Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147134 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #475 on:** June 09, 2013, 12:54 »

"businessman" (200 results / best match / all file types)

- urilux (24)
- globalstock (21)

beside that the more relevant are kupicoo, londoneye and lise

there wasn't a single file from monkeybusinessimages

Snufkin · « **Reply #476 on:** June 09, 2013, 14:02 »

OK, folks, iStock is launching a new collection, called "Exclusive Light". The royalties will most likely be somewhat higher than normally. The main difference between Exclusive Light and the regular Exclusive collection is that the contributors may sell their images on other sites, with the exception of any agencies whose name begins with an "S"and ends with a "K" and whose founder's surname begins with an "O".
At this point, participation in the Exclusive Light collection is by invitation only.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #477 on:** June 09, 2013, 14:12 »

this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

topol · « **Reply #478 on:** June 09, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: Oldhand on June 09, 2013, 04:11

Shame Yuri doesn't dip in here to add some clarity. Why should he? Well he's happy to use this forum as a soundboard for ideas and his sunglasses copy-write issue; an explanation would end the speculation.

Why am I starting to think his input here only goes on way.

Why do you even bother thinking about this?

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #479 on:** June 09, 2013, 15:13 »

What those people have is talent and tenacity. That's the secret to their success, there's no 'mystery'.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #480 on:** June 09, 2013, 15:30 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12

this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?

gostwyck · « **Reply #481 on:** June 09, 2013, 15:46 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on June 09, 2013, 15:13

What those people have is talent and tenacity. That's the secret to their success, there's no 'mystery'.

Exactly. 'Talent and tenacity' in spades.

"Massive action produces massive results" ... as they say in network marketing. It's true too.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #482 on:** June 09, 2013, 15:53 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 15:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12
this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?

for a start we are free to do whatever we wish, that is just my feeling

IMO iStock haven't been playing fair with us and I was thinking they were learning a lesson but that is not the reality anymore, sure many exclusives and indies stopped but I am seeing many coming back, that said I haven't got much money from them so I can understand some cases

I am not really interested in joining their show unless they change drastically like I have said, other contributors believe what they are giving them is enough even considering all the lows such as: royalties, google fiasco, thinkstock, buyers bailing

will it be worth?

sharpshot · « **Reply #483 on:** June 09, 2013, 17:45 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 15:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12
this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?

Surely if our main goal is money, we shouldn't put up with a site that pays as low as 15% commission, does bad deals like the Google one and has made it clear that we wont be informed about future deals that could make our images virtually worthless?

Unfortunately, too many people don't value their work and would probably accept 5% commission rather than remove images from istock. Those of us that have done something end up thinking our efforts were worthless. It didn't make much difference when I removed all my best images from istock when so many people are still uploading all they can.

There isn't a solution to this problem, so now I just laugh at people who constantly run down istock in this forum while uploading all they can to them.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #484 on:** June 09, 2013, 18:02 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 09, 2013, 17:45

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 15:30
Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12
this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?
Surely if our main goal is money, we shouldn't put up with a site that pays as low as 15% commission, does bad deals like the Google one and has made it clear that we wont be informed about future deals that could make our images virtually worthless?

Unfortunately, too many people don't value their work and would probably accept 5% commission rather than remove images from istock. Those of us that have done something end up thinking our efforts were worthless. It didn't make much difference when I removed all my best images from istock when so many people are still uploading all they can.

There isn't a solution to this problem, so now I just laugh at people who constantly run down istock in this forum while uploading all they can to them.

I mostly agree with you but don't laugh about it. I don't know if I would continue to upload at 5%. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I also don't know why this is all about iStock. I don't upload to many agencies. I don't trust any of them. iStock is still producing more dollars than most others. Should I drop all but Shutterstock? And, what makes SS so much more trustworthy?

Just asking for answers. I haven't heard an answer yet that fits us all. Yuri does his thing; I do mine.

sharpshot · « **Reply #485 on:** June 09, 2013, 18:25 »

I started to type out all the problems I have with istock but it would take too long. They're the worst of several sites that I no longer enjoy working with. At the moment, SS pay me almost double the commission for PPD, have far more EL's and I can even get up to $120 commission for one sale. They pay me much more for subs than TS. I can still get BME's. Until they cut commissions or my earnings drop significantly, I am still happy working with them.

cthoman · « **Reply #486 on:** June 09, 2013, 18:38 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 09, 2013, 17:45

Surely if our main goal is money, we shouldn't put up with a site that pays as low as 15% commission, does bad deals like the Google one and has made it clear that we wont be informed about future deals that could make our images virtually worthless?

Unfortunately, too many people don't value their work and would probably accept 5% commission rather than remove images from istock. Those of us that have done something end up thinking our efforts were worthless. It didn't make much difference when I removed all my best images from istock when so many people are still uploading all they can.

There isn't a solution to this problem, so now I just laugh at people who constantly run down istock in this forum while uploading all they can to them.

I think the problem has always been defining the goal of "our main goal is money". With so many contributors, there is no one single goal. I think we have all seen from reading this forum that there is a wide range of opinions on what is fair.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #487 on:** June 09, 2013, 19:00 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 09, 2013, 18:25

I started to type out all the problems I have with istock but it would take too long. They're the worst of several sites that I no longer enjoy working with. At the moment, SS pay me almost double the commission for PPD, have far more EL's and I can even get up to $120 commission for one sale. They pay me much more for subs than TS. I can still get BME's. Until they cut commissions or my earnings drop significantly, I am still happy working with them.

Is SS the only agency for you?

Lizard · « **Reply #488 on:** June 09, 2013, 19:12 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 15:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12
this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?

I'm of deep belief that if one thinks money is main goal in literary anything in life, then one is heavily misguided by wrong values.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #489 on:** June 09, 2013, 19:22 »

Quote from: Lizard on June 09, 2013, 19:12

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 15:30
Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12
this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?

I'm of deep belief that if one thinks money is main goal in literary anything in life, then one is heavily misguided by wrong values.

Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

disorderly · « **Reply #490 on:** June 09, 2013, 20:06 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22

Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

And I'm perfectly happy making dimes and quarters for each sale. I don't think I'd ever be excited by Alamy; I'd rather have a bunch of sales every day than one big one every few weeks or even months. It's the constant positive reaction from someone who paid real money for my work, even little bits of real money. It's reinforcement, and an indication that I've gotten better at this. Kind of like Flickr comments, only with a clear indication that the commenter meant it.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #491 on:** June 09, 2013, 20:10 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:06

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22
Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

And I'm perfectly happy making dimes and quarters for each sale. I don't think I'd ever be excited by Alamy; I'd rather have a bunch of sales every day than one big one every few weeks or even months. It's the constant positive reaction from someone who paid real money for my work, even little bits of real money. It's reinforcement, and an indication that I've gotten better at this. Kind of like Flickr comments, only with a clear indication that the commenter meant it.

Certainly understandable and I cannot disagree. I do wonder, however, if it isn't about the money for you (a collective YOU) why are we complaining about Yuri or iStock or any other "special deal?" It shouldn't matter to those of us who don't have a monetary objective, should it?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #492 on:** June 09, 2013, 20:22 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 20:10

Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:06
Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22
Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

And I'm perfectly happy making dimes and quarters for each sale. I don't think I'd ever be excited by Alamy; I'd rather have a bunch of sales every day than one big one every few weeks or even months. It's the constant positive reaction from someone who paid real money for my work, even little bits of real money. It's reinforcement, and an indication that I've gotten better at this. Kind of like Flickr comments, only with a clear indication that the commenter meant it.

Certainly understandable and I cannot disagree. I do wonder, however, if it isn't about the money for you (a collective YOU) why are we complaining about Yuri or iStock or any other "special deal?" It shouldn't matter to those of us who don't have a monetary objective, should it?

1 - nobody said we don't enjoy the money (see my arguments on the previous posts)
2 - we can discuss/complain what we wish, it doesn't matter if it is about Yuri, iStock or other subject
3 - please add value to the conversation, you aren't saying anything relevant have you noticed that?

Lizard · « **Reply #493 on:** June 09, 2013, 20:23 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22

Quote from: Lizard on June 09, 2013, 19:12
Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 15:30
Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 14:12
this is just unbelievable, just took a look at a bunch of people I usually follow, some I even talk daily and other bigger contributors from this forum, I wonder what does iStock need to do so we once for all tell them goodbye unless they change drastically? ain't 15% / google stuff / specials deals enough? its really race to the bottom and don't tell SS is doing such, uploading to iStock and having files mirrored at thinkstock is way worst, I really don't understand some contributors mind and its very sad that we have as main goal money / greed or need desperately to think we will do something if we upload...

why deactivating files / removing them in the past if now "we" are back uploading? perhaps we should all do that and make iStock "number 1" again because buyers don't really care if we get 15 or 50%, iStock does

What should we do, Luis? I thought it was a given ... our main goal is money.
If that isn't true, then wouldn't we all get a bigger ego boost at Flickr?

I'm of deep belief that if one thinks money is main goal in literary anything in life, then one is heavily misguided by wrong values.

Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

Personally Im in for the time i get extra for not working a "normal job" and not less important for the fun Im having doing what Im doing now.

I sell few images, do few weddings, design few flyers or something every now and then and been watching many of my friends for many years. Its like standing on a best spot in a world and look some people passing by in cars going like crazy ,like they are in some different universes , most of them doing what they hate, and Im thinking what can be so important that some of them see their kids few hour weekly.

We need money they say...later ill slow dow, and nobody does it...Im still waiting

Im on job in my home, dont wast time travelling, traffic jams, 4 months yearly Im on the beach every single day, have 2 or 3 coffees daily , walk my dog in the nature every day...playing football, playing guitar, i go boat fishing every few days... and am still here am I not.

If whole industry falls apart Im not worrying, Im a human , we tend to adopt and survive and its been proven on more big deals, so Im pretty much sure I wont be changing my style of living too much.

In microstock words , I can afford not to upload somewhere even if it means some loss who knows, loss today may be a gain tomorrow, God works in mysterious ways they said, but I doubt that for he planned a life in a circle with money hanging around my head as a "main goal".

Good old time that i spend on what I really love cannot be replaced by money from my point of view

cthoman · « **Reply #494 on:** June 09, 2013, 20:31 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 20:10

Certainly understandable and I cannot disagree. I do wonder, however, if it isn't about the money for you (a collective YOU) why are we complaining about Yuri or iStock or any other "special deal?" It shouldn't matter to those of us who don't have a monetary objective, should it?

I actually see contributors like Disorderly as a bigger threat than any side deal Yuri gets because they represent a larger base of the contributor community, and they are the biggest obstacle to actually enacting any change in the micro. They are probably the biggest lobbying group in micro, but they don't lobby much because they are fairly content.

I don't mean that to be disparaging or as an attack because I can't disagree with that position at all. I completely understand it. It is just that it is hard to compete with that mentality if your mentality is to try to make a living selling stock.

But, that is the monster that micro made.

disorderly · « **Reply #495 on:** June 09, 2013, 20:51 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 20:10

Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:06
Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22
Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

And I'm perfectly happy making dimes and quarters for each sale. I don't think I'd ever be excited by Alamy; I'd rather have a bunch of sales every day than one big one every few weeks or even months. It's the constant positive reaction from someone who paid real money for my work, even little bits of real money. It's reinforcement, and an indication that I've gotten better at this. Kind of like Flickr comments, only with a clear indication that the commenter meant it.

Certainly understandable and I cannot disagree. I do wonder, however, if it isn't about the money for you (a collective YOU) why are we complaining about Yuri or iStock or any other "special deal?" It shouldn't matter to those of us who don't have a monetary objective, should it?

Maybe I just like fairness, and I expect it from those I do business with. I don't shop at places that mistreat their workers, and I won't be a worker for one either. Old fashioned, I know.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #496 on:** June 09, 2013, 21:06 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:51

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 20:10
Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:06
Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22
Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

And I'm perfectly happy making dimes and quarters for each sale. I don't think I'd ever be excited by Alamy; I'd rather have a bunch of sales every day than one big one every few weeks or even months. It's the constant positive reaction from someone who paid real money for my work, even little bits of real money. It's reinforcement, and an indication that I've gotten better at this. Kind of like Flickr comments, only with a clear indication that the commenter meant it.

Certainly understandable and I cannot disagree. I do wonder, however, if it isn't about the money for you (a collective YOU) why are we complaining about Yuri or iStock or any other "special deal?" It shouldn't matter to those of us who don't have a monetary objective, should it?

Maybe I just like fairness, and I expect it from those I do business with. I don't shop at places that mistreat their workers, and I won't be a worker for one either. Old fashioned, I know.

Deposit Photos gave a "special deal" to Sean Locke; 123rf dropped commission rates and initiated the hated iS system, and aren't you still selling through iS?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #497 on:** June 09, 2013, 21:23 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 21:06

Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:51
Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 20:10
Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:06
Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:22
Why do you take part in microstock? It does seem demeaning to accept such minuscule amounts for our artistic efforts.

Maybe I am misguided. I must be missing something. Why do we do this?

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

And I'm perfectly happy making dimes and quarters for each sale. I don't think I'd ever be excited by Alamy; I'd rather have a bunch of sales every day than one big one every few weeks or even months. It's the constant positive reaction from someone who paid real money for my work, even little bits of real money. It's reinforcement, and an indication that I've gotten better at this. Kind of like Flickr comments, only with a clear indication that the commenter meant it.

Certainly understandable and I cannot disagree. I do wonder, however, if it isn't about the money for you (a collective YOU) why are we complaining about Yuri or iStock or any other "special deal?" It shouldn't matter to those of us who don't have a monetary objective, should it?

Maybe I just like fairness, and I expect it from those I do business with. I don't shop at places that mistreat their workers, and I won't be a worker for one either. Old fashioned, I know.

Deposit Photos gave a "special deal" to Sean Locke; 123rf dropped commission rates and initiated the hated iS system, and aren't you still selling through iS?

that is so irritating, why don't you open yourself his portfolios links? 400 files at iStock vs 20k on other agencies, believe you got your answer

sharpshot · « **Reply #498 on:** June 10, 2013, 02:27 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 09, 2013, 19:00

Quote from: sharpshot on June 09, 2013, 18:25
I started to type out all the problems I have with istock but it would take too long. They're the worst of several sites that I no longer enjoy working with. At the moment, SS pay me almost double the commission for PPD, have far more EL's and I can even get up to $120 commission for one sale. They pay me much more for subs than TS. I can still get BME's. Until they cut commissions or my earnings drop significantly, I am still happy working with them.

Is SS the only agency for you?

No. I was answering your question, "And, what makes SS so much more trustworthy?". I will stick with SS until they cut commissions, then they would be as bad as the other big microstock sites. I prefer GL for their commission, 52% but they sell very little. I like Pond5 and will be doing a lot more video clips this summer. Alamy are OK but they've had 2 commission cuts, have cut prices and don't make me much money.

It's not just the commission cuts that have put me off istock, DT and FT. They have all made changes that have made it harder for me to increase my earnings with them. SS is the only big microstock site that has made it easier for me to increase my earnings in recent years. That gives me some motivation to carry on with microstock but that could change any day.

ShadySue · « **Reply #499 on:** June 10, 2013, 03:24 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 21:23

why don't you open yourself his portfolios links? 400 files at iStock vs 20k on other agencies, believe you got your answer

Are we still talking about Yuri?
If so, don't foget the almost 13k under his urilux account.
(I'm currently speculating that the reason for the portfolio split is that somehow there's a different %age being paid on the two ports as part of the deal.)

Otherwise who are we talking about (400 vs 20k)? I've got confused. Oops, we can't be talking about Yuri as his 'new' portfolio has nearly 3000 files.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147134 times)

luissantos84

Snufkin

luissantos84

topol

fotoVoyager

WarrenPrice

gostwyck

luissantos84

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

sharpshot

cthoman

WarrenPrice

Lizard

WarrenPrice

disorderly

WarrenPrice

luissantos84

Lizard

cthoman

disorderly

WarrenPrice

luissantos84

sharpshot

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors