MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Freezingpictures on June 13, 2007, 11:57
-
I want to research Istock exclusivity, so I prepared two polls. I would be really happy, if you guys take part in it. I will make the results public after I got a decent amount of people who took part in it. That might ease the decision of becoming exclusive or not. Thanx for filling out! Just a few questions and you do not have to write anything if you do not want to, its multiple choice :)
This one here is for photographers who are not exclusive with Istock: Click here (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kfrlg_2fvLCs8d_2bDjXncr2DA_3d_3d)
An this one is for photographers who are exclusive with Istockphoto: Click here (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Qr_2fiThW7Sd9z1vgF71O1Og_3d_3d)
-
OK, I filled up the NON-exclusive questionnaire.
My biggest reason for not going exclusive is that rejected images get absolutely no chance of selling. I just had a sale at BS (they accept 97% of my pics) of a picture that got rejected from the big players for various reasons.
-
Filled up!
Regards
-
Interesting survey, I look forward to seeing the results.
-
Argh...SurveyMonkey appears to be down. Can't get to the page. I'll keep trying though!
-
Done
[/size][/color]
-
Great! Thank you! I've got allready 14 for non exclusive. But only one for the exclusive photographers. I hope some more exclusive photographers would vote to get some more data. I hope to get up to a hundred votes for each poll,so keep going :), however I am not sure from where to get all the exclusive photographers...
-
took the poll a little while ago
-
ditto
-
however I am not sure from where to get all the exclusive photographers...
Try the Yahoo microstock forum. They have a few more exclusives there.
-
About going exclusive, this is something that at the moment doesn't seem advantageous, given that I have good sales elsewhere. Also I would have to give up the macrostock market, in which I have a different portfolio.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
...SurveyMonkey does not like me today...
-
I always planned to be exclusive at iStock. But as I approach the 500 sales hurdle I keep thinking about eggs and baskets......
-
i filled up as non-exclusive in istock....
maybe u can go to istock, see who is exclusive and send them a link to the survey and ask them to fill it??? Just a thgt.....
-
I'am a newbie exlusive iStocker ;), so I can not explain any experiences about this. When I have a little bit experience there I will share with you.
Regards
-
I filled out the non-exclusive survey. Can't wait to see the results. :)
-
Thanks again and thank you for the suggestions about where to get some more exclusives to take part in the poll. Just an update: up to now I have 73 non-exclusives and 9 exclusives who filled out the poll.
I asked at Istockphoto, they do not allow me to ask in the forum or sitemail people.
I posted in Yahoo groups and got some responses allready. Lets hope to get some more exclusive to take part in the poll, their answers are probably the most interesting.
Here already some information ahead of time I myself am quite surprised. From the non exclusive photographers almost 25% do think about signing up at IS for exclusivity one time in the future.
And 68% would not upload more if there was an higher upload limit.
-
My biggest reason for not going exclusive is that rejected images get absolutely no chance of selling.
FP - filled out the non.
Solid point, Maco!! You can't argue with that. I've got pix that IS rejected that have sold literally hundreds of times with other outfits. Why would I squelch those sales?
Let me be clear, I'm a newbie with IS, and I'm now running around 75-80% acceptance, which I am happy with there... but I only send them what already sells well on SS & StockXpert. So those 20-25% they reject would be useless if I were exclusive..... being non-exclusive, I'm making nice money on them.
No doubt there are many good reasons to be exclusive as well. Foremost, it sure would seem to be a lot less work. 8)-tom
-
I just finished taking the non-exclusive survey. Look forward to the results!
-
My biggest reason for not going exclusive is that rejected images get absolutely no chance of selling.
FP - filled out the non.
Solid point, Maco!! You can't argue with that. I've got pix that IS rejected that have sold literally hundreds of times with other outfits. Why would I squelch those sales?
Let me be clear, I'm a newbie with IS, and I'm now running around 75-80% acceptance, which I am happy with there... but I only send them what already sells well on SS & StockXpert. So those 20-25% they reject would be useless if I were exclusive..... being non-exclusive, I'm making nice money on them.
No doubt there are many good reasons to be exclusive as well. Foremost, it sure would seem to be a lot less work. 8)-tom
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
-
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
Are you serious or did you just miss to include some smilies?
-
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
Are you serious or did you just miss to include some smilies?
It's hard to cash checks using a fake name. ;)
-
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
Are you serious or did you just miss to include some smilies?
It's hard to cash checks using a fake name. ;)
And it would be easy to get caught, by someone searching using other sites using your IS keywords (unless you used different keywords on other sites, which would not be very easy to do, if you wanted good key words on all sites). And you would be breaking a legal contract with iStock, they could sue you, and they would certainly kick you off IS.
-
took the poll finally. will be fun to see the results.
-
LOL.... I'm pretty sure KiwiRob was kidding!
I've got a question for the experts out there. My landscape work is being used on an ongoing basis by a magazine publisher in the northeast U.S.
Here's my dumb question.
If I were exclusive to any microstock agency, would I be able to sell my own pictures I had uploaded on their site without violating an agreeement with that microsite? I wouldn't be able to sell them on any other micro agency, would I even be able to sell them on my own?
yeah, I really have and I.Q. of 148, but this one baffles me. I'm sure the answer is simple and I'll feel stupid.... but ... go ahead and let me have it. LOL 8)-tom
-
You are not allowed to sell your images royalty free anywhere except getty. You are not even allowed to give your images away for free. But if that image is Rights-Managed you can sell, or if it is work for hire by that magazine.
The non-exclusive poll is completed! 100 photographers filled it out! (The poll is limited to 100, if you only have a free account on sureveymonkey)
Thank you so much!
The exclusive part is at 11 photographers. Thats not too much, but may tell us a bit. I will try to give you the results this week. So exclusives please continue filling out the poll :)
-
I have a large number airliner images which are sold as editorial on SS and an aviation webpage, they are editorial and would never be accepted on IS, would I have to remove these from either site if I went exclusive with IS.
-
Yes, you would have to remove them. :(
-
One more exclusive survey filled out...
-
Thank you!
Here is the first part of the survey. The results of the poll, which the exclusive photographers filled out.
I just had 14 filled out this part. The poll is still open, I will update the survey, if some more people will fill it out.
The photographers are sorted by their canister color which they had at the time they became exclusive.
Exclusives
Question: How high was the amount you earned on Istockphoto as a percentage of your total income on microstock before you became exclusive?
Bronze photographers (10):
7 answered: 80-100%
2 answered: 65-80%
1 answered: no respons
Silver photographers (3):
1 answered: 80-100%
1 answered: 65-80%
1 answered: 55-65%
Gold photographers (1)
1 answered: 80-100%
Question: What was your increase in earnings on microstock the 30 days after you became exclusive, compared to the 30 days before you became exclusive?
Bronze photographers (10)
2 answered: decrease in earnings
1 answered: 10-20%
4 answered: 20-30%
3 answered: 30-40%
Silver photographers (3)
1 answered: 10-20%
1 answered: 30-40%
1 answered: 50-60%
Gold photographers (1)
1 answered: 40-50%
Question: On which of the following agencies did you sell your photos before becoming exclusive at Istockphoto?
Bronze photographers (10)
5 answered: no response
1 answered: other
1 answered: Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Bigstockphoto
1 answered: Bigstockphoto
1 answered: Dreamstime
1 answered: Shutterstock
Silver photographers (3)
1 answered: no response
1 answered: shutterstock, dreamstime, fotolia, stockxpert, bigstockphoto
1 answered: shutterstock, dreamstime, fotolia, stockxpert, bigstockphoto, other
Gold photographers (1)
1 answered: Dreamstime
Question: How many images do you upload to Istockphoto on average per week?
Bronze photographers (10)
7 answered: less than 10 Images
2 answered: 10-20 Images
1 answered: 20-30 Images
Silver photographers (3)
2 answered: less than 10 Images
1 answered: 10-20 Images
Gold photographers (1)
1 answered: less than 10
Question: Are you happy with your decision of becoming exclusive?
Every photographer is happy with the decision, except 4 Bronze photographers, who do not know if they are happy or not.
(Was edited, discovered a mistake at the results on question where they sold the images before they got exclusive)
-
Yes, you would have to remove them. :(
oh well fuck that then.
-
And here part two:
The poll for non exclusive photographers:
Question: How high is the amount you earn on Istockphoto as a percentage of your total income on microstock?
Base photographers (28)
6 answered: less than 15%
11 answered: 15-25%
4 answered: 25-35%
4 answered: 35-45%
1 answered: 45-55%
1 answered: 55-65%
1 answered: 80-100%
Bronze photographers (41):
5 answered: less than 15%
5 answered: 15-25%
8 answered: 25-35%
11 answered: 35-45%
6 answered: 45-55%
2 answered: 55-65%
2 answered: 65-80%
2 answered: 80-100%
Silver photographers (19):
1 answered: less than 15%
2 answered: 15-25%
7 answered: 25-35%
6 answered: 35-45%
1 answered: 45-55%
1 answered: 55-65%
1 answered: 65-80%
Gold photographers (10)
1 answered: 15-25%
5 answered: 25-35%
3 answered: 35-45%
1 answered: 45-55%
Diamond photographers (2)
1 answered: less than 15%
1 answered: 35-45%
Question: On which agencies are you selling your images? (Options were: Dreamstime,Shutterstock, Fotolia, Stockxpert, Bigstockphoto)
Base photographers (28)
1 answered: no response
1 answered: SS
1 answered: SS,DT
1 answered: SS,FT
1 answered: DT,BS
1 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert
5 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
3 answered: SS,DT,FT,BS
14 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS
Bronze photographers (41):
2 answered: no response
1 answered: StockXpert
1 answered: SS,FT
1 answered: SS,DT,BS
1 answered: SS,DT,FT
3 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
6 answered: SS,DT,FT,BS
1 answered: DT,FT,StockXpert,BS
25 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS
Silver photographers (19):
1 answered: SS,DT
1 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert
2 answered: SS,DT,FT
1 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
2 answered: SS,DT,FT,BS
12 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS
Gold photographers (10)
2 answered: SS,DT,FT,StockXpert
8 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS
Diamond photographers (2)
2 answered: SS,DT,StockXpert,FT,BS
Question: How many images do you upload to Istockphoto every week on average?
Base photographers (28)
17 answered: less than 10
11 answered: 10-20
Bronze photographers (41):
29 answered: less than 10
12 answered: 10-20
Silver photographers (19):
14 answered: less than 10
3 answered: 10-20
1 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 40-50
Gold photographers (10)
4 answered: less than 10
2 answered: 10-20
3 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 30-40
Diamond photographers (2)
1 answered: 10-20
1 answered: 20-30
Question: Would you upload more if you were not restricted by the upload limit? If yes, how many would you upload on average per week?
Base photographers (28)
14 answered: No
8 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 30-40
3 answered: 40-50
1 answered: 50-75
1 answered: 150-200
Bronze photographers (41):
30 answered: No
4 answered: 20-30
5 answered: 30-40
3 answered: 40-50
1 answered: 50-75
1 answered: 100-150
Silver photographers (19):
12 answered: No
2 answered: 20-30
1 answered: 40-50
1 answered: 50-75
Gold photographers (10)
8 answered: No
1 answered: 30-40
1 answered: 50-75
Diamond photographers (2)
1 answered: No
1 answered: 30-40
Question: Would you consider going exclusively to Istockphoto? If yes, at which canister level?
Base photographers (28)
12 answered: No never!
12 answered: I do not know
2 answered: Yes, Bronze
1 answered: Yes, Gold
1 answered: Yes, Diamond
Bronze photographers (41):
23 answered: No never!
7 answered: I do not know
4 answered: Yes, Silver
3 answered: Yes, Gold
3 answered: Yes, Diamond
1 answered: Yes, Black Diamond
Silver photographers (19):
8 answered: No never!
5 answered: I do not know
2 answered: Yes, Gold
4 answered: Yes, Diamond
Gold photographers (10)
4 answered: No never!
2 answered: I do not know
3 answered: Yes, Diamond
1 answered: Yes, Black Diamond
Diamond photographers (2)
1 answered: No never
1 answered: I do not know
Probably I will write an analysis on my website some day, right know I am too busy for that..
-
Freezing.. Thank you! Interesting data. Appreciate your time and effort!
8)-tom
-
What I found most interesting were the responses to the upload limits, especially how the non-exclusives with the lower canister levels would upload many many more photos than those in the higher levels if given the opportunity. It also was interesting that it appears many exclusives are not taking advantage of their higher upload limits to slam the queue with a bunch of mediocre crap (as is often implied here)... maybe just a little mediocre crap. ;)
Thanks for the data. Don't know what it means really, but it is interesting. I am curious whether there were any controls to ensure one person did not submit more than one survey (such as both exclusive and non-exclusive, in an attempt to skew results). I'm not familiar with the restrictions of survey monkey.
-
One person could only submit once to one poll, they somehow managed this with the IP address. But yes, a person could submit to both exclusive and non-exclusive. And there were two or three really unusual votes in the non-exclusive part. But so many votes were taken in the non exclusive poll, I doubt it overall made a big difference.
Sorry, I had to edit the exclusive poll results at the question where the photographers sold their images before they became exclusive. I just discovered the mistake looking again at the results.
There is one exclusive photographer who joined exclusivity programm when he was Bronze and sold his images on 4 other agencies before. You cannot read this data in what I provided here, but exactly this photographer is one of the two photographers who reported a decrease in earnings after he went exclusive.
Although the poll was not taken by too many exclusive photographers, my impression out of this is, that it generally is not worthy regarding the earnings if you get exclusive at the Bronze level.
There might be exceptions. If you are one of the few Bronze photographers who earns 65-80% upwards on Istockphoto, you might increase your earnings by turning exclusive.
Another photographer who turned exclusive at the Bronze level had 65-80% of his total income on Istockphoto before he joined the exclusivity program. His total earnings increased 30-40% after he became exclusive.
However the other photographer allready mentioned who sold his images at 4 other agencies and had a decrease of total earnings, reported also that before he became exclusive, istock earned him 65-80% of his total income.
All the other photographers who turned exclusive at the Bronze level and had 80-100% of their income allready before they became exclusive, reported an increase of earnings except one. Coincidentely, all those photographers have been just on one or none of the big 6 microstock agency.
Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.
-
thanks....it was an interesting poll ;)
-
Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.
I don't think your sample size was big enough to draw a conclusion that it is not worth it.
-
Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.
I don't think your sample size was big enough to draw a conclusion that it is not worth it.
I think what he is saying is of those non-exclusives that took the poll, that was the feeling, that it is not worth it.. I don't think he was implying all photographers in general...
I'm not sure how IS works, but on most other sites, you just make the decision and click the box and become exclusive. It's that simple. The point is, why are so many not clicking that box? Because, they don't think it's worth it..
At this stage in my life... I'd lose money being exclusive anywhere. I'm sure there are advantages being exclusive too. It's sure a lot less work uploading to one site instead of a couple dozen.
But to each his own.. everyone has to make their own decision about that matter.
peace. 8)-tom
-
No I wasn't implying for all photographers who are at the bronze level. Maybe conclusion was not the right word. Impression might be better. I just wanted to summarize it.
-
To me exclusivity begins to make (economic) sense once you hit the diamond level, when you receive double the commission you'd normally get.
If IS accounted for 40% of your pre-exclusivity income, you'd then only be taking an immediate 20% hit for 'taking the leap'. You'd have to make up for this fairly quickly by taking advantage of your new 180 images/week unlimited upload limit.
-
And then they need to be more diverse than another 180 aircraft shots!
-
And then they need to be more diverse than another 180 aircraft shots!
Yes, Sharply definitely has the best aircraft images - but at some point won't he just be competing with himself? Not sure how to make sense out of this thought... in Sharply's case, with his "niche" - if Istock only sells 100 aircraft shots a day he would sell 100 photos and no more.... wouldn't going exclusive be a negative thing? There would only be so many aircraft travel sales at one site - wouldn't he have more sales by spreading his folio across more sites?
Sharply - my thoughts are meant to be a compliment to your quality of work because I sincerely think it's fabulous. But, I'm sure you do have more than aircraft in your folio - haven't browsed in a while.
-
Ok, guys, sorry for delay, but finally I wrote the article about iStock exclusivitiy, based on this survey. Check out the lower part of the article, there I write about earnings, which might be the most interesting part. Enjoy reading:
http://www.freezingpictures.com/istockphotoexclusivity
-
Very interesting numbers and one of the prime reasons I opted not to go exclusive, at least for now. iStock is my best earning site, month-to-month. Not in total number of images sold, but in total dollars earned. SS is the best for total number of images, but trails IS dollar wise.
If IS would change their rules to allow images not accepted to be submitted or used elsewhere, I might consider going exclusive. But locking in all images, whether they want them or not is completely irrational and I won't even consider the option so long as that rule remains. Interestingly, images that are not accepted on IS sell very well elsewhere. Thus the concern about foregoing income from images not accepted by IS.
-
When I look at successful photographers at iStock, I see most of them already exclusive. And these exclusives have huge download numbers. I suspect that exclusives get more than just an increase in commission - it seems that sales improve dramatically (at least for some).
However my main concern is the 'all eggs in one basket' problem. Of course this hasn't been a problem for Lise or Hidesy or Sean Locke, all of whom have flourished there. Nonetheless, the technical difficulties seen over the last few weeks must have worried some exclusives. What if IS has a serious problem like Fotolia with V2? I recall Phildate's comments about his huge loss of income from Fotolia.
It's a difficult choice. On the one hand it might be a very successful and satisfying move. On the other hand it could be equivalent to having one's entire life savings in Enron stock.....
-
w7lwi,
I don't find it interesting to be exclusive to any site (I like the option of offering exclusive images in some of them though). But I understand that once someone is "exclusive" this clearly means that he is not elsewhere, even with different images, so I wouldn't say this rule is "irrational". Remember this is about exclusive photographers not exclusive photographies.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Thanks for the work, Freezing! Great article and very interesting.
I'm still not sure about going exclusive (Hatman's reference to Enron hits close to home for me). One advantage I see is that the time saved in uploading to all the other sites can be spent shooting more pictures, thus increasing your portfolio more quickly and possibly your earnings as well. Maybe, I guess. But being "chained" to one site just isn't my cup of tea right now.
-
Exactly my point. I don't mind having exclusive images, even to the point of giving someone the first right of refusal; but, I do object to being told what I can do with those images when that same someone tells me they don't want that particular work. From a purely business standpoint, for the agency to have this clause makes a limited amount of sense ... "we have photographer XYZ exclusive to us for all his work." Nice advertising touch. And having someone like Lise or Sean "in your pocket" is a definite plus. However, from most photographer's perspectives it is nonsense unless he/she makes as much or more than they would by submitting to multiple agencies. There is usually no economic advantage. In fact the numbers from Freezingpictures indicate that for the vast majority it is a definite disadvantage. Is there an ego boost to being exclusive, probably. But that won't buy many groceries at the store. Most of us are in this for the money and each must review their actions in relation to their own bottom line. With a few noteable exceptions, exclusivity is 100 percent advantage to the agency and minimal, if at all, to the photographer. Thus the rule would normally be viewed as irrational from the photographer's perspective, but not necessarily so for the agency (IS).
An interesting side thought. Do you think there would be any change in the review process and acceptance criteria under an exclusive, first right of refusal scenario? Knowing that if an image was refused, it would likely end up on a competitor's site (assuming it was a half way decent image to begin with). In a perfect world, this should make no difference. But people being people, would it? I once worked for a company that was so hung up on beating their competition, that they deliberately broke Federal law just to keep a competitor from getting a contract. And nothing simple like under the table payoffs. International commerce with banned terrorist nations. Major third and fourth party transactions to hide the illegal actions. Didn't work and the Fed's caught them. Fines in the millions and potential jail time for the executives who were involved. Point is, people will sometimes do stupid things just to limit competition. Just a hypothetical question. Would it make a difference?
-
Yuri Arcur wrote the following on his website (I can't post a direct link to this quote but his website is here www.arcurs.com (http://www.arcurs.com)).
In one year I sell around 400,000 individual licenses for the use of my pictures, which is equal to the amount that my biggest istock competitor has had in her entire lifetime.
I don't know when that was last updated, but Lise now has 5176 photos on IS and 583770 sales.
Yuri has over 2000 on IS, but over 5000 on DT. Difficult to compare the bottom line, but - somewhat similar size portfolio aside from the fact that he must suffer from the upload restrictions on Istock. I'm grabbing a number here - if he averages about 60 cents per sale, Yuri would make $240,000 per year and I read recently that Lise makes $120,000. I think that recent Times article said "over 100,000."
It's not very scientific, but I'm guessing that Yuri makes twice as much as Lise.
Edited: I didn't mention that Lise is exclusive at IS, but I think everyone knows that.
-
My goodness, what a bragger.
-
I think Yuri wins much more than that!
Because when i divide the total of images i have with all the money that have earned so far in Microstock i get a average of 2,30 by download.
And maybe lise earn more than 100,000 by year and she doesn’t want that everybody knows how much she earn.
That's what i think.
I hope you can anderstand my English
:)
-
Be sneaky sign up with another agency using an alias and upload all the rejects there. I'm pretty sure their are some people who do that. Anoher way of doing it is put all you stock on IS and editorial images on shutterstock.
Are you serious or did you just miss to include some smilies?
It's hard to cash checks using a fake name. ;)
According to the guy I was talking to who is exclusive at IS and sells (different images) on all the other sites under a his another name it doesn't matter what you call yourself if you are recieving payment via paypal or moneybookers since they use an email address not your name.