It's a shame this has once again descended into an exclusive vs. independent debate, and worse, personal attacks. Why the need to convince others they should do what you do? Can't we all make our own decisions here? It's not as if one person becoming exclusive takes something from you, or one person remaining independent is somehow a criticism of another person's choice to become or remain exclusive. It's really a silly argument.

I've been exclusive for 9 months (was independent for nearly 4 years before that), and after the first announcement was pretty convinced I'd be returning to independent status very soon. I decided to wait for the revised plan before pulling the 30 day trigger as I didn't want to jump the gun in my fury at the wretchedness of the first plan and first "response" to it.

Right now I'm thinking I'll stay exclusive for a while longer - it's a complex mix of things, not just one factor.

best match 2.0 has been good to me, so May has been a very good month. My vectors are mostly complex ones that sell for very good prices (they quickly rise to the top 50 earners in my portfolio - though bear in mind some of the older photos were only earning 10-20-30 cent commissions when I started at iStock, so it's not an apples and apples comparison). Vector pricing, for complex vectors, is rotten everywhere else, so I used to upload just JPEGs of them when I was independent. I think that the established (gold/diamond) exclusives at IS will by and large act in their own self interest and keep a large body of exclusive work, which will keep IS viable for a while. I actually would like it if I could upload some of my former SS best sellers (very filtered images or raster illustrations) to photos.com as it would represent nice additional income. If IS will just let us upload JPEGs of vectors to Photos.com/JIU, I'll be very happy.

I think the long term worries about Getty and H&F are valid ones. However the recent moves at other agencies to squeeze contributors and some folks at DT seeing earnings drop suddenly (which is what happened to me a while ago for no reason I could fathom other than I got on the wrong side of some search results shift) remind me that it's overall quite a risky time for contributors. Even if I'm making just a short/medium term plan by staying exclusive at IS, I think it's probably marginally better for me than the short/medium term being independent again.

I plan to follow the IS thread and digest all that's said (pro and con), but that's my initial reaction to yesterday's new plan.

JoAnn, with the exception of the fact that I've never been independent, this is the same situation I've found myself in over the past weeks. I was very close to clicking that button after the first announcement, but decided to hold off until the revision. I still don't like a lot about the situation but with the ability for across the board individual file control no longer feel as though I'm being forced into anything. I'm with you on the vector situation. That is just nuts and it will be a sad pile of mess if the reputation of the collection is deteriorated because a few of the best don't value their own work enough to keep it off the sub plan. It is unlikely that any of my vectors will be there. I only have a tiny handful of 1 credit files and those would really be the only ones I'd consider. It will be interesting to see if they revisit some of the standards for allowing files into that collection. I have some rejects that I think would sell well at a cheaper price.

I'm still talking and looking and who knows where I'll end up when it settles, but right now I am trying to make the best decisions I can with as little emotion and as much logic as I can muster up.  

...and you think you know more than anyone else?  My lack of research has shown me that I don't have to upload to 4 tedious processes and I can spend more time shooting instead of worrying about 5 or 6 sites and how they manage their businesses.  I also don't have toi listen to apparently enlightened posters talk about how they know whats going on and others don't.

Probably more than most yes because I've been in microstock more or less from the start and I have the benefit of analysing the data of 150K-odd sales at 6 agencies over the last 4 years. I've also collected data from many other players over the same timescale.

Anyway, I've checked your likely earnings at Photos.com/JIU based on your current sales at IS which average just under 7 per day.

If you were to place your entire portfolio on Photos.com/JIU (which I don't think you can with files younger than 18 months?) then I would estimate you would earn about $14.60 per month there. That's based on my own experience with selling at both sites for the last 8 months and assuming that your sales will be similar to my own in proportion to portfolio size.

If, more likely, you were to place only about 30% of your portfolio on Photos/JIU and you chose images that sold little at IS then I would expect you to earn rather less than $5 per month __ probably about the same as you would earn (or lose) from a single Large sale at IS.

Enjoy your $5 and don't you go spending it all at once.

Quote from: ichiro17 on May 22, 2009, 12:47

...and you think you know more than anyone else?  My lack of research has shown me that I don't have to upload to 4 tedious processes and I can spend more time shooting instead of worrying about 5 or 6 sites and how they manage their businesses.  I also don't have toi listen to apparently enlightened posters talk about how they know whats going on and others don't.

Probably more than most yes because I've been in microstock more or less from the start and I have the benefit of analysing the data of 150K-odd sales at 6 agencies over the last 4 years. I've also collected data from many other players over the same timescale.

Anyway, I've checked your likely earnings at Photos.com/JIU based on your current sales at IS which average just under 7 per day.

If you were to place your entire portfolio on Photos.com/JIU (which I don't think you can with files younger than 18 months?) then I would estimate you would earn about $14.60 per month there. That's based on my own experience with selling at both sites for the last 8 months and assuming that your sales will be similar to my own in proportion to portfolio size.

If, more likely, you were to place only about 30% of your portfolio on Photos/JIU and you chose images that sold little at IS then I would expect you to earn rather less than $5 per month __ probably about the same as you would earn (or lose) from a single Large sale at IS.

Enjoy your $5 and don't you go spending it all at once.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about and you are full of crap.  i don't care if you've made 150K a year or if you think you know what you are talking about.  enjoy making linear assumptions, i don't care what you have to say and just because the situation works for you, it may not work for others.  i really hope that your arrogance and cocky attitude catch up to you.  i'm ignoring you

Quote from: lisafx on May 22, 2009, 08:37

The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites.  All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out.  This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.

 

Perfect synopsis of what is going on. But there are some who are too blind or blinkered to see.

Not true at all. In the mid/long term, personal financial decisions are done based on financial data. And that overpowers any possible emotional decision, that can be based for a short time in faith, hope or good wishes.  If exclusives, in the nex months see that things are devoloping in a way that thery are clearly losing a significant amount on the money they could earn being non-excluisves, crowns will sell a dime a dozen. Expecially, top exclusives's crowns. There will be not words/arguments against that ; it's the way the world moves, the economic logic that can't be beaten up.
But if the plan works and istockphoto doen't lose customesr, cronws will be very valued and expensive.

Quote from: lisafx on May 22, 2009, 12:53

PPD and EL sales are almost unheard of on photos.com/jui.  And of the very rare one or two you get they now want to keep 80% of that.

My PPD sales on StockXpert via Photos.com have been rare and inconsistent, but not insignificant. I would hate to lose them or see them slashed if, as some suggest, my StockXpert images on Photos.com will be replaced by my IS versions in the case of dupes.
05-09 1 PPD for 3$ total (so far)
04-09 1 PPD for $1.50 total
03-09 4 PPD for $40.50 total
02-09 0
01-09 3 PPD for $12 total

^^Other than March they still look pretty insignificant.  I agree I don't want to see them cut by 10% either.  I am just saying that as a % of total sales at those sites they are miniscule.

Quote from: whatalife on May 22, 2009, 12:59

It's a shame this has once again descended into an exclusive vs. independent debate, and worse, personal attacks. Why the need to convince others they should do what you do? Can't we all make our own decisions here? It's not as if one person becoming exclusive takes something from you, or one person remaining independent is somehow a criticism of another person's choice to become or remain exclusive. It's really a silly argument.

Very well put. 

IMO the exclusive vs. independent thing is a red herring.  Without having a crystal ball, it seems that if this industry continues it's race to the bottom all contributors will lose out, whether exclusive or not.  And if it starts to trend once more to higher prices and royalties then all contributors will benefit. 

ITLR the divisions between selling exclusive or not are minor compared with all our common interest in keeping this microstock ship afloat.

I agree that the exclusive independent divide isn't the real issue, but just as with Fotolia's recent commission grab and their earlier restructuring of levels and forced subs implementation, how you come out on what it means for you varies a bit as to whether you're Emerald, about to be Emerald with the old download totals or a white newbie.

When it comes right down to it, we each have some calculus to make about how to proceed in a very uncertain world where the agents are trying as best they can to grow the business and keep a little more for themselves than when they thought they really needed contributors (back at the beginning when they were boasting of 300K or 400K images in their collections).

I want to keep my monthly totals as high as I can as long as I can. I have no ideology about the specifics or one agency vs. several. I do hate being lied to (and sometimes my BS detector lets out a wail when some new agency proposal is floated) and I don't like unfair deals. However I have to do business with someone, and sometimes may have to just pick the least icky of the choices out there - until something better comes along.

If istock push their exclusives on photos.com, I will opt out or subs with StockXpert.  If all the non-exclusives opted out, I think a lot of the buyers would go back to shutterstock.  SS should start an exclusive images collection, as it looks like Getty are trying to move in on the subs market and SS need to do more to keep their buyers.

I think the biggest problem contributors face is that we don't know who the buyers are, in any sort of detail. Given the importance of best match (on istock) and no doubt similar search algorithms on other sites, my hunch is that most buyers are relatively unsophisticated and will take the first image that sort of meets their needs (satisficing, I think it's called). If this is the case then a constant influx of new contributors happy just to sell on any terms might well be good enough to meet most market needs. However if professional designers who appreciate quality make up a significant share of the buyers then the agencies have to keep more experienced producers happy. After all if this game ceases to be profitable then there are other ways to make a living as a photographer. Agencies can shape their policies with this sort of knowledge, but we can't.

No worries there Averil.  iStock and Shutterstock have been doing this successfully for several years, and Dreamstime and Fotolia are both coming on strong.

The agencies determine how images are ranked, and obviously some (if not most) sites allow the reviewer to rate the image upon acceptance and get it "front and center" for buyers.  We know raw downloads, dl/month, views/dl, etc are commonly used ranking components, which speak directly to the image's performance snowballing itself.  And we also know the various best match schemes are regularly changed up at the agencies to freshen the search for buyers.

That is how iStock works... 2/3 for iStock and barely 1/3 for authors.... Quite fair play if you ask me...

No. It's even worse than that. 4/5 for iStock and 1/5 for authors. Talking non-exclusive of course.

You are of course right! Its amazing how much money I make for iStock.

That is good for iStock and bad for you!

That buyers buy price as on any other place... So, find substitution for low paying agencies!

Just to add: with that cut you must invest more in your equipment or your knowledge... Istock invests your money in all they can come up with... Things are quite downwards if you ask me... But, iStock rules ;-)

LOL!

Quote from: Milinz on May 23, 2009, 04:40

There will be no any influence from iStocks best match search on Getty sites... They work completely different and there are no forced-advantage authors ;-)

I think you will see when the time comes that contributors exclusive to Getty under IS will be given a search advantage over others.  It only makes sense for them to push their own content.  You are right that they are not going to use the same engine (at least not right away).  Too much to implement in too little time.

If that is matter - there is Corbis and also Fotosearch... So Getty can't make the big difference...

I will know if my numbers drop... But I doubt it will happen due to I have good images to compete with iStock exclusives - that is main problem why they dont want my work on iStock!