No its not just you! Really sad that microstock started with the by far worst model of all! But the gap between istock and the others is getting smaller my biggest hope for the future are stockxpert,dreamstime and fotolia. If one company dominates a market thats always the worst thing that can happen.

well i think their exclusive agreements is their pot of gold.  I have heard of  a few people dropping the exclusivity.. and perhaps more will over time.

but as other sites get more and better photographers designers will also go elsewhere.

I am afraid i agree.  istock is loosing their lead in many ways, such as comissions, company / photographer reltaions, ease of use.. and so on and so on.  I wouldn't be surprised if in a year there was a new strong leader.  I would have to say that Istock still leads the pack...... unfortunatly.

Defintiely not just you, I stopped uploading there a few months back. I refuse to sell a photo for 20 cents anymore. Also, the most cumbersome upload process makes it just not worth the time.

I am an iStock exclusive artist and have wandered outside the bubble...I have openly challenged certain policy changes or new features of iStock from time to time and wholeheartedly agreed with others.� I have to say some things in this thread, to me, certainly fall under the category of "defamatory, hateful and/or vulgar" that this very site admonishes against in it's terms of use that I just had to agree to to be able to post here.� Specifically calling Bruce's portfolio "shite" (that's classy,) and rude comments about Brianna.�

All that aside, I'm not here to start any trouble and I do think it's interesting to read uncensored opinions outside of iStock's forums.� Also the last post in this thread says it would be interesting to hear from and iStock Exclusive, so here are my opinions on the matters in this thread.�

1) Low Commisions: As an exclusive at the silver level I earn .30, 1.50 and 3.00 per download.� My average commission per sale is $1.73.� Currently my royalties from iStock pay about 65% of my monthly expenses.  I have been building my portfolio there since Feb. 2004 and a member (buyer) since Jan. 2003.� It is still the only place I buy from as a designer, mostly out of habit.� Another reason I am comfortable with my percentage is the amount of advertising money iStock spends, which clearly shows it's value in the amount of traffic and sales produced.

2) The "We're the boss attitude"� Well....they are.� But I wanted to share this link to Bitters response to community disapproval over the VOX fiasco and to quote this line specifically: "We had some hard time around the table with this, but in the end it came down to asking ourself one question: Are we the kind of company that's going to make up it's mind and bull ahead, regardless of what people think? Or are we the kind of company that's serious about listening to the people who got us where we are? When we put it to ourselves that way, the answer was pretty clear."..."
We believe in this Vox deal ...But if the majority of members don't believe this is good for us all, well, that's all there is to it - we'll turn it off. Simple as that. Our community is the reason for our success, and we will not act against your wishes."

Here is a link to that whole thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38036&page=1

3) Why be exclusive? I wanted to share my MAIN reason I elected to go for exclusivity with iStock, and that's legal protection.� Having had my images stolen on more than one occasion, it is MUCH easier to prove where the image was acquired form and therefore I automatically have the iStock legal department backing me and enforcing their License agreement, and they have proved themselves to me on several occasions in this department with flying colors.� If I have my images at two or three sites, let alone ten, when misuse comes up I'm up the creek as far as getting any one of my multiple suppliers to back me up.� After all, legal teams are expensive and why should they spend their time/money defending me and my image when there is only a one in 10 shot that the person misusing it actually acquired it from their site?

Of course there is convenience too and to be honest I'd rather spend my time producing images than uploading, keywording, describing & categorising for multiple sites.

But I completely understand why it just works better for others to be able to operate on several venues, and I've never said it doesn't have merit in some situations.

It's a personal choice, and to be honest it's not always easy.� What really irritates me personally is when people suggest that all iStock exclusives are stuck in a bubble or that we're brainwashed and all "admin favorites".� If that were true there would be a whole lot of "favorites" since there is a high perctnage of exclusivity within the 23,000+ contributer base.

We don't go out of our way to bash people who submit to several sites, so I don't understand why there are so many negative feelings toward exclusive contributers on independent forums like this one.

At the end of the day, we gave up some freedoms and signed a contract that restricts us to iStock.� In return we were promised some privileges and they deliver consistently.� It just makes good business sense, and if it wasn't working it wouldn't be causing such controversy.

Absolutley, in interest of full disclosure I should have mentioned I do vectors, because to be totally honest, I'm a dunce with a camera!   What the lense cap has to be off?! lol But just the same I am a microstocker and an exclusive iStocker.   (Not brainwashed BTW, lol, I saw that in another forum about "people who post at IS fourms?!)

I have several local photog (and one other vector artist) friends that contribute to multiple sites and do very well!  Sometimes it just workes better.  I also realize that if I weren't exclusive I would most likely be much more frustrated by inspection times and higher comissions.  As it is I like to dream big and I see that 40% level as jsut a matter of time and hard work, so I can hold out for a while.  Plus with bulk discounts for credit it actually works out to be more than 40% for the top level much like other sites.

Don't get me wrong, I ocassionaly get curious about the grass on the other side of the fence (every couple of months or so,) and I do some research at the other sites' forums and independent ones like this, but to be honest I usually reconfirm that I want to stay exclusive for now, and seeing a whole bunch of threads with really snide comments about exclusive members irritates me!  Even if someone is frustrated with the  system at iStock, doesn't mean the blame should fall on those that chose to be exclusive.  It's a business decision and a personal choice, certainly not meant to annoy or harm other photogs/artists!

As one more thing to consider when frustrated by the exclusive benefits, this might make you feel vindicated to some extent...remember that when one of our images gets rejected, we have absolutley no RF outlet for it!  I know rejections are frustrating for everyone (and IS certainly has a rep for the most stringent standards) but it's definitley a bit heartrending to see one of your babies shut out of your portfolio (and all other RF sites) forever! 

I really do respect others opinions and there are valid ones here (like professorgb's), I just think name calling and bashing people's portfolios is a bit out of line.

I am hoping to learn a few things from this forum, (if I don't get kicked out!) since the micostock industry is so relativley new there is a lot of gorund to cover!

You're right about image stealing, there will always be those out there who remove watermarks unfortunatley!

In my case though, each of the three times iStock had to step in it was clear misuse involving merchandising of images on clothing, reselling images as "custom" and template sales, none of which are allowed by the iStock licesnse agreement and all of which were bad for business as they are all things I do seperatly on the side.

Luckily I could prove where the images were aquired and didn't have to put any more effort in than a quick email to support to have them taken care of.  That was when I decided to go exclusive.  I do think that may be something that is more prominent with vectors too though, at least the reselling as custom work. 

Thanks for the welcome!

I respectfully disagree and could post several very nitpicky rejections (yes from whule I was exclusive) to prove the contrary.  I also think that the sheer volume of exclusive contributors that complain on the iStcok forums about all the files they don't have outlet for would point to a healthy amount of rejections for exclusives.

I can honestly say I have never been happy getting a rejection, I've very sedlom agreed with the reasoning (my most common rejection is "not stock") but going back a few weeks later I usually see how much it could have been improved and learn from that.  It is well documented how much contributers improve and learn over time due to rejections and strict standards.

I unfortunatley wasted a good portion of my day reading the entire iStock forum here at microstockgroups and got really irritated at the all the flaming. I also saw a lot of misinformation.  It's a bit sad and I don't think I'll be back. If you all really wanted a forum that is an unbiased discussion between all facets and different contributors to the microstock industry, there would need to be a lot fewer sensless insults to the exclusive iStock contributers.

I don't honestly believe form my observations and reading that this communtiy is open to all opinions.

I don't honestly believe form my observations and reading that this communtiy is open to all opinions.

This community is open to all opinions in the respect that no opinions are censored, and posts aren't censored if they talk negativly about a site (unlike the forums on the individual microstock sites themselves).

If you feel the members here are misinformed about istock in particular, perhaps it is because no one is argueing to the contrary (until now).

The Problem with istock is their attitude and their not fair and in my opinion arrogant treatment of their contributors.
They prooved that they are great businessmen and i respect them for that i'm pretty sure they don't believe the community-hype theirselves but its a part of their great marketing.
In general its never good for an industry that there is one company that rules the market, so i would really like to see istock comes down to the same level as the others which would be the best for all contributors and i'm sure istock would become much more friendlier .
The trend is against istock more and more agencies comes around the corner which understand about marketing as well (not loosers like canstock nice people but bad businessmen) and offers fairer treatment to their contributors.
Also new "big boys" like dashek, kurhan and logos (yuri) seems to have no interest at all to become an exclusive. Istock is protecting their old stars with their upload limits but missing the new stars which already have over thousand of pictures at the other sites and only a few hundred at IS.
I think 2007 will be the big turning point for the whole industry and especially for IS.

In response to Amanda

Yes I do agree that singling out ones portfolio and calling it 'shite' is over the line.  I do think however think that a person has the right to not like another's portfolio and express that opinion.  However, how they say it, does not have to be crude.  So Kacper, please watch how you use your language.  However the insult of one portfolio, doesn't warrent the insult of another  (amanda)

however, i don't feel the rest of Kacper's original post was over the line.  If he feels that Istock is being pompus he has the right to say so... it is the job of other people to disagree.

Well I am glad you are deciding to stick around... I look forward to hearing your opinion (it is always good to have some controversy)

This site is only unbiased if there is people presenting from both sides.  As it is now, or was before you came, the istock side is fairly lonely.

Amanda

I'm glad you decided to stick around to. �kacper can be a bit blunt sometimes but he also contributes a lot of good ideas. �My strategy for flaming is to ignore it, replying usually just makes it worse. �And probably that is what most people around here feel, and thus no one replied to his comments. �I for one don't complain to loudly about IStocks commission. �Yes it is low but if the sales volume is much higher than it is worth it. �It doesn't matter how much per image per sale I get but the total income per image. �But I do agree that they tend to be a little arrogant and their upload process is a nightmare. �If another new company copied their upload system they wouldn't get past a 100 images before they died. �They have replied to e-mails stating they don't take suggestions so don't bother. �I mean come on. �But once again from a business point of view if they bring in enough income to make it worth it, you just deal with it. �From my point of view istock isn't my highest money maker; shutterstock is. �In fact Istock is less than 25% of my income from microstocks. �So my desire to deal with their arrogant admins and horrible upload process is lacking. �Once again Amanda welcome to the group and I hope to hear more of your thoughts.

Mark