pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: More evidence that IS favors Exclusives  (Read 15913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2008, 09:19 »
0

I too got some of my files rejected for not being stock worthy and later I discovered very similar but exclusive files were up there selling well  anyway I got them online elsewhere  and they are doing well, at the end of the day  it's not a great deal I think.
 

Funnily enough as an exclusive I've had  'not stock' and 'over filtered' rejections and then have seen similar files from non exclusives selling well... but I've not been able to sell them elsewhere.

Pah  istock  is obviously so biased against me 
Lol,I see your point.and thanks for bringing point of view of an exclusive member. You might be right  I don't know ,such rejections might be just inconsistency of reviews in general (having said that among all I think IS has the most consistent reviews despite some exceptions) other than that there is no doubt IS favors exclusives and it's part of the policy. they are paid more,their portfolio favored  by the search engine they are featured on the front page,they have more upload limits but as I indicated in my first post I have nothing against that.


DanP68

« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2008, 09:36 »
0

I am not saying that iStock doesn't have some problems implementing their policies (especially the copyright and "not suitable as stock" rejections) evenly across the board...they do. They are bound to with the inspection system that is in place. I do think it's wrong-headed to assume it's an exclusive/non-exclusive issue.


I didn't used to think it was logical either.  However my own research makes me wonder. 

You see, I'm not particularly good at microstock photography yet.  My only "edge" is sports photography.  It has its own skill set, and requires a lot of practice.  It also requires jumping through hoops for field passes and the like.  I've gotten a lot better at sports photography after doing it for about 5 years.  Some of it has been suitable for stock, and you can bet it has been my best selling material no matter where I have uploaded it to.

As a general practice, I want to know what else is available in my category.  So I have seen all of the great american football imagery in microstock.  I know what pictures are similar to mine, and where I can and cannot compete.  I see the same group of photos everywhere - Dreamstime, BigStockPhoto, Shutterstock, Fotolia, etc. 

Everywhere that is, except iStock.  Very few of my images, nor any of the images I tend to "compete against" are available in the iStock catalog.  Yet many of the authors have accounts with iStock.  This tells me iStock refused them all, or at least the vast majority.  Too bad, because I have seen some great material on Shutterstock and Dreamstime.  But just when I think iStock doesn't accept these types of photos, I start running across a bunch of similar material from Exclusives.  So is it my paranoia, or is there something else going on?

And as Miz said - It's their business.  They can conduct it anyway they want to.  But I'd like people to be upfront with me.  I've wasted a lot of alloted uploads on sports for iStock.


« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2008, 15:49 »
0
It's logical that iStock will apply some favoritism to exclusives, and rightly so.  However I don't think there is any 'conspiracy' against non-exclusives.

Exclusive contributors do appear to get a more lenient approach to image inspection, and in particular they get to submit multiple 'similars' which would be a no-no for non-exclusives.

Istock's view is clearly that an exclusive catalog has greater value than a non-exclusive one; the value of a picture agency is quite low when their entire catalog is available at ten other agencies, but high if its exclusive.

Exclusive contributors get a much higher upload allowance, higher commission, favorable best match placement and unique special offers including the microsoft connection (the microsoft office link is only for exclusive images).


« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2008, 16:08 »
0
Back to the dirt image, although I don't think it really conveys the drought due to global warming or such current issues (those with cracked mud do, I must upload one I have), it may still be usable.  Zoom it in an it looks ok.  Sure, were it mine, they would complain about grain.  ;)

I sold this and another of this series: veins on foot. It was uploaded for a request, but I sold it long after.  Now, if I had very serious veins, like this, I would have sold more.  Incidently, it's from an exclusive, who also uploaded this  for the request.  Dare I say this should have a clearer background? And what about the flash shadows on this one, also from an exclusive?  However, I can't say either were exclusives at the time these images were approved.

I have said before that I agree IS has the right to spoil their exclusives, although not in all ways we believe they do.  What I don't agree is that they deny this happens.  One case I don't agree to see exclusives getting advantage - if this happens - is in the search, because it's bad for the buyers and therefore for the business.  So, if they want to approve all images from exclusives, that's fine for me, as long this doesn't mean theirs will be placed before mine in the searches because some complex algorithm considers this aspect.  If buyers want exclusive images, they can use that filter.  Let keywords and descriptions do their job.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2008, 07:56 »
0
It was an relatively difficult shot however. I had to wait for the light to be just right.
My bet is that it would be rejected for tight crop and sloppy isolation.

« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2008, 08:08 »
0
I must admit I do envy of the benefits they get.but those benefits to my point of view isn't good enough yet,for me to go exclusive.
The bottom line about the exclusivity issue is whether the extra sales, perks and pushing the exclusives get outweigh the massive sales they would get at ShutterStock etc... being non-exclusive. Can exclusives at iStock comment? I mean the ones that were non-exclusive before and went exclusive afterwards.

« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2008, 14:22 »
0
Dirt photo...very useable as stock. Great background, great texture, could be used in many different ways. As far as exclusive/non-exclusive...I have seen bad photos accepted at istock from both kinds of contributors. I don't see any bias there.

DanP68

« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2008, 18:27 »
0
Shutterstock would reject it for grain and dust.

« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2008, 21:02 »
0
I propose the following challenge. Let's all go out and take a similar crummy picture of dirt and see how many make it past the IS inspectors!

« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2008, 12:09 »
0
I can see a lot of applications for a dirt shot like that, especially since spring is around the corner and that looks like a well prepared planting bed for a garden.

« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2008, 12:20 »
0
So make some dirt shots and upload 'em ... good luck!

« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2008, 12:30 »
0
This is just too comical.  If it wasn't February in Manitoba (when "dirt" doesn't actually exist) I would say let's start a members challenge.  It would be even crazier if one of us wound up with a runaway best-seller from it!

This exclusive guy is likely wondering why he has so many views (and surprize, no sales!)  When it's not covered with snow, from what I remember, the dirt around here is black.  Where is his red dirt from?  Tara?

« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2008, 13:43 »
0
This is crazy... I did a search on "dirt" and found quite a few, so of them quite nice. It's true that 1/2 of North America and Europe is under snow and ice right now but I plan on taking a really nice picture of "dirt" in a month or two in my garden and see how it goes. BTW, this guy has about 240 views on that image and no downloads and he's from Loftus, NSW (Australia).

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2008, 16:42 »
0
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:

Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.

Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.

« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2008, 17:24 »
0
Just did that Business Seminar search, Yuri 8 Lise 4. ???

« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2008, 17:36 »
0
That's what I see too.  An you've got four in the first row!  Where's the conspiracy?

« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2008, 17:41 »
0
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:

Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.

Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.

Wow, you not only made up your own conclusion, you made up the facts to go along with that conclusion.
Yuri =8
Lise = 4

Not to mention you own the top row. Lets keep the fairy tales to Bill Clinton speeches.

« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2008, 17:53 »
0
You probably done your search  based on downloads number not best match.

 

« Reply #43 on: February 11, 2008, 18:25 »
0
Sorry, Yuri, but your complaint about poor exposure is completely unwarranted. As the 'top gun' in this industry you come off looking quite unprofessional by making such statements.

« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2008, 19:53 »
0
Best match may have been tweaked sometime in the last two days for what it's worth.  For some reason my portfolio (probably still too small and aging) seems to be dramatically affected by Best Match changes and I think it happens more often than people may realize. 

I am exclusive but I still feel jilted by best match occasionally.  I really don't think that exclusives get much of a hike if any n the search results, at least not me personally.

I had canceled my contract for a few months and didn't see a drop in number of downloads, just the normal fluctuations.

« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2008, 23:12 »
0
Quote
I had a wonderful idea....
.... I thought IS might like an image taken from the little town in which I live called Kerhonkson.

It's located 100 mile North West of NYC as the crow flies. Let me see them reject this!

1. It's got no noise at all.
2. It's in super sharp focus.
3. There are no release forms to deal with.
4. I am the copyright holder.
5. Perfect depth of field.

It was an relatively difficult shot however. I had to wait for the light to be just right.
I don't know if IStock will take it, but I am sure some art museums will. It represents the darkness and utter blackness of pure form, a stunning visual depiction of the nothingness of mind, or something like that...

nruboc

« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2008, 01:13 »
0
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:

Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.

Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.


Yeah, she's exclusive what's your point? Go exclusive if you want equal placement in IStock's search.

It's funny you complain about subscription payouts but your willing to accept IStock's 20% with no complaints. If you're going to submit to IStock, then please accept their exclusive bias, don't bitch and moan about it.





« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2008, 01:45 »
0
Yuri is presumably doing a search by 'most downloaded' instead of 'best match'.

« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2008, 02:39 »
0
It's funny you complain about subscription payouts but your willing to accept IStock's 20% with no complaints.

Actually, that movement seems to have gone all quiet.  Too bad.  I was hoping it would have some effect.

« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2008, 04:29 »
0
Just did that Business Seminar search, Yuri 8 Lise 4. ???

I get Yuri 6 and lise 2.
I buy photos at istock and I normally see more of Yuri's pics better placed in searches compared to lise's. If you think about it, exclusives are good for the agency in general but if istock were to promote one non exclusive member it would be Yuri, as they get 20% more money from his sales and he sells a few thousand more photos than Lise every month.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 04:43 by andresr »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5215 Views
Last post November 25, 2006, 10:26
by kosmikkreeper
31 Replies
10096 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 11:02
by Perrush
0 Replies
2703 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 07:07
by NancyCWalker
21 Replies
8257 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 21:20
by FD
8 Replies
2465 Views
Last post January 25, 2014, 13:38
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle