MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: helix7 on April 25, 2008, 12:42
-
If you've read anything I've ever said in forums about istock exclusivity, you probably wouldn't think that I really want anything to do with it. What you may not know, however, is that really I wish I could go exclusive with istock. No joke, it's not April Fools Day, nothing like that. I really wish that istock could offer an exclusive contract that was not just enticing, but monetarily feasible for me. I'm also realistic enough to know that this will likely never happen, since the distance between me and exclusivity is just too great. Still, I think there are some things that istock could change that would at least bring me and exclusivity into the same dimension of reality, and certainly push some people who are on the fence in the direction of exclusivity.
Money
Let's be real here. The royalty structure at istock is pretty terrible. Sure a lot of people make good money there, exclusive or not. I'm one of them, earning a decent wage through istock each month despite just getting my 20%. The problem is that other companies offer much more competitive rates, and even if I were to go exclusive at the Diamond level, it would mean a pretty hefty reduction in my overall earnings. We're talking something in the range of 40% less each month. Despite being my top earner most months, istock doesn't even represent half of my total earnings across the 9 sites I contribute to.
The solution is more reasonable royalties. The top-tier rate for Black Diamond contributors should be 55%, and the rates drop by the usual 5% from there. 50% should be the minimum for Diamond-level and above, and really this would only put a few hundred contributors at the 50+ percent pay rate. Everyone else would be below 50%, which quite frankly would still be lower than what some other microstock sites offer non-exclusive contributors.
But where would this extra money come from, you ask? Surely istock can't just hand out higher royalties like that without cutting something. How about:
Cut the junk
In place of higher royalties, istock currently justifies their exclusive program by offering little extras that make the deal a bit sweeter for some of the on-the-fence contributors. Sure some of these things are nice, but they really aren't necessary, and they don't even come close to making up for lost earnings that many people would face if they opted to go exclusive. And while they don't offer me much in the way of sweetening the pot, they do require added expenses and resources from istock that could be diverted into the increased royalties. They wouldn't make up the whole difference, but it would help. I'll gladly pass on the $20 business cards for exclusives if it means that istock doesn't need to have human and financial resources attending to that exclusive perk and can divert some of those reclaimed funds into higher royalties.
Give it to me straight
That list of exclusive benefits may appeal to the people who only discovered microstock last week, but for those who have been at this for more than a few months and actually have tried selling images elsewhere, the list is pretty vague and unconvincing. You offer "Higher Sales" to exclusives. How much higher? I'm not betting my paychecks on the arbitrary claim of higher earnings without some substance behind it. Give me a ballpark idea of what I can expect.
istock can also keep their flimsy claims of increased marketing and promotions to "bring your portfolio attention." Is any of that marketing really doing anything extra for exclusives? Promoting istock is good for everyone, and it does not favor any one particular portfolio. Unless we're talking about the actual images and credits that appear in print ads, but even then how much of a difference does that make in your earnings? And how many exclusive contributors will ever actually see their image in an ad? The percentage of contributors that do has to be extremely low given the overall number of exclusive contributors out there, and I wouldn't bet my earnings on a slim possibility of seeing my images in an ad.
Let's stop pretending that these little bonuses actually amount to anything. Give it to us straight. What does exclusivity mean for my earnings, and what can I realistically expect? If you wan to claim higher sales, back it up. Just typing "Higher Sales" on a web page isn't going to make me jump at the idea. Save the cheesy perks and pitches and just give it to us straight.
No more "All or Nothing"
Aside from the money issue, the biggest deterrent to exclusivity has always been the extreme commitment required. There is the clause about not selling any RF, anywhere, ever, something that is unique to istockphoto as far as I know. Just to even apply, you need to remove all of your images from other RF sites. This may seem like a small thing to ask, but for many sellers the idea of removing all images from any site is daunting. Not to mention the waiting periods required.
Someone would have to seriously plan ahead to even attempt exclusivity if they were already involved with other RF sites, and they would have to take a hit in earnings while they are unable to upload or sell images at other sites pending the approval of the istock exclusivity application. Assuming the application will even get approved, and since it is an "application" I have to assume there is no guarantee of acceptance.
The application should be accepted and approved before requiring images at other sites be removed, putting an istock account into a pending exclusive status on the condition that images will be removed from other RF sites prior to the granting of full exclusive status. Give people the chance to see if they can even get approved before you make them put it all on the line just for a possible chance at becoming an exclusive contributor.
So...
Sure all of this is really amounts to little more than my opinion, and my ideas of an exclusive program that would actually have some weight behind it are probably far from anything that istock would ever implement. I just want to throw this out there for discussion and see what others think. Maybe putting any of these ideas into practice is a far-fetched notion, but I think istock could do well to consider even one or two of them to make their exclusive contact more appealing to contributors who are giving any real consideration to going exclusive.
-
Helix7, Well thought out and composed. I agree across the board with your sentiments.
I have long thought that the exclusivity parameters at IS vis a' vis, not being able to submit IS 'rejects' to other sites that will gladly take and sell them has been a deal breaker for many would be exclusives.
-
I don't want you to be exclusive ;)
-
We had a meeting of Slovenian iStock users about 14 days ago. Most of the people there were exclusives and said their income almost doubled when they went exclusive. This was due to more images they could upload, faster review times (and therefore better position of the images in the "best match") and also search prefers exclusives (not 100% sure about this one).
I'm just a newbie on IS, so (for now) I don't have to make that decision :D
-
I agree with you here, I am actually in the same position as you. I would be more happy to represent my images through one agency than through several agencies if it would make financial sense.
I would like to see an exclusive try out for 1 month in addition to your suggestion of a pending exclusivity status. Where you images will have the same ranking as exclusive images and where you get the royalty as an exclusive. It is not so much to loose for iStock but maybe a lot to win, if their deal is really so good and your sales will increase because of the search engine. Of course each photographer could try that out only once.
-
they have Exclusivity Estimator; have you guys run it ? I tried, but I do not have enough downloads yet ( 318) for the estimator to run. I am curious what promising answers the estimator gives out.
-
thanks for the post helix7.. well written.
I wish istock has image exclusivity..
-
they have Exclusivity Estimator; have you guys run it ? I tried, but I do not have enough downloads yet ( 318) for the estimator to run. I am curious what promising answers the estimator gives out.
The exclusivity estimator just applies a percentage of growth to your current earnings. It is totally a guess, not based on your individual portfolio performance.
I agree with Helix and appreciate the time put into compiling that list of suggestions. I would also like to add, though, that better site and search stability would be major factors in attracting more exclusives.
-
...I agree with Helix and appreciate the time put into compiling that list of suggestions...
It's just something that's been on my mind. Can you tell that I have thought about this just a little? ;)
I got the impression from the new ads on istock trying to get more people to go exclusive that they are really looking to increase the exclusive contributor count. That prompted me even more to really get it out there about why I can't become an exclusive contributor myself and some of the things it would take for me to even consider it. I'm not saying that my list of needs should match anyone else's, and people who are already exclusive at istock had their own reasons for doing it. I just have to imagine that there are a lot more people out there who are in similar situations as me, frustrated with the multiple-site process but unable to accept istock's exclusivity deal.
-
I wish istock has image exclusivity..
Exactly how I feel, I'd dump all the other micro sites I'm with if iStock had this feature and upload all my micro images to them, but I make more money selling RF on traditional agencies than iStock and it's not something I'm ever going to risk.
If they offered an incentive for image only exclusivity I'd do it tomorrow.
-
In addition to all the good points above, I'd like to add one more factor to consider - for those who create vectors as well as images. That is the pricing at iStock for more complex vectors.
Most of the other sites' vector pricing models are really weighted towards simple vectors - the 3 trillion flower/grunge/swirly backgrounds. SS earns you 30 cents, and at the other sites there's (a) a very modest premium over a large image and (b) no or minimal account for complexity of the vector.
I've been working on adding vectors to my porfolio and they're the more complex type - 15 credit (one 10) at iStock. So far no 25 credit ones. For the other sites I've just uploaded JPEGs - at StockXpert, for example, I can get 15 credits for an XXL JPEG from the vector so why should I part with the scalable original for 10?
I got a bit of a wake-up call about the power of vector sales where every transaction is at one (higher) price. A recent vector has sold 11 times at iStock which has earned me - as an independent - $38.43 (and an embarrassingly high place in my earnings table ). An image with very close to the same earnings has sold 87 times to make that money (because lots of the sales are XS and S).
How this plays into exclusivity is that I can multiply those vector earnings quite a bit (35% versus 20% royalty) and I don't think the illustration JPEGs elsewhere will ever sell at the volume that the vector version will. I don't see the other sites changing their vector situation. IS, SS and FT are my current big three earners. FT is a vector non-starter (pricing model and wanting an oddball format) as is SS (pricing model and rampant vector theft).
I'm sure that being very weary of all the crap (rules changes, site hiccups, useless or non-existent communication) from multiple sites has something to do with even considering this. I don't think iStock is ideal, but the other sites aren't shining beacons of business excellence either. And I could go back to building the RM stuff at Alamy and PhotoShelter - something I dabbled with last fall, but haven't really pursued vigorously.
-
I am in this beautiful microstock game one year, first on SS than DT and third IS. On IS I am 3 months and everybody which work in vectors know that is best site and rejections in tehnical moment is allways correct, but I am little bit affraid to return them on stupid comments abouth other rejections like : from where is that drawing- which is my own. I work only 2D and 3D vector drawings 15 years and I have more than thousand very various themas and motives. First time I mean that many of them are not applicable for microstocks, but after some time I seen that all is applicable what is artististic and tehnical correct. Result in my mind: when I will have 2 thousends bucks/mt on IS I will go ex. I dont want go on more sites than this three because I mean that they are best and enaugh if you like to know whats metter with your art. peace from Croatia
-
The only way I could ever consider going exclusive at IS is if they let you re-submit elsewhere those images which IS rejects as "not suitable for stock".
If those images are really unsuitable for stock, then why would IS care if I submit them elsewhere?
-
The only way I could ever consider going exclusive at IS is if they let you re-submit elsewhere those images which IS rejects as "not suitable for stock".
If those images are really unsuitable for stock, then why would IS care if I submit them elsewhere?
your idea if correct and fair, but it will be make exclusivity sort of second hand, thus less attractive for buyers.
-
...I don't think iStock is ideal, but the other sites aren't shining beacons of business excellence either...
Very good point. For vectors, istock certainly is head and shoulders above many other sites. Not perfect, but quite good. If some of the points I mentioned above were addressed in the exclusivity contracts, istock could become the ideal place of business for vector artists.
-
Great writeup. I'm not going to lie - I skimmed it, since it's longer than a lord of the rings movie.
iStock photo consists of about 18-19% of my total microstock earnings, and that's just on 57 images approved (so far). I think I'm a silver canister over there with 3100-3200 downloads. I have approaching 1000 images approved on my other sites. For me to want to go exclusive, I'd need to make roughly 5 times what I'm making on istock alone. I don't personally see that happening, in my case especially. I'm having a hard enough time getting approvals.
-
There is the clause about not selling any RF, anywhere, ever, something that is unique to istockphoto as far as I know.
Someone would have to seriously plan ahead to even attempt exclusivity if they were already involved with other RF sites, and they would have to take a hit in earnings while they are unable to upload or sell images at other sites pending the approval of the istock exclusivity application. Assuming the application will even get approved, and since it is an "application" I have to assume there is no guarantee of acceptance.
1) That's a misstatement. You're required to sell RP stock at IS exclusively only while you're exclusive (hence the term exclusive photographer), its not forever. Also, it's not unique. It's only unique in microstock.
2) The exclusive application takes 24-48 hours for approval. Not exactly the long wait you're making it out to be, and I've never heard of a single application that was denied except where the person hadn't deleted all their photos on other sites.
The rest are valid points that each person has to consider for themselves if it's in their best interest.
-
The frequent best match search changes would put me off. My sales more than halved once thanks to that. If I was exclusive, that would really hurt.
They reject all my non-vector illustrations that have made a lot of money on the other sites. I failed the vector application, so they don't have any of my vectors. At the moment, I would be crazy to go exclusive there.
I also wonder what would happen if the majority of us went exclusive there? The other sites would struggle to keep going and istock would have no reason to increase their low commissions. Hopefully the other sites will provide good competition and force istock to give us a better deal.
-
I too would like to see SS and IS offer exclusive images. If they did that I would gladly participate in both. The thought of overall exclusivity just seems a bit too much for me. Of course I'm no where near being able to go exclusive at IS so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But when my puppy grows up I'm still going to let him roam the neighborhood rather than keep him locked up in a pen.
-
I don't want you to be exclusive ;)
ditto.
It's a terrible arrangement. No benefits. Really. Not worth it. Move along. Nothing to see here.
:P
-
2) The exclusive application takes 24-48 hours for approval. Not exactly the long wait you're making it out to be, and I've never heard of a single application that was denied except where the person hadn't deleted all their photos on other sites.
I took it to mean the wait for independents to delete their portfolios on other sites, which can be anywhere from 6 months to a year depending on what your arrangement is with them (DT contest images are for one years time).
Waiting out that 6 months or more and holding off on uploading to other sites would lead to a noticeable reduction in income, I suspect. Quite a financial hit to take in hopes of eventual istock exclusivity.
And then inevitably istock turns the tables by upheaving the best match or CV or changing ownership or whatever during that 6 month wait and you are stuck wondering again about the wisdom of going exclusive at all.
-
I took it to mean the wait for independents to delete their portfolios on other sites, which can be anywhere from 6 months to a year depending on what your arrangement is with them (DT contest images are for one years time).
Waiting out that 6 months or more and holding off on uploading to other sites would lead to a noticeable reduction in income, I suspect. Quite a financial hit to take in hopes of eventual istock exclusivity.
And then inevitably istock turns the tables by upheaving the best match or CV or changing ownership or whatever during that 6 month wait and you are stuck wondering again about the wisdom of going exclusive at all.
I can't really fault istock directly for this. Afterall, it isn't their policy that requires the 6-12 month wait. However, I do think they could make the prospect of going through the waiting period without uploading any more images to DT a little less frightening by doing some of the other things I mentioned above that would make the eventual acceptance into the exclusive contract worth the wait.
Right now, exclusivity isn't worth the trouble, with or without the complications of the waiting periods at other sites. Make the exclusive program more appealing, and I'd be more willing to put up with lower earnings for 6 months while waiting to delete images from DT.
-
Most of you have been in microstock a lot longer than I. So I will approach it from an investor's perspective, of which I have a few decades worth of experience.
Given how young this industry is, and how much flux is currently taking place, I see little benefit in going exclusive anywhere. What I see is a completely new selling plan about to be implemented at iStock. None of us know if this will increase or decrease earnings. I admire IS leadership and creativity, but it creates tremendous earnings uncertainty going forward.
At the same time, Shutterstock is preparing to announce a raise which has been anticipated for several months. If it is significant (and it better be), not only will it greatly increase SS earnings for contributors, but it will change the subscription landscape arguably more than the IS plan. All of those 25c or 30c subscription commissions at various microstock sites might start to look awfully cheap and silly in a hurry. A 40c to 50c commission combined with the amazing SS volume will produce a lot of earnings.
In the last year, I have seen many contributors go from claiming IS as their far-and-away #1 earner, to barely #1, or in many cases #2 or #3. Many large contributors are singing the praises of Fotolia (which by the way offers per-image exclusivity), or claiming Shutterstock as their #1 earner. Maybe not for every contributor, but it seems to me the trend of earnings dominance at IS is down, not up. And that probably has less to do with them, and more to do with the increased strength of their competition.
At the very least, I would want to see how the next 6 months shakes out before putting my eggs in one basket.
-
I think the reason why the succesful microstockers find fotolia so profitable is because of the higher prices (earnings) there. Once you reach emrald level you can raise all your prices to 2x the regular which should make your earnings almost double. Combined with healthy earnings to start with, and no upload limit makes it perfect for the big contributor. I think Istock's limiting factor for the 'big guys' is their VERY SLOW upload process and very limited upload limit. I don't think anyone has ever questioned their sales potential once an image actually get online. The problem is that the final monthly payout is what counts so portfolio size is very important and istock earnings suffer.
-
The problem is that the final monthly payout is what counts so portfolio size is very important and istock earnings suffer.
I think you are right on with this theory. The comparisons referenced above are often between portfolio sizes double or even tripled that which is live on istock. The very low upload limits for non-exclusives makes it even harder to compare "apples to apples" and by that I mean two identical portfolios on two different sites. It makes sense that they are much more likely to gain exclusives from the pool of fairly new contributors who have only uploaded to one site than they are from those who have established sizable portfolios across several sites. On the occasion when one of those types of contributors declares that they are moving toward being exclusive with istock, despite the uncertainty, it is a very significant event. I've seen two such declarations here recently.
It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
-
Thanks for the article outlining the disadvantages of exclusive representation. I would say the issues that would most concern me are 1) going exclusive yet being limited to the number of submissions you can make. 2) Taking down images off other RF sites. That's impossible for me. Been at it too long with images all over the place, few on Micros but lots elsewhere.
-
I would be curious if there is anyone out there that has gone exclusive and then opted back out at Istock. It seems that anyone that goes exclusive stays exclusive, which seems to speak for itself.
-
The biggest are not exclusive
-
Thanks for the article outlining the disadvantages of exclusive representation...
That wasn't exactly the intention, but glad I could help, I guess. :)
I really do believe that the exclusive program is good for some people. Unfortunately, for most it's not and there are changes that should be made to make it more fair. Just look at any of the monthly earnings breakdown threads here and you'll see what I mean. Few (if any) people report istock earnings representing 50% or more of their earnings. Which means that for most people here, going exclusive would result in a pay cut. It shouldn't be like that. Make it a fair deal. Cut the bull, and give it to people straight. It could be a great program, with just a few tweaks to the pay schedule and by cutting out some of the crap.
-
I would be curious if there is anyone out there that has gone exclusive and then opted back out at Istock. It seems that anyone that goes exclusive stays exclusive, which seems to speak for itself.
Bonnie Jacobs (bonniej) is a diamond level exclusive at istock. She went exclusive when the program first started, and then decided to "play the field" for a while (I believe she had a gold canister at the time). Eventually she realized that it was more profitable for her to return to exclusivity at istock (see her istock blog entries from August 07)
http://www.istockphoto.com/bonniej (http://www.istockphoto.com/bonniej)
-
bittersweet,
are you the 'user' "bitter" from IS or is the choice of name just a coincidence? ;)
http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter
Just curious ...
-
I would think it would be pretty obvious that I'm not, but just in case... no. :D
-
I don't think she gave it enough time. I have been on FT and StockXpert for nearly 2 years now and on both sites it's only been the last few months that I have really taken off in these two places. In Fotolia I am now in the top 80 in all time sales where as 6 months ago I was nowhere near that. In another 6 months I will be able to double my prices there. I've only been at 123 and bigstock for a few months so am doing badly compared to everywhere else but hope that by this time next year they wil increase also.
Bonnie has an amazing portfolio so I think if she had given it another year she would have made a lot more money. Maybe she just decided that she couldn't be bothered to upload to that many sites.
I would be curious if there is anyone out there that has gone exclusive and then opted back out at Istock. It seems that anyone that goes exclusive stays exclusive, which seems to speak for itself.
Bonnie Jacobs (bonniej) is a diamond level exclusive at istock. She went exclusive when the program first started, and then decided to "play the field" for a while (I believe she had a gold canister at the time). Eventually she realized that it was more profitable for her to return to exclusivity at istock (see her istock blog entries from August 07)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bonniej[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bonniej[/url])
-
We had a meeting of Slovenian iStock users about 14 days ago. Most of the people there were exclusives and said their income almost doubled when they went exclusive. This was due to more images they could upload, faster review times (and therefore better position of the images in the "best match") and also search prefers exclusives (not 100% sure about this one).
I'm just a newbie on IS, so (for now) I don't have to make that decision :D
I must say from my experience, iStock does indeed prefer exclusives when it comes to searches. I work for a major ad agency in the LA area and we spend a lot of money buying istock photos and from other large agencies…getty, veer…etc. Anyhow, I'm an iStock contributor myself and when I log in using the ad agency's member name and password and search for my photos — nearly half of my portfolio doesn't show. But when I log off and search for my photos, then most of my photos show up. It never fails, I log in with the agency's password/name and the bulk of my portfolio disappears.
As a result, I will become exclusive with iStock by mid summer because I'm currently tied up with Dreamstime. Also the Getty incentive at istock is nice. I've contributed to many microstock sites, but I must say they don't compare to istock's quality. If getty, veer or jupiter doesn't have the image we want, then it most cases istockphoto will have it. It just that good. Actually years back we tried shutterstock and dreamstime, but these two sites still didn't compare to istock's quality. As a designer I have tight deadlines and I can always count on istock for the right image under the tightest time constraints. Some of the top istock contributors such as lisegagne, sjlocke, hidesy, nico_blue, sodafish just to name a few can easily run with the big boys at veer, stockbyte…etc. Their work is great.
-
It never fails, I log in with the agency's password/name and the bulk of my portfolio disappears.
You might want to clear the search filters in that account.
-
I was decided not to search out exclusivity and now I am not so sure. I have worked as an exclusive photographer in the past days when there were only "regular" agencies and those arrangements were good ones. One quick question. Is Dreamstime the only agency that holds things up by taking 6-12 months to pull images off their site?
-
Dumb question:
Does "going exclusive" mean "YOU" only sell through a specific site, or does it mean a certain "IMAGE" is only on specific site? As in, if I am on several sites and wanted to be "exclusive" with IS (my largest selling site) would I have to pull up stakes at every other site or could I just upload specific "exclusive" photos to IS?
Thanks,
Connie
-
I don't think she gave it enough time.
Could be. She quit in June 1, 2006 and returned in August 2007. There was a 30 day waiting period from the point when she quit until she started contributing elsewhere, and when she applied to istock for re-instatement, she had her crown back within the hour.
13 months is quite a stint to absorb a loss in income. I can understand why she might not want to wait any longer in hopes that after two years things would really start to take off.
-
Dumb question:
Does "going exclusive" mean "YOU" only sell through a specific site, or does it mean a certain "IMAGE" is only on specific site? As in, if I am on several sites and wanted to be "exclusive" with IS (my largest selling site) would I have to pull up stakes at every other site or could I just upload specific "exclusive" photos to IS?
Thanks,
Connie
Exclusive at istock means ALL your royalty-free imagery. Yes, you would have to delete your RF portfolios before your application would be approved. You are free, however, to have RM portfolios elsewhere, as well as work-for-hire, etc. Some sites DO offer image exclusivity, but istock is not one of them.
It's best to read all the fine print before agreeing to anything. i can't believe the number of people who were shocked to find out that they had little control over their DT images until 6 months after they had already been on the site. Apparently many people agree to things without fully understanding what they are agreeing to.
-
I was decided not to search out exclusivity and now I am not so sure. I have worked as an exclusive photographer in the past days when there were only "regular" agencies and those arrangements were good ones. One quick question. Is Dreamstime the only agency that holds things up by taking 6-12 months to pull images off their site?
Big Stock has a 3 month wait.
-
No way
They have stupid rejections on isolations and clipping path.
otherways on they site I see stupid isolations.
And They dont have referal program for submiters, only for buyers and you got only 5$ for that.
What on SS my rerefed photographers make in one day??????????
EVERY DAY
-
Becoming exclusive on istock was the single most important thing I have done to juice up my stock sales and income in microstock. Sure there are plusses and minuses but all in all, there is no other site I'd rather be on and exclusivity makes a huge difference in income.
-
And They dont have referal program for submiters, only for buyers and you got only 5$ for that.
It's actually $10.
-
After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation.
I have many hundreds of isolations in my portfolio and quite a few of them accepted in the last couple of months. Nothing at all different about the current batch that should have caused them to be rejected.
There is just no way I could consider going exclusive anywhere when there are such inconsistent reviews resulting in wholesale rejections of entire series.
Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.
-
...exclusivity makes a huge difference in income.
The issue I have is that it's not proportionate to what the industry is doing and what most people will make non-exclusively. Sure the exclusive program is good, and it boosts people's incomes. But for many it's not enough to justify the risk and the sub-par reward. istock cites increased earnings as a perk. But then they only offer the Exclusivity Estimator as a base for calculating how much you might make as an exclusive, and quite frankly that falls well short of what I'd make as a non-exclusive. Looking at the monthly earnings threads here in the forum, few people report istock earnings as a high enough percentage of their total to justify going exclusive. It would mean a significant loss.
According to the Exclusivity Estimator, the best-case scenario is a doubling of monthly income at the Diamond level. Few people report istock earnings as more than 40% of their earnings, so you can see the problem here.
Sure istock can do whatever they want, offer whatever exclusivity options they want to, regardless of whether they are on-par with industry earnings. All I'm saying is that most people will come to the conclusion after doing the math that there is something missing from exclusivity, and I think istock can take some steps to refine the program to make it more fair and appealing.
-
After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation.
I have many hundreds of isolations in my portfolio and quite a few of them accepted in the last couple of months. Nothing at all different about the current batch that should have caused them to be rejected.
There is just no way I could consider going exclusive anywhere when there are such inconsistent reviews resulting in wholesale rejections of entire series.
Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.
K, let me give you a clue as to what's going on there. I did a sample test some months back and did it again recently with some vectors which were all rejected for the most outrageous reasons including one which was deemed "not suitable as stock."
Oh yeah says I? This was a duplicate of an existing image on IS that had blue flames sprouting off it, but I just laughed!
-
And They dont have referal program for submiters, only for buyers and you got only 5$ for that.
It's actually $10.
It can bee and 100 but so what.
too small
-
After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation.
I have many hundreds of isolations in my portfolio and quite a few of them accepted in the last couple of months. Nothing at all different about the current batch that should have caused them to be rejected.
There is just no way I could consider going exclusive anywhere when there are such inconsistent reviews resulting in wholesale rejections of entire series.
Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.
K, let me give you a clue as to what's going on there. I did a sample test some months back and did it again recently with some vectors which were all rejected for the most outrageous reasons including one which was deemed "not suitable as stock."
Oh yeah says I? This was a duplicate of an existing image on IS that had blue flames sprouting off it, but I just laughed!
Was it a duplicate of one of YOUR blue flaming images, or someone else's?
The images I just had rejected were not "inspired" by any others and as far as I could see were unique on the site.
Honestly, these wholesale rejections for isolation really have me concerned. Four of the last 5 shoots I have done are isolated on white, and if they have suddenly decided my isolations suck I might as well not bother uploading any of my new stuff there.
Like I said, every time I start to think exclusivity may be a viable option IS does something to remind me why I am happy to be independent....
-
Was it a duplicate of one of YOUR blue flaming images, or someone else's?
That's not so important, what is important is the fact that there are a growing number of reviewers on IS who are more interested in protecting their own portfolios than adding to the stocklist on IS. Add to that fact that you're not exclusive and you'll be struggling even harder to get past these agendas.
-
After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation. ...
Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.
Once you're not as ticked off at them, it might be worth a note to contributor relations - that new department they have to "manage" us. It's more than likely there's a new reviewer who needs some assistance, and if you keep quiet about it, they'll just keep on truckin'.
I know it's hard to feel any community spirit when they've just dumped on you, but it'd probably help them out to complain so they can fix the problem. I know everyone makes mistakes, but when it's a diamond who complains, it's much more likely to get a serious second look than if it's some newbie who's likely to be taken as a whiner.
-
Was it a duplicate of one of YOUR blue flaming images, or someone else's?
That's not so important...
It is important, they usually don't accept duplicates. I think this is a GOOD thing!
-
That's not so important, what is important ...
Man, that question was deflected so quickly I almost couldn't get out of the way.
-
After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation. ...
Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.
Once you're not as ticked off at them, it might be worth a note to contributor relations - that new department they have to "manage" us. It's more than likely there's a new reviewer who needs some assistance, and if you keep quiet about it, they'll just keep on truckin'.
I know it's hard to feel any community spirit when they've just dumped on you, but it'd probably help them out to complain so they can fix the problem. I know everyone makes mistakes, but when it's a diamond who complains, it's much more likely to get a serious second look than if it's some newbie who's likely to be taken as a whiner.
I referred them to Scout, which I very rarely do. So if there is a problem then Scout will presumably handle it. If the problem is on my end at least they can explain what I am failing to see.
-
That's not so important, what is important ...
Man, that question was deflected so quickly I almost couldn't get out of the way.
Okay, I'll deal with that. The duplicate in question was not a facsimile copy and here is the example that I'm talking about. This image was rejected as having no commercial value whatsoever which is complete and utter bollocks and needless to say is in my top 30 elsewhere.
(http://69.90.174.251/photos/display_pic_with_logo/10574/10574,1209038395,1.jpg)
Do a search on IS for "3 wise men" and you'll find this from ULTRA_GENERIC among others, who just so happens to be exclusive...
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4641446_quiet_night.php?id=4641446
It's that type of unreasonable crap that just pisses me off sometimes including the fact that they'll reject for one reason and then find another completely different one following a resubmit.
-
I referred them to Scout, which I very rarely do. So if there is a problem then Scout will presumably handle it. If the problem is on my end at least they can explain what I am failing to see.
We'll take up a collection for some glasses for you :)
Perhaps the newest site member here, rogermexico, is IS's great communicator of the same name, come to see what's up in the unregulated wilds of the microstockgroup?
-
re: 3 wise men
That looks exactly like kim58(?)'s work. I feel no pity. Sorry.
-
re: 3 wise men
That looks exactly like kim58(?)'s work. I feel no pity. Sorry.
Oh yeah, would you like to post a link and tell me who you're referring to because I have huge difficulty with anyone accusing me of plagiarism?
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/kim258
I swear she had one just like that, but the silhouettes I remember there aren't there now. Sorry.
It does look a lot like generic's though.
-
Perhaps the newest site member here, rogermexico, is IS's great communicator of the same name, come to see what's up in the unregulated wilds of the microstockgroup?
Boy, a guy's name sure hangs around in that top corner there for quite a while. Somebody else hurry up and join already. ;)
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/kim258[/url]
I swear she had one just like that, but the silhouettes I remember there aren't there now. Sorry.
It does look a lot like generic's though.
Mr Locke, not only do I have enormous difficulty with the fact that you've attempted to character assassinate me without checking your facts first, I don't know which is more infuriating; your original accusation or your beleagured attempts to prove that this image did actually exist but by some extraordinary coincidence has now miraculously disappeared??
The fact that this image I've allegedly copied now only exists in your imagination doesn't strike you as the slightest bit odd does it?
I quote; "the silhouettes I remember there aren't there now", some might see as little more than a thinly disguised face saving exercise on your part but far be it for me to have to point that out to a man of your talent.
But just to be absolutely sure you're not the type of Walt Disney fantasist that I think you are, we had better contact Kim258 first just to be sure. What do you think?
Meantime, there are words for artist's like you Mr. Locke but I'm not going to print them on this forum. I might PM you instead and you're more than welcome to share those thoughts if you so choose.
-
I also remember the file I think Sean is referring to. Kim did have a very similar one at one time, and this one reminds me of it. Of course that does not mean you copied it. That being said, UG is one of the biggest copycats at istock, so probably not the best example to use.
Try a search for camel and there are 10 or 15 other versions as well.
-
Perhaps the newest site member here, rogermexico, is IS's great communicator of the same name, come to see what's up in the unregulated wilds of the microstockgroup?
Boy, a guy's name sure hangs around in that top corner there for quite a while. Somebody else hurry up and join already. ;)
And your name is now gone, so you can fly under the radar again :)
-
Like I said, every time I start to think exclusivity may be a viable option IS does something to remind me why I am happy to be independent....
I share exactly the same sentiment, Lisa. I have seen your isolations...you have been doing them forever and I'm fairly certain that you know how to do them by now.
I stopped uploading to a couple of the long-term commitment sites because I am very close to 10,000 downloads at istock and was pondering the exclusivity.
Two days ago this was rejected for:
We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock
collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all
submissions.
Here's the file:
(http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12476971-a-pair-of-eyes-a-fingerprint-concept-idea-for-identity-theft-composite-photo.html)
in case the above doesn't work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12476971-a-pair-of-eyes-a-fingerprint-concept-idea-for-identity-theft-composite-photo.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12476971-a-pair-of-eyes-a-fingerprint-concept-idea-for-identity-theft-composite-photo.html)
I, too, figured it came close to something the reviewer has in his/her port. I've tried the Scout route before and it takes forever, not worth my time.
Lisa, something to think about...your photography must be right on and has threatened somebody, hence the rejections. Doesn't help with sales, but you should be proud!
-
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Give me a break.
-
sean you're so funny :D
-
I could see that wise men image getting rejected. It's not as good as the one you compared it to, Contakt. Seems sloppy, has a nasty lens flare for a star, and an unnecessary brown foreground (in a backlit scene). Is it bad? Of course not. But it also does have some flaws that istock is becoming known for rejecting.
I don't think most people would have given that image more than a 50/50 shot of getting approved.
-
Istock isn't for everyone's taste. The rejects brought up in this thread (apart from Lisa's which we can't see!) don't surprise me. The vector is a bit quick and dirty. And derivative. I wouldn't have expected it to get knocked back, but it wouldn't have suprised me either. And Cathy's knockback is the sort of straightforward composite concept shot that just doesn't fly at istock. If you want to do that sort of stuff, you definitely don't want to be exclusive at istock, for whatever reasons they just don't seem to accept it. Or at least only if you get lucky.
I don't do composites in PS (for stock), and my vectors tend to be handrawn arty stuff (which doesn't sell much but get accepted most of the time! ). So istock exclusivity currently suits me. But the ups and downs in sales with changes in best match/changes in the wind direction are annoying - if I was in this for anything other than a hobby, and putting enough time into it I'd be spreading my stuff out across sites a bit. But I think I'd be doing very different images for istock and say shutterstock, from what I've seen accepted and rejected at the two sites. It's not worth banging your head against a wall trying to upload stuff that just isn't going to work at a particular site. You need to work out what istock will take. At least they are (usually) consistent enough in their policies, whether you agree with them or not, that it's possible to get a very high acceptance rate if you play along with their foibles.
-
That's very disturbing Lisa. Sorry to hear this. I often get "poor isolation" rejections due to lighting issues. In fact I have a thread about one at iStock right now. In my case though, I am still learning how to light properly. I've seen your work and feel they are definitely way off base with this.
What's more frustrating to me about my own rejections, is I rarely if ever refer to these images as "isolations." I'm just trying to shoot the darn thing over white, and isolation is almost never in my keywords for recent uploads. So I don't understand why they reject them for being poor isolations.
A lot of times I will purposely shoot subjects against a blurred background, or a different colored background, so I can avoid the annoying isolation rejection. This really isn't something I want to do because it seems the over-white subject does much better in microstock. But what am I going to do if I don't even know what they want?
My advice is to take a deep breath (maybe 12 or more), and get back to shooting tomorrow. Provided you've never had this problem in recent history, chances are high you will not have it again. Plus, all of us love you, and that is what counts in the long run. ;)
-
I could see that wise men image getting rejected. It's not as good as the one you compared it to, Contakt. Seems sloppy, has a nasty lens flare for a star, and an unnecessary brown foreground (in a backlit scene). Is it bad? Of course not. But it also does have some flaws that istock is becoming known for rejecting.
I don't think most people would have given that image more than a 50/50 shot of getting approved.
Yep, I think I see what you mean now. Mine is extremely sloppy, the blue one below belonging to Generic's is a much more detailed including his Llama's or Camel's should I say, I can't work out what they are? But you've got a great eye for detail Helix, no doubt about that ;D
(http://www.gallereze.com/crop1.jpg)
-
Helix 7, your original post as usual was spot on!
-
Helix 7, your original post as usual was spot on!
Ha haaaa, the microarse licking fraternity are coming out hot and heavy now. ;D. C'mon now Microbius, you're going to have to get all that brown stuff off your nose now.
-
lol, do I know you? Have I ever posted a post like this before to make me part of a fraternity? In case you thought that my post had anything to do with your pathetic bitter whining I was referring to Helix's original well thought out post about IS exclusivity.
-
lol, do I know you? Have I ever posted a post like this before to make me part of a fraternity? In case you thought that my post had anything to do with your pathetic bitter whining I was referring to Helix's original well thought out post about IS exclusivity.
My apologies, I stand corrected. But as for your disparaging comments, let me be absolutely clear about something here, I don't particularly like unsupported accusations of plagiarism. And I don't take kindly to being called names either when I have an issue with that.
What I'm dealing with here is one or two of the usual suspects who at the first opportunity will be in on a post like a bunch of cackling hyenas. Bittersweet and sjlocke are typical of the breed and at first glance it appears I mistakenly added you to the list. Or did I?
-
I have just read back over this thread, I skipped over the bits about submitters individual gripes as I was interested in what was being said about the problems with IStock exclusivity.
I am frankly surprised that you are upset about being accused of plagiarism when you started out by saying:
“K, let me give you a clue as to what's going on there. I did a sample test some months back and did it again recently with some vectors which were all rejected for the most outrageous reasons including one which was deemed "not suitable as stock."
Oh yeah says I? THIS WAS A DUPLICATE OF AN EXISTING IMAGE ON IS THAT HAD BLUE FLAMES SPROUTING OFF IT, but I just laughed!”
But frankly I could give a crap either way if you feel wrongly accused, when you just jumped all over me without getting your facts straight too (surely what are accusing others of).
-
I would be curious if there is anyone out there that has gone exclusive and then opted back out at Istock. It seems that anyone that goes exclusive stays exclusive, which seems to speak for itself.
I went exclusive and then opted out. Exclusivity wasn't for me, at that time.
Things are changing though. Shutterstock is seriously losing footing for me at the moment - my main competition to iStock. Also hopefully in September I will be heading off into the forces, so I'll be looking to just stay with one or two sites, and I'm seriously considering the possibility of going exclusive to istock just to keep my current portfolio earning, but focusing entirely on uploading RM to the big boys.
I too wish there was an option for image exclusivity. And no, the business cards aren't worth it. I'm so ashamed of mine, the crop was done badly.
-
(snip)
What's more frustrating to me about my own rejections, is I rarely if ever refer to these images as "isolations." I'm just trying to shoot the darn thing over white, and isolation is almost never in my keywords for recent uploads. So I don't understand why they reject them for being poor isolations.
I think anything shot over white is considered isolation whether it is done in camera or in software or a combination of the two. You might as well use the keyword isolated on an over white image when applicable because you are missing out on sales otherwise.
My advice is to take a deep breath (maybe 12 or more), and get back to shooting tomorrow. Provided you've never had this problem in recent history, chances are high you will not have it again. Plus, all of us love you, and that is what counts in the long run. ;)
Thanks Dan - if only that were true! :)
But very good advice from you, as usual. I uploaded some more from the series yesterday after going over them again in photoshop with a fine tooth comb. Hopefully they will fare better than their brothers.
On the comments that they may be competing with an inspectors images - these are not in competition with anything currently on the site. (which is why I'm not displaying them here so they can be redundant by the time I finally get some accepted). Heck, they may not even sell, but I would like to give them a shot.
Also, this situation notwithstanding, I stand by my earlier comments that istock's inspectors are the most objective in the industry. I really don't think istock is plagued with such conflicts of interest. More likely this was a new inspector taking an unusually heavy hand regarding isolations.
-
This is the second time you have referenced another persons files in conjunction with your own. I find that really interesting. Maybe stop poaching from others. You say that it doesn't matter if the blue flame was yours or someone elses, however, let ME clue you in. It's bad form to go out of your way to take from another contributors concept and then complain iStock won't accept your version.
It's almost beyond hilarious to read your commentary on the matter.
Was it a duplicate of one of YOUR blue flaming images, or someone else's?
That's not so important, what is important is the fact that there are a growing number of reviewers on IS who are more interested in protecting their own portfolios than adding to the stocklist on IS. Add to that fact that you're not exclusive and you'll be struggling even harder to get past these agendas.
-
It's almost beyond hilarious to read your commentary on the matter.
LOL, what I find more hilarious is the IQ of some of you tulips on this forum. It's like dealing with dolly the sheep but then again why I am sounding so surprised? It's all there in the content.
-
So Editorial, er I mean Contackt, what are you going to choose for your next member name?
-
So Editorial, er I mean Contackt, what are you going to choose for your next member name?
Ahhhh paulielittlenuts, I was wondering where you'd got to. You know, you remind me of one of those football hooligans; wherever there's a bit of action you just can't resist being hosed out of it by the police.
And as for whatever name I do happen to choose you can be absolutely sure it'll be a little bit more intelligent sounding than yours.
NEXT!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's always amused me how some people love stirring the pot on internet forums... They must have very boring real lives.
-
It's always amused me how some people love stirring the pot on internet forums... They must have very boring real lives.
Amen.
-
I am in this beautiful microstock game one year, first on SS than DT and third IS. On IS I am 3 months and everybody which work in vectors know that is best site and rejections in tehnical moment is allways correct, but I am little bit affraid to return them on stupid comments abouth other rejections like : from where is that drawing- which is my own. I work only 2D and 3D vector drawings 15 years and I have more than thousand very various themas and motives. First time I mean that many of them are not applicable for microstocks, but after some time I seen that all is applicable what is artististic and tehnical correct. Result in my mind: when I will have 2 thousends bucks/mt on IS I will go ex. I dont want go on more sites than this three because I mean that they are best and enaugh if you like to know whats metter with your art. peace from Croatia
Hehe
nice try
but in the croatian language
STOK-a means CATTLE
and I dont want to do business with Cattle
-
So Editorial, er I mean Contackt, what are you going to choose for your next member name?
Ahhhh paulielittlenuts, I was wondering where you'd got to. You know, you remind me of one of those football hooligans; wherever there's a bit of action you just can't resist being hosed out of it by the police.
And as for whatever name I do happen to choose you can be absolutely sure it'll be a little bit more intelligent sounding than yours.
NEXT!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Here's a bit of free advice for you, if you want to act like an infant on forums like this you should probably not have a link to your company associated with your screen ID, especially when you are supposed to be a PR and marketing expert.
You are seriously damaging your brand by making it appear that your company is staffed by a bunch of knuckle draggers. How do you expect people to have faith in your ability to improve their image when you are clearly incapable of not coming across as an a-hole yourself.
P.S. You haven't got back to me about my last post, you know the one where I pointed out that you admitted to plagiarism before being accused of it.
-
I find your lack of self awareness absolutely terrifying. Glass houses my friend, glass houses
-
And as for whatever name I do happen to choose you can be absolutely sure it'll be a little bit more intelligent sounding than yours.
Dustin the Eurovision Turkey might be a good one.
-
This is what I mean by hilarious. Keep up the good work. It's nice to see someone have a fit after every comment.
It's almost beyond hilarious to read your commentary on the matter.
LOL, what I find more hilarious is the IQ of some of you tulips on this forum. It's like dealing with dolly the sheep but then again why I am sounding so surprised? It's all there in the content.