Author Topic: Exclusivity - Has the crown lost its shine? (Read 29526 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Exclusivity - Has the crown lost its shine? (Read 29526 times)

ichiro17

bittersweet

NancyCWalker

bittersweet

PaulieWalnuts

travelstock

Eyedesign

NancyCWalker

PixelBitch

loop

vonkara

madelaide

vonkara

NancyCWalker

sam100

cidepix

vonkara

cidepix

loop

cidepix

bittersweet

loop

cidepix

cidepix

ichiro17

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors