MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Being exclusive the way to go?  (Read 10792 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 22, 2013, 09:02 »
0
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 


« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2013, 10:50 »
+5
"Never put all your eggs in one basket. If the basket is dropped, all is lost."

« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2013, 10:53 »
+4
that is why I don't shoot eggs, those suckers are slippery ;D

EmberMike

« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2013, 10:59 »
+4

Quote
Is Being exclusive the way to go?

Yes, if you don't like money.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2013, 11:05 »
-3
"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.

« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2013, 11:16 »
+2
debatable?

isuckphoto V.S. multiple agencies + your own personal site(s)?  :)

it's not even close..

« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2013, 11:17 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:00 by Audi 5000 »

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2013, 11:42 »
-1
"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. That is ignoring the chance to avoid the 'all your eggs in one basket' situation but there are arguments for and against that too. Hence it's debatable.

« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2013, 11:46 »
0
But isnt 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, dont you think? they cant 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 wouldnt be surprised if istock follows the lead of fotolia in that. It is a very smart strategy to get local exclusive content.






« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2013, 11:47 »
+2
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:00 by Audi 5000 »

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2013, 11:49 »
-1
"But isnt 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."

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2013, 11:56 »
0
"But isnt 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."
Agree totally, though it's moot. New files die so quickly that it would take forever for most newbies at iS to qualify for exclusivity, unless they had a really desirable narrow niche.

« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2013, 11:57 »
+2
"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.

« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2013, 12:03 »
+1

Quote
Is Being exclusive the way to go?

Yes, if you don't like money.
Have you looked at the polls here?  It seems to me that you can contribute to 20 sites and make 68% of what exclusives are making, also exclusive poll numbers are kept lower than all the others (very few nonexclusives are making more than $2500/month on any one site while many exclusives are).

Personally, it never seem to add up to me to make the switch (except for those 8 or 9 months before they introduced RC credits). I'm glad I didn't go exclusive though. In hindsight, it would have worked out poorly.

« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2013, 12:06 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:00 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2013, 12:07 »
0

Quote
Is Being exclusive the way to go?

Yes, if you don't like money.
Have you looked at the polls here?  It seems to me that you can contribute to 20 sites and make 68% of what exclusives are making, also exclusive poll numbers are kept lower than all the others (very few nonexclusives are making more than $2500/month on any one site while many exclusives are).
It's not accurate, as I keep saying. Those of us who are exclusive for RF but also post their Alamy RM earnings are counted as indies on the poll. (It wasn't me who negatived you, though.)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2013, 12:08 »
+1
... 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.


« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2013, 12:15 »
-1
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:00 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2013, 12:17 »
+1
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 dont 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.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2013, 12:18 »
0
"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"

Why would he, if he's allowed to operate that way? That has little to do with pro or anti exclusivity, just his business relationship with IS. He obviously deems it better to operate as an IS exclusive, however loose the term is in his case.

« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2013, 12:25 »
-1
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? ::)

« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2013, 12:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2013, 12:37 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:59 by Audi 5000 »

EmberMike

« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2013, 12:50 »
+1
Have you looked at the polls here?  It seems to me that you can contribute to 20 sites and make 68% of what exclusives are making, also exclusive poll numbers are kept lower than all the others (very few nonexclusives are making more than $2500/month on any one site while many exclusives are).

I'm not going by the polls. I'm going by years of selling at istock and all of the other major companies and knowing that there is no way it would ever have been possible for me to even match my earnings by going exclusive, let alone exceed them.

I'm not sure how the poll numbers for exclusives are so high, but I do know I'd have tossed away a ton of money if I ever were exclusive. I don't care what the poll says. How do I know it's not a bunch of exclusives exaggerating their income?

Add to that the fact that the SS poll responses cap at $2500 which I think grossly underestimates what a lot of folks are actually earning there and the poll becomes less and less useful for getting any idea of which is better, exclusive of independent.

« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2013, 12:51 »
+1
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.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2013, 12:56 »
0
"but I do know I'd have tossed away a ton of money if I ever were exclusive. I don't care what the poll says."

All you can know, is you don't know. Why would people bother to come here as IS exclusives and bother to exaggerate their income? How do you equally know that independents don't do the same? It's a pointless argument with no way of knowing which is the better way. We all have to just make our own judgement and hope we have made the right decision.

« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2013, 13:00 »
0
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? ::)

When I was exclusive my new files didnt sell, and this still seems to be the case for many exclusives now, see the link posted. But now that I am indie all my files are extremly cheap in the main collection and the volume of sales is going up and also new files are being sold.

So - no sales or few sales for new files while i was exclusive, more sales but little money for new files as an indie.

Hope that is clearer.


EmberMike

« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2013, 13:05 »
+2
All you can know, is you don't know. Why would people bother to come here as IS exclusives and bother to exaggerate their income? How do you equally know that independents don't do the same? It's a pointless argument with no way of knowing which is the better way. We all have to just make our own judgement and hope we have made the right decision.

I know that if my istock income is 5% of my total monthly microstock income, there is no mathematical way possible that going exclusive would make up the missing 95%.

So yes, I know for sure that being exclusive would have cost me a ton of money.

« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2013, 13:08 »
+1
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:59 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2013, 13:17 »
0
"I think a much higher % of exclusives go over the $2500 mark than Shutterstock contributors btw, I think that's pretty much a fact."

If my rumour mill of friends and family is correct, then that is true. But then SS is just a part of the overall income and I really cannot say that exclusives and indies with similar quality portfolios and sizes that one is earning more or less than the other. To me they seem to be on similar levels, provided they put the hard work into it. But you cannot compare exclusives with those that just went indie a few months ago.

You need to talk to people who have been uploading for about the same amount of time, say from 2004 until now. And then I really dont see a big difference in earnings. Most important to me was that I could see the earnings of my longtime indie friends increase steadily, while the exclusives seem to be standing still or even going down inspite of regular uploads.

The results I heard seemed to be mirroring the traffic trends.

It is hard to get comparable data of course, because every bodies portfolio is different.

But in any case I would always recommend to a newbie to upload to several agencies first and get a feeling for the sites. If you then find an exclusive program interesting, by all means go and do it. It is a personal choice.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 13:21 by cobalt »

« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2013, 13:18 »
+4
Well they should probably use all the available data to make that guess shouldn't they?  Whether it's poll results or testimonials, what else do you have to help you decide?  The polls here have always shown exclusives making more than nonexclusives

Personally, I would give the greatest weighting to my own sales at different places if I was trying to make that decision, rather than relying on a poll which, at its best, only gives an indication of what the microstock elite are achieving.
And you're completely wrong about the poll "always" showing exclusives making more than non-exclusives. The exclusives were only separated out a year or so ago, before that there was no comparison of exclusives and non-exclusives in the poll results.
In any case, exclusivity probably only seriously started to outstrip independence about three or four years ago, when iS created a separate pricing structure for exclusives and gave them some limited access to Getty.  Prior to that, exclusives were just getting up to double the commission rate for sales which were not charged differently for different groups. My non-iS earnings were always about 60% of the total, so going from a commission rate of 20% to 40% would probably still have left me down by 20%.
The point where exclusivity started to look really attractive was also the point at which everyone started being messed about and the trust in iS as a fair, long-term prospect started to evaporate. So one offset the other. I know a number of people who were about to jump into exclusivity, only to jump back at the last moment as more and more negative news started to break.

« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2013, 13:21 »
-1
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:59 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2013, 13:27 »
+2
Personally, I would give the greatest weighting to my own sales at different places if I was trying to make that decision...
That's pretty much all you can do. The poll doesn't mean anything to my personal numbers. It's not even remotely close.

« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2013, 13:30 »
+1
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:59 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2013, 13:33 »
+1
...in 2010...many, many things have happened since then...and just look at what is happening now. Do you enjoy losing control over which files go into s+ and get mirrored on getty?

« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2013, 13:35 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2013, 13:35 »
+2
Well they should probably use all the available data to make that guess shouldn't they?  Whether it's poll results or testimonials, what else do you have to help you decide?  The polls here have always shown exclusives making more than nonexclusives


Personally, I would give the greatest weighting to my own sales at different places if I was trying to make that decision, rather than relying on a poll which, at its best, only gives an indication of what the microstock elite are achieving.
And you're completely wrong about the poll "always" showing exclusives making more than non-exclusives. The exclusives were only separated out a year or so ago, before that there was no comparison of exclusives and non-exclusives in the poll results.
In any case, exclusivity probably only seriously started to outstrip independence about three or four years ago, when iS created a separate pricing structure for exclusives and gave them some limited access to Getty.  Prior to that, exclusives were just getting up to double the commission rate for sales which were not charged differently for different groups. My non-iS earnings were always about 60% of the total, so going from a commission rate of 20% to 40% would probably still have left me down by 20%.
The point where exclusivity started to look really attractive was also the point at which everyone started being messed about and the trust in iS as a fair, long-term prospect started to evaporate. So one offset the other. I know a number of people who were about to jump into exclusivity, only to jump back at the last moment as more and more negative news started to break.

Actually you're wrong.  There was the annual microstock poll that showed exclusives making more than nonexclusives years ago.  http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/  for Chromaco it shows the average portfolio size too, surprise surprise they aren't that different (10%).
Here are a couple things Leaf said back then:
"Wow!  Simply put, Im amazed. I was expecting non-exclusive photographers to earn more than exclusive photographers, but the graph appears to show quite the opposite."


Actually I'm not wrong, because 2010 was only three years ago. Leaf's amazement reflects the state of knowledge up to when that poll came out.  I'm not certain of the timing, but I think that 2010 would just about have given time for the effect of splitting the commission regimes for indes and exclusives to come into effect.


« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2013, 13:40 »
+2
Actually I'm not wrong, because 2010 was only three years ago. Leaf's amazement reflects the state of knowledge up to when that poll came out.  I'm not certain of the timing, but I think that 2010 would just about have given time for the effect of splitting the commission regimes for indes and exclusives to come into effect.

I think that is the timeline. They raised the commissions for exclusives January 2010, then started RC credits January of 2011.

travelwitness

« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2013, 13:46 »
+4
Probably true in 2010.

My Sept 2012 was half of my Sept 2010 as an exclusive with about a 30% portfolio increase.

2010 was the peak for me - after that it started to go south.

« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2013, 13:46 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2013, 13:48 »
+1
Actually I'm not wrong, because 2010 was only three years ago. Leaf's amazement reflects the state of knowledge up to when that poll came out.  I'm not certain of the timing, but I think that 2010 would just about have given time for the effect of splitting the commission regimes for indes and exclusives to come into effect.

I think that is the timeline. They raised the commissions for exclusives January 2010, then started RC credits January of 2011.

Yeah, and the survey was published in July 2011, only TWO years ago, covering the year 2010 when the commission rises took effect.
The idea a lot of people had of going exclusive because of the higher earnings potential was put on hold during the great "grandfathering canisters" crisis, and then the flood of Agency files filling up top spots, the slippage in iStock's internet ranking etc. etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 was the high tide for exclusives' earnings.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 13:55 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2013, 13:50 »
0
;
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2013, 13:51 »
+2
...in 2010...
Right.  That link was in response to baldrick saying we didn't have any comparison until last year.  It also debunked chromaco's assertion that exclusives have much higher port sizes.
My assertion is that there are a lot more contributors with small portfolios in the non-exclusive camp than there are in the exclusive camp and the poll results reflect that.

ETA: The median port size for exclusives is close to double in that report, that is what is skewing the poll results.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 13:54 by chromaco »

« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2013, 14:00 »
0
But now that I am indie all my files are extremly cheap in the main collection and the volume of sales is going up and also new files are being sold.

I have been hearing the opposite here at MSG, Paul (BT) was one of them

« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2013, 14:01 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2013, 14:06 »
+3
In any case, independence was and is an insurance policy. Even if exclusives still earn more they remain completely at the mercy of the agency. They can be thrown out if they displease the big-wigs and they have no power to do anything except accept whatever terms are proclaimed from on high. They can't shift their efforts between agencies to take account of who is currently behaving most reasonably, they can't take advantage of other opportunities such as creating their own sales channels and if they dump exclusivity their portfolios tend to land on the other sites in a lump, with a mass of images that quickly ages without picking up the sales needed to support a good position in the search - either for the files or for the contributor, if overall sales are taken into account in the best match as they probably are.

If exclusives are better off then they are paying a price for the extra money.

But now that I am indie all my files are extremly cheap in the main collection and the volume of sales is going up and also new files are being sold.

I have been hearing the opposite here at MSG, Paul (BT) was one of them

My sales at iS are going up since they shoved everything into the main collection, but my earnings are going down because they did that.   

« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2013, 14:11 »
0
It's bizarre, but for the first time ever I have a gut feeling that not uploading there will not make the slightest difference to my earnings.
I just checked - I've uploaded 60 files there since Dec 12, twenty-two of them up to early Jan, the other half during May, and I've got six sales out of that for a total of about $3.50.
BUT then I went to the PP and found I had made $5.20 there from the 22 Dec-Jan uploads, even though we still haven't got the figures for May and June. I guess once (if) that comes in, I will discover that I'm making seven or eight times as much from PP (which really means TS) with my recent uploads as I am from iS.
So it seems that TS - even before the price change - had become a more important agency for new uploads than iS.
And that, in turn, makes me wonder what percentage of the monthly payout from iS is now for the partner prog... It might be far more significant than I've been thinking.


« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2013, 14:21 »
+1
It's bizarre, but for the first time ever I have a gut feeling that not uploading there will not make the slightest difference to my earnings.
I just checked - I've uploaded 60 files there since Dec 12, twenty-two of them up to early Jan, the other half during May, and I've got six sales out of that for a total of about $3.50.
BUT then I went to the PP and found I had made $5.20 there from the 22 Dec-Jan uploads, even though we still haven't got the figures for May and June. I guess once (if) that comes in, I will discover that I'm making seven or eight times as much from PP (which really means TS) with my recent uploads as I am from iS.
So it seems that TS - even before the price change - had become a more important agency for new uploads than iS.
And that, in turn, makes me wonder what percentage of the monthly payout from iS is now for the partner prog... It might be far more significant than I've been thinking.

Yes, that's the case. New files don't seem to move at all but the older ones are selling better than they did. I don't often see a sale on a file that hasn't sold before.

« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2013, 14:39 »
0
It's bizarre, but for the first time ever I have a gut feeling that not uploading there will not make the slightest difference to my earnings.
I just checked - I've uploaded 60 files there since Dec 12, twenty-two of them up to early Jan, the other half during May, and I've got six sales out of that for a total of about $3.50.
BUT then I went to the PP and found I had made $5.20 there from the 22 Dec-Jan uploads, even though we still haven't got the figures for May and June. I guess once (if) that comes in, I will discover that I'm making seven or eight times as much from PP (which really means TS) with my recent uploads as I am from iS.
So it seems that TS - even before the price change - had become a more important agency for new uploads than iS.
And that, in turn, makes me wonder what percentage of the monthly payout from iS is now for the partner prog... It might be far more significant than I've been thinking.

Yes, that's the case. New files don't seem to move at all but the older ones are selling better than they did. I don't often see a sale on a file that hasn't sold before.

so my files aren't just selling, it has nothing to do with my decision of no more uploading there, are we talking about files with previous flags, over 100, etc?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2013, 14:44 »
0
All you can know, is you don't know. Why would people bother to come here as IS exclusives and bother to exaggerate their income? How do you equally know that independents don't do the same? It's a pointless argument with no way of knowing which is the better way. We all have to just make our own judgement and hope we have made the right decision.

I know that if my istock income is 5% of my total monthly microstock income, there is no mathematical way possible that going exclusive would make up the missing 95%.

So yes, I know for sure that being exclusive would have cost me a ton of money.
A couple things.  Your experience doesn't mean that others experience will be the same.  I'm sure you don't think all nonexclusives only make 5% of their income from Istock, taking your own numbers and applying them to others isn't very helpful. 
Here's a true way to do the math you tell me if it would make up the missing 95%.  XXXL Main files 7 credits, XXXL Vetta files 160 credits and nonexclusive royalty rate of 15%, exclusive royalty rate of 22%.  Assuming $1/credit you get $1.05 as a nonexclusive and $35.20 as an exclusive for the same file.
Yeah, but they might have taken your best sellers and plussed them inappropriately so they don't sell now.  :( It's absolutely not that simple.

« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2013, 15:18 »
0

so my files aren't just selling, it has nothing to do with my decision of no more uploading there, are we talking about files with previous flags, over 100, etc?

I'm not sure that I follow exactly what you mean, but I'll try to answer:

Six of my last 20 sales were of files that had more than 100 sales, only one was of a file that hadn't sold before - and even that was an old one. Of about 40 files uploaded in May and early June, only one has sold and most of them do not have a single view. I didn't upload between early January and mid-May and then I stopped again when they brought in the "main collection", so I've only uploaded for about a month this year.


« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2013, 03:40 »
+2
I think it's safe to say that by now there is no exact science of prediction here. I get the sense that exclusive vs independent has more to do with your worldview, personality and workflow than anything else.

I "Like" multiple agencies, simply because I naturally lean towards avoiding single baskets of eggs. I can't prove that it's better, it's just better for me, quite honestly. And I have my own little site that earns even less than what I do at Canstock, but who cares if I dig it?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4852 Views
Last post January 05, 2009, 13:32
by Read_My_Rights
3 Replies
6412 Views
Last post March 23, 2009, 02:04
by RaFaLe
1 Replies
10378 Views
Last post April 13, 2009, 11:53
by madelaide
13 Replies
5877 Views
Last post January 29, 2010, 11:11
by FD
16 Replies
9354 Views
Last post September 18, 2010, 07:44
by gostwyck

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors