Hi All,

 New to all this. Many Agencies give extra perks to contributors for submitting exclusively to them. I can understand the benefits to the agencies, but is that the right move for the contributor? Don't most in this industry submit to a variety of sites for greater exposure?
Thank you 

that is why I don't shoot eggs, those suckers are slippery

"Yes, if you don't like money"

I think that would be a debateable point, and there are arguments to support both sides, however, at this late point in the game, if I were starting out again, I would definitely advise against exclusivity anywhere.

'

But isn�t that only true for the longterm exclusives with older files? Right now it seems people upload,upload,upload - with hardly any sales.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6918228

So someone starting out now, I think they should take a good look at the whole industry first, don�t you think? they can�t really look at the established contributors from 2005-2008 and assume they will get the same returns.

And many agencies will take exclusive images, so you can get a balance with that. I wouldn�t be surprised if istock follows the lead of fotolia in that. It is a very smart strategy to get local exclusive content.

"But isn�t that only true for the longterm exclusives with older files?

It probably is, yes, certainly at the moment. That's why I said .........

"however, at this late point in the game, if I were starting out again, I would definitely advise against exclusivity anywhere."

Quote from: BoBoBolinski on July 22, 2013, 11:42

"it's not even close.."

I'm not sure how you would know that? The iStock exclusive earnings ratings look pretty good, people I know who have given up exclusivity report a big drop off in earnings ( I'm talking a fall of 65/75% or so), that takes a lot of making up submitting to multiple agencies.

Yep, I think this is the most important thing.  Basically everyone that left exclusivity has reported losing a lot of money, some still say they are happier now even with less money.   For the most part most of the exclusives that left are being very quiet now I'm sure we would be hearing all about it if any of them were doing better now.

It doesn't necessarily work in reverse, though, because old-time exclusives have got an established position. There's no saying that newcomers' files will be as high in the search as those of people with an established sales record on a site, whether they are jumping into exclusivity or out of it.  I think it will always be an imponderable.

People just have to make their own best guess and go with it.

'

... don't forget that Yuri has just dropped all the other microstock sites (technically soon he will have, I think he has some more time to serve at DT).

But he seems in no hurry to drop his own site, which has some of the same pics he has at iS at a lower price.

Everybody who gives up exclusivity is going to lose 80% immediatly of their istock income. There is absolutely no surprise there. It is also clear that the other agencies have not been waiting for us and it will take quite a while to get earnings back.

But seeing the returns that the independents have, I really don�t think I will be earning less than if I had stayed exclusive with istock. And when I upload to the new agencies - my files sell!! That is a big advantage to uploading to istock and seeing files dissapear in a black hole.

No one denies that istock was very profitable in the past. It is the future that is doubtful, that is all. But maybe they can pull themselves out of their self created disaster, who knows.

So I prefer to upload to agencies that sell my files than to upload only to one agency and see them pile up without even getting any views.

And I am still sending files to istock as an independent. I have no problem there. I can supply content for any agency, risk and price point. With the new main collection prices, my portfolio is becoming more visible it seems and downloads are growing again.

So I prefer to upload to agencies that sell my files than to upload only to one agency and see them pile up without even getting any views.

And I am still sending files to istock as an independent.

I am very confused looking at these 2 sentences, aren't they somehow opposite?

'

Quote from: chromaco on July 22, 2013, 12:30

The poll is not accurate when comparing exclusives to non exclusives because there is a huge discrepancy in average port size. Non exclusives have a much higher percentage of newer smaller portfolios which bring the earnings averages down. If you were to compare the numbers based on comparable port sizes I believe that there wouldn't be such a huge gap.

Maybe all those things are true but maybe not, I don't think anyone really knows.  I agree the poll could be more accurate but until then this is the only one we have.  The gap is quite large though almost no one contributes to all the sites in the poll so 68% of exclusive earnings is the upper limit of what the poll says, for most contributors it's probably closer to 50%.  I don't really know if other factors would bring it that much closer but my guess is they don't.

Yes, it seems that you are very quick to quote the poll when it works in promoting Istock exclusivity. However, you are very quick to point out logic flaws or minutia when someone brings up a valid argument against exclusivity. I believe if the polls were working against your argument you would be railing quite loudly about how you can't trust them and they are incorrect for any number of reasons. The polls do what they are supposed to -- compare sites versus each other where port size is actually factor. Once you throw out port size in this equation it becomes completely inaccurate. I know you know this and yet you continually use these numbers as a validation of exclusivity.