MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: RPD plummet  (Read 5725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2015, 12:36 »
0
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.


« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2015, 12:56 »
+1
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Tickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 13:15 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2015, 13:16 »
0
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS. 

« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2015, 13:25 »
+1
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.

This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief.
I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.

« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2015, 13:28 »
0
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.

This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief.
I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.
I would say of course they would.  Why would anyone pay more for the nearly exact same image on Getty than on Shutterstock?  I would completely expect that to happen.  I also wouldn't say that contributing to Getty moment RF is a great idea.  I think you'll see I never advocated putting the same images on macro and micro and I never advocated using Getty Moment.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2015, 13:36 »
0
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Tickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief

It's rather obvious at this point we  are having two very different experiences with Getty Images and/or Istock photo sales. Mine being generally positive and yours has left you very bitter that it actually consumes many of your posts. Such is life. On another note, I could care less where you place your images.

« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2015, 13:37 »
+2
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.

This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief.
I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.
I would say of course they would.  Why would anyone pay more for the nearly exact same image on Getty than on Shutterstock?  I would completely expect that to happen.  I also wouldn't say that contributing to Getty moment RF is a great idea.  I think you'll see I never advocated putting the same images on macro and micro and I never advocated using Getty Moment.

I didn't have duplicates nor similars in my port.
I would agree that, in time, my photography evolved. Today, I might have better photos with microstock agencies, but it doesn't invalidate the conclusion reached when my best photos were exclusive with Getty.
Those not considered interesting by Getty sold better on SS & Co than the "top" Getty exclusive photos.

The point of this topic is not about Getty and not even about exclusivity.
It is about IS being the worst agency out there with that lousy commission and abysmal RPD.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 13:50 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2015, 13:38 »
0
I didn't have duplicates nor similars in my port.
Would you like me to post links?

« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2015, 13:42 »
0
I didn't have duplicates nor similars in my port.
Would you like me to post links?

Of course not.
Those links would not be relevant anyway, once you would have understood my previous post.

« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2015, 15:17 »
+3
It's rather obvious at this point we  are having two very different experiences with Getty Images and/or Istock photo sales. Mine being generally positive and yours has left you very bitter that it actually consumes many of your posts. Such is life. On another note, I could care less where you place your images.

I stated several times that I'm happy with the outcome. I also told you that I'm happy to acknowledge your positive experience and I wish you to continue it.

Happy excludes bitter.  :D ;) :)
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 17:07 by Zero Talent »

KB

« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2015, 19:35 »
+5
Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of very unhappy people on this forum that constantly complain about Istock? And for months and months and months to no end. It's the herd mentality.

Then their are very few people that even remotely suggest life is good on the other side and the result it very abusive and negative on this forum. So in effect it silences people. Even mention you are doing well on Istock and you get kicked in the nuts, not by one, but by many.

I work hard at shooting stock photos, I am exclusive, and I make a great living doing it. I submit images and they sell.

Naysayers will always be unhappy and blame anything, everyone, and everything on their own failures. Naysayers often band together to live the dreary existence of being negative almost to cult status.

It's a pattern I see on this forum far too frequently to the point of being utterly boring and repetitive.
I am likely one of those people to whom you refer. I am well aware that it gets boring and repetitive, that is one reason why I post infrequently.  I am very happy that you are doing so well at iStock. Congratulations, your hard work and talent are paying off. If you have had your nuts kicked in by me at any time, I am sorry. I certainly wouldn't do that on purpose. I think the only reason others might do it is because they find it hard to believe that such positive posts are actually authentic. People probably think that Getty has shills here, trying to put a positive slant on conversations whenever possible. It is unfortunate that we can't know who here is real, and who is not.

I used to absolutely love iStock. I thought it was the best microstock site on the internet. That's why I left independence and became exclusive in 2010. It all started to unravel only 2 months later. (It had actually begun in 2009, however it was Sep 2010 when RCs were introduced, and the first Big Lie was revealed: Their "grandfathering" contract was entirely worthless.) Things have been deteriorating ever since, with each new change leading to less and less income. So I think I have a legitimate reason to be angry and unhappy. But I do try to limit such posts, as I realize they serve no useful purpose other to vent my frustrations.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2015, 21:28 »
+1
Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of very unhappy people on this forum that constantly complain about Istock? And for months and months and months to no end. It's the herd mentality.

Then their are very few people that even remotely suggest life is good on the other side and the result it very abusive and negative on this forum. So in effect it silences people. Even mention you are doing well on Istock and you get kicked in the nuts, not by one, but by many.

I work hard at shooting stock photos, I am exclusive, and I make a great living doing it. I submit images and they sell.

Naysayers will always be unhappy and blame anything, everyone, and everything on their own failures. Naysayers often band together to live the dreary existence of being negative almost to cult status.

It's a pattern I see on this forum far too frequently to the point of being utterly boring and repetitive.
I am likely one of those people to whom you refer. I am well aware that it gets boring and repetitive, that is one reason why I post infrequently.  I am very happy that you are doing so well at iStock. Congratulations, your hard work and talent are paying off. If you have had your nuts kicked in by me at any time, I am sorry. I certainly wouldn't do that on purpose. I think the only reason others might do it is because they find it hard to believe that such positive posts are actually authentic. People probably think that Getty has shills here, trying to put a positive slant on conversations whenever possible. It is unfortunate that we can't know who here is real, and who is not.

I used to absolutely love iStock. I thought it was the best microstock site on the internet. That's why I left independence and became exclusive in 2010. It all started to unravel only 2 months later. (It had actually begun in 2009, however it was Sep 2010 when RCs were introduced, and the first Big Lie was revealed: Their "grandfathering" contract was entirely worthless.) Things have been deteriorating ever since, with each new change leading to less and less income. So I think I have a legitimate reason to be angry and unhappy. But I do try to limit such posts, as I realize they serve no useful purpose other to vent my frustrations.

Nice and honest reply. Refreshing.
I am not a mole for Istock or Getty. Getty as a company I think they are great from a business perspective. From a contributor's perspective I more or less despise Getty Images. Getty was once upon a time a fairly decent company to be a contributor to, but that was in the early years. Frankly I don't like what the whole stock business has become. I don't see the spirit it once had. Stock photography now is run by bankers and shareholder's and as you may agree with or disagree, they are the greediest people of all. There are certain agencies I simply would not give my work to just on my own principle as I refuse to sell my work for such a low royalty amount. I don't profess to be a poster child for Getty Images, but I do feel they are still the best out of the lot, and I do feel the lot is rotten, including Getty.

I personally don't care if anyone believes me. I have no reason to BS anyone on this forum. I am not for one second even suggesting that sales are growing as they once did, for sure they have dropped, but it also appears to have been doing this across the board at all agencies. Simple case of supply and demand which currently every agency has 40 million plus images.

Good luck!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shares Plummet

Started by Pauws99 « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Shutterstock.com

130 Replies
19943 Views
Last post September 03, 2015, 02:39
by sharpshot
24 Replies
6567 Views
Last post June 08, 2017, 12:46
by Microstock Man
24 Replies
2629 Views
Last post April 24, 2019, 07:03
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle