say how:) Here is how: Having your personal store where you pay %0 commission to agents and get %100 of the revenues mean you will be getting more money everytime you drive a new customer to your website. You make money by more customers, not by more shooting. Whereas if you are an exclusive the only way to increase revenue is to shoot harder:) Driving more customers to IS does not help you at all because they keep getting more photoraphers and you keep sharing the revenues with everyone.

Had you had a personal store, the increase in customers would mean the increase in your revenue regardless you keep shooting or not. An exclusive will never have this opportunity as istock prohibits this in it's exclusivity agreement.

I think loop was referring to the amount of time spent physically uploading files to all those sites.

You are not considering all the benefits of being an exclusive contributor, but it seems like you already have made up your mind on that. Good luck with your business.

cidepix · « **Reply #50 on:** October 26, 2009, 13:00 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 26, 2009, 12:53

You are not considering all the benefits of being an exclusive contributor, but it seems like you already have made up your mind on that. Good luck with your business.

I am, and I know there are many benefits. You can have a sounder mind when you are an exclusive but if being exclusive costs me a lot of money then what's the point. I would go exclusive in a heart beat if it was possible to earn as much as a non-exclusive.

Before I started taking full advantage of non-exclusivity there were questions in my mind. But now there is no comparison. At least for me.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #51 on:** October 26, 2009, 18:35 »

not sure how you'd ever know - especially if you haven't had your photos up for exclusivity. I haven't missed a beat from my exclusivity and whatever the costs were, they were minimal at most and very insignificant. I could go on, but I don't particularly care either way what others do, as long as they don't impact me in any significant way

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** October 26, 2009, 18:56 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 26, 2009, 07:44

The most important downside of exclusivity is they won't let you sell from your own personal website if you are exclusive.

That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website.

erwinova · « **Reply #53 on:** October 26, 2009, 19:27 »

Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?

ichiro17 · « **Reply #54 on:** October 27, 2009, 07:25 »

Quote from: erwinova on October 26, 2009, 19:27

Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?

thats the worst argument to date

RT · « **Reply #55 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:31 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 07:25

Quote from: erwinova on October 26, 2009, 19:27
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?

thats the worst argument to date

But bonus points for originality.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #56 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:49 »

Quote from: RT on October 27, 2009, 12:31

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 07:25
Quote from: erwinova on October 26, 2009, 19:27
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?

thats the worst argument to date

if only I had that kind of originality in my photos (i think) ...

But bonus points for originality.

lisafx · « **Reply #57 on:** October 27, 2009, 13:30 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 07:25

Quote from: erwinova on October 26, 2009, 19:27
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?

thats the worst argument to date

I agree the earthquake argument is pretty farfetched.

But his first point about the volatility of the Best Match changes and their affects on people's earnings is a huge issue. That is a major reason I stopped considering exclusivity and one I have heard quoted by a lot of other independents too.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 27, 2009, 14:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 27, 2009, 13:30

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 07:25
Quote from: erwinova on October 26, 2009, 19:27
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?

thats the worst argument to date

I agree the earthquake argument is pretty farfetched.

But his first point about the volatility of the Best Match changes and their affects on people's earnings is a huge issue. That is a major reason I stopped considering exclusivity and one I have heard quoted by a lot of other independents too.

Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week

gostwyck · « **Reply #59 on:** October 27, 2009, 15:02 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 14:44

Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week

That might be enough reassurance for you to base your income on but it's certainly not enough for me.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #60 on:** October 27, 2009, 15:20 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 27, 2009, 15:02

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 14:44
Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week

That might be enough reassurance for you to base your income on but it's certainly not enough for me.

Different people have different views. I may be wrong. Thats okay. So far I don't think I'm doing too badly.

I'm just going to go on with the assumption that its in the best interests of IS to get the right photos in front of their customers - no algorithm will be perfect - but I'm hoping that my photos are good enough to find their way there.

ShadySue · « **Reply #61 on:** October 27, 2009, 16:24 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 14:44

I agree the earthquake argument is pretty farfetched.

But his first point about the volatility of the Best Match changes and their affects on people's earnings is a huge issue. That is a major reason I stopped considering exclusivity and one I have heard quoted by a lot of other independents too.

Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week
[/quote]
Totally disagree. I've seen my test images going up and down like yoyos over the last six-eight weeks, as have others in my CN. In fact, I just noticed that one image (of mine) which has been in the top 25 on its main keyword for about a year is today down at 256. Might explain why in what is my BMY (which isn't saying that much compared to last year) I've only had 2 dls in over 24 hours.

lisafx · « **Reply #62 on:** October 27, 2009, 17:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 27, 2009, 16:24

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 27, 2009, 14:44

Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week
Totally disagree. I've seen my test images going up and down like yoyos over the last six-eight weeks, as have others in my CN. In fact, I just noticed that one image (of mine) which has been in the top 25 on its main keyword for about a year is today down at 256. Might explain why in what is my BMY (which isn't saying that much compared to last year) I've only had 2 dls in over 24 hours.

I have noticed the same as Sue. Lots of changes in the best match all the time, including lately.

For example today I noticed a lot of my new files with 0 downloads are in the front of my searches and lightboxes, far ahead of slightly older images with DL's. Clearly "new" just got a substantial boost.

gostwyck · « **Reply #63 on:** October 27, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 27, 2009, 17:22

Lots of changes in the best match all the time, including lately.

For example today I noticed a lot of my new files with 0 downloads are in the front of my searches and lightboxes, far ahead of slightly older images with DL's. Clearly "new" just got a substantial boost.

Exclusive images now appear to be boosted roughly double over those from independents too __ I noticed that just in the last few days. Maybe it was Istock's reaction to FT's bribe?

Of course the best match is supposed to be about the relevancy of the image's keywords but that seems to have been dropped in importance (if not entirely) in favour of whatever whim they fancy at any given moment.

cathyslife · « **Reply #64 on:** October 27, 2009, 18:28 »

Quote

That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website.

But if you sell RF photos as an exclusive on IS, I'm pretty sure you can't sell that same photo anywhere else, RF or RM. That means you must have other images to sell RM and prints.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

ShadySue · « **Reply #65 on:** October 27, 2009, 18:49 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 27, 2009, 18:28

Quote
That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website.

But if you sell RF photos as an exclusive on IS, I'm pretty sure you can't sell that same photo anywhere else, RF or RM. That means you must have other images to sell RM and prints.

You're not wrong, but that would apply anywhere; you can't generally sell an image both RF and RM.

cidepix · « **Reply #66 on:** October 28, 2009, 07:11 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 27, 2009, 18:28

Quote
That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website.

But if you sell RF photos as an exclusive on IS, I'm pretty sure you can't sell that same photo anywhere else, RF or RM. That means you must have other images to sell RM and prints.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Like we are the image machines to produce enough for both.

I don't think any of us has that kind of time and luxury to waste images for one type of use. IS basically takes your rights completely and don't let you sell your RF images on your own.

One thing agencies don't want is people sell their images from their own websites. If only a few people do it, no problem. But if everyone starts doing it and it becomes a trend, then that's the beginning of the end for agencies.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #67 on:** October 28, 2009, 07:33 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 28, 2009, 07:11

Quote from: cclapper on October 27, 2009, 18:28
Quote
That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website.

But if you sell RF photos as an exclusive on IS, I'm pretty sure you can't sell that same photo anywhere else, RF or RM. That means you must have other images to sell RM and prints.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Like we are the image machines to produce enough for both. I don't think any of us has that kind of time and luxury to waste images for one type of use. IS basically takes your rights completely and don't let you sell your RF images on your own.

One thing agencies don't want is people sell their images from their own websites. If only a few people do it, no problem. But if everyone starts doing it and it becomes a trend, then that's the beginning of the end for agencies.

Newsflash: Companies that buy images dont' want to buy from your website. They don't want to spend the time to negotiate with you. They dont' care about your own personal website especially when you don't have a portfolio unique and commercial enough to replace an iStock collection of 6 million images. They want the protection and ease of a big stockhouse vs. having to find filter through 8000 websites to find the photo they want.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Exclusivity - Has the crown lost its shine? (Read 27162 times)

vlad_the_imp

lisafx

lisafx

bittersweet

abimages

lisafx

bittersweet

bittersweet

vonkara

vonkara

vonkara

bittersweet

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors