pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock exclusivity  (Read 22767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 15, 2014, 13:18 »
+4
microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it

I agree. It's just a phase the industry is going through. It started off (yeah, a lot earlier than the 80s, I know, but I didn't want to start talking about Magnum and the 1940s/50s) as a sideline for shooters allowing them to complement their main source of income and I suppose it is going back to that.

Change is constant.





« Reply #76 on: August 15, 2014, 17:02 »
0
microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it

I agree. It's just a phase the industry is going through. It started off (yeah, a lot earlier than the 80s, I know, but I didn't want to start talking about Magnum and the 1940s/50s) as a sideline for shooters allowing them to complement their main source of income and I suppose it is going back to that.

Change is constant.

that may be so, change .
but i don't think u can equate it to the 80s... and far less to Magnum 40,50s...
where not every tom, prick & hairy  ;D has a DSLR.
no one just picked up the view camera or Rolleiflex SL, or l8er on, even then, not everyone could own a Leica or a Nik . even if everyone could afford to own one, it still did not mean that everyone knew how to use the camera at manual.

today it's not like that, anyone can pick up a DSLR , even a chimp is able to start a port for microstock. so even if u meant it that we go back to those days,
the supply still is not the same.

 the analogy is with music and movies...
even if u can shoot with the standard of those days, the buyer is not looking for that sort of standard
in the same way that today's music is not looking for miles or coltrane, but lady gaga
and films, well... we won't go into that. but i think u get my gist.

« Reply #77 on: August 15, 2014, 17:44 »
+3

That exclusive policy work great for the trads.  I bet their real happy with the result.

It worked brilliantly for 10 or 20 years at the end of the 20th Century. The agencies controlled the market - they were effectively a price-fixing cartel who monopolised the supply and sale of stock images. The price had to be a bit less than hiring a photographer to take the shot, but if you didn't hire someone the only way to get quality, released pictures was via an agency. The price limited demand: only the big boys could afford to put photos in their adverts and publishers would limit the number of images in cookery books and travel guides because of the costs. I was in newspapers back then and shops and service businesses relied on black and white text for adverts or maybe made use of crummy line art to promote themselves.

The arrival of digital created a big pool of images able to meet the pent-up demand and this came shortly after computers took over from cameras in the creation of colour separations. The cost of separations used to be huge, we paid hundreds of pounds to get the separations made just for the cover of our annual A4 magazine back in 85, the internal content was all black and white - today I could scan and separate that slide in minutes on the scanner and computer I have at home - a digital image is even easier, of course. It was a "black swan moment" for the trads - suddenly the trade they had controlled slithered through their fingers and there wasn't much they could do except try to adjust to the new market reality.

It wasn't just photography that was changing in the publishing industry during last decades of the century.  During my time in papers we went from letterpress to offset lithography, from B&W printing to the regular use of colour, from camera-made colour separations to digital ones, from compositor-set text to journalist-set text, from hot-metal to cold film, we said goodbye to flongs and chases, galley proofs and the hiss and clang and smell of the linotypes and hello to resin-coated aluminium plates. We went from hard copy that clattered out of telex machines hours after an event to instant transmission via satellite. We no longer lost stories because someone had forgotten to put a new reel of paper in the telex machines overnight.  In the 'togs section the Rolleis got thrown out and Nikon Fs became de-rigeur, then they got thrown out, too. Exciting times, but I suppose it was much the same in most industries during the last quarter of the 20th Century

that is a nice theory, but agencies were around for much longer than 10 or 20 years and they did not control the market, it was a market and many agencies were in it. that all said, most agencies of the time charged for the usage of an image and/or space rate so a magazine cover was worth what it was worth roughly $1000 for an in flight magazine and the photographer got his 50% cut, whereas now you guys are happy to sell a photo for much much less than it costs to produce and get 0.38 royalty for the same cover 20 years later (as recently happened to a good friend of mine from SS). when RF first came out for the first time that cover then dropped to about $350. digital or not, microstock was a real game changer for the industry price wise and i personally don't see it as sustainable for the long run for photographers and it's here to stay so we all need to deal with it and try to accept it and the agencies that now run the industry could not give a hoot about the suppliers as we are now sadly called "liabilities" at the AGM's. i am so glad i invested my earnings in some other lucrative investments years ago, cause the ship in photography sailed long ago.

Seems a little pessimistic and not quite true. I have photos that I've taken in the front yard (read zero cost) that have been sold between 1,500 and 2,000 times earning me roughly $1,000 each, thanks to microstock. And they're still selling. If it wasn't for microstock, I wouldn't earn anything at stock photography. Instead, I get $24K a year and rising. Sure, it's not a full time income, and I don't do stock full time, but it's a nice addition.

« Reply #78 on: August 15, 2014, 18:46 »
0
Back to the topic. To the original poster, I think it would be too soon to go exclusive. It looks like you're fairly new. I would continue to build your portfolio at all the sites, especially Shutterstock, for about another year, see what your earnings are like, and then consider whether exclusivity would be better. I don't see how it would be, but it might.

« Reply #79 on: August 16, 2014, 01:18 »
+1
It's a bit late, Rob, he's already jumped and is very happy at the moment.
Etudiante - you seem to be making much the same point as me. what I was talking about "going back to" was a time when commercial stock was just a small additional income, not a living.  Obviously the skills and pool of providers and market are now quite different (though, oddly, some film shots are among my better sellers)

« Reply #80 on: August 19, 2014, 11:41 »
0
Etudiante - you seem to be making much the same point as me. what I was talking about "going back to" was a time when commercial stock was just a small additional income, not a living.  Obviously the skills and pool of providers and market are now quite different (though, oddly, some film shots are among my better sellers)

Trousers (i could type BT, but i prefer trousers, as BT sounds like bachmanturneroverdrive  :D)
maybe it is not that film shots sell better. but bcos film shooters had composition down packed b4 they even consider going out to shoot for money.
...but really, what do i know??? nfa  ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2014, 19:57 »
0
Just an update, I know it's still the honeymoon period  :-* and iStock has some big changes coming over the next few days, but going exclusive has changed my income drastically.

Last month was my BME, nearly 300% increase from the month before. And this month is starting off pretty * good as well.

Be interesting to see what the new changes to iStock credits will do, who knows, might be better or worse we will soon find out.

Valo

« Reply #82 on: September 11, 2014, 00:31 »
+5
1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

« Reply #83 on: September 11, 2014, 04:16 »
0
1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

I wasn't going to give monetary values, but I'm talking a few hundred a month now :)

« Reply #84 on: September 11, 2014, 04:39 »
+3
Just an update, I know it's still the honeymoon period  :-* and iStock has some big changes coming over the next few days, but going exclusive has changed my income drastically.

Last month was my BME, nearly 300% increase from the month before. And this month is starting off pretty * good as well.

Be interesting to see what the new changes to iStock credits will do, who knows, might be better or worse we will soon find out.

Assuming you're referring to iStock earnings only, you would expect to be making at least 3 to 4 times as much after going Exclusive - see the figures on the right - otherwise it could hardly be worth doing.

The question is, how well can you do as Exclusive compared to being an independent on multiple sites?

Unfortunately, there's no way to tell that in advance, and afterwards you can't be sure either... as always, it's a decision you have to make for yourself, taking your own portfolio and circumstances into account.

Still works for me, but we'll see how the changes affect things in the next few months.

« Reply #85 on: September 11, 2014, 14:00 »
0
Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?

Valo

« Reply #86 on: September 11, 2014, 14:19 »
+2
1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

I wasn't going to give monetary values, but I'm talking a few hundred a month now :)
Thats what I mean, you went from 50 dollar to 200 dollar. Great result, but not hard to accomplish. Try going from 500 to 2000.

KB

« Reply #87 on: September 11, 2014, 15:59 »
+2
Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?
Exactly the opposite in my port. Very few sales, almost all of which are S.

« Reply #88 on: September 11, 2014, 17:31 »
+1
1 dollar to 4 dollar is  300% increase. Without your figures the percentage tells us little. But congratulations on the results.

I wasn't going to give monetary values, but I'm talking a few hundred a month now :)
Thats what I mean, you went from 50 dollar to 200 dollar. Great result, but not hard to accomplish. Try going from 500 to 2000.

Try more than 200 :)
500 to 2000 isn't a reality for me - yet. Who know what will happen over the next year or so.

I have tried going through other stock sites as well, but uploading to multiple sites is an absolute PITA, and for little reward with all the time spent uploading. Shutterstock was doing well for me, but I'd rather have less downloads for higher royalties. Also keeping to one site is just right for me :)

« Reply #89 on: September 11, 2014, 17:31 »
0
Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?
Exactly the opposite in my port. Very few sales, almost all of which are S.

Interesting. I am definitely having a good week. DLs have been of all sizes and collections.

KB

« Reply #90 on: September 11, 2014, 18:26 »
+1
Istock is picking up considerably for me this week.

Does anyone else see the same?
Exactly the opposite in my port. Very few sales, almost all of which are S.

Interesting. I am definitely having a good week. DLs have been of all sizes and collections.
Well, enjoy it while it lasts, and good luck next week after the Big Change. I fear the worst, but hope for the best.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
6698 Views
Last post May 27, 2014, 15:26
by bunhill
21 Replies
6231 Views
Last post July 14, 2015, 06:21
by PaulieWalnuts
27 Replies
12587 Views
Last post September 01, 2015, 16:40
by KB
19 Replies
6812 Views
Last post July 24, 2017, 08:12
by MxR
8 Replies
9100 Views
Last post May 06, 2019, 16:44
by jjpd747

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors