Quote from: kelby on December 17, 2011, 08:00

seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224  how many agencies still will land on istock?

As many as they can shove in and get their 80% from.

yup. brutal.

Quote from: SNP on December 16, 2011, 20:47

despite what some say here, it seems feeding the beast is a constant necessity still at SS....whether you're feeding it processed food, gourmet or utter crap doesn't always seem to matter

Huh? How would you know? From my experience I'd say that 'feeding the beast' is way more important at IS nowadays than it is at SS because the best match favours new images so much __ it hasn't done so on SS for years. I had 5 months off uploading anywhere this year. My income at IS went down and my income at SS went up. Why do you talk such nonsense on matters you obviously know so little about?

I already acknowledged that obviously I don't know firsthand. But I read the SS submitter forums regularly and I see their latest uploads. sorry, but their standards are not anywhere close to iStock's. (well, that is for regular contributors. for content being trucked in from Getty, apparently there are no standards.)

You can not change what is. Just deal with it. Exclusives at IS should try to get accepted at SS. You do not have to put images for sale, just get accepted. I believe most may get a shock. Many if they put up their best ten by downloads would not get in. Standards have lifted.

all ten of my images were accepted on the first try at SS. I am an iS exclusive but thought it prudent to set up accounts everywhere else just in case. conversely, it took me five months and six tries to be accepted at iStock. granted there were two years in between but still.

Quote from: SNP on December 16, 2011, 11:58

let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here

Excuse me? Care to find a quote where I've ever said I was against contributors contacting ANY agency to discuss terms? Disagree with me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth that I never spoke.

my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...

Quote from: gostwyck on December 15, 2011, 14:42

Istock probably are still the market leader in terms of $'s __ but only just in my estimation. If they were to collapse then the flood of previously exclusive contributors onto the other agencies, followed by many customers, would undoubtedly have a significant effect on your sales and mine at all other agencies. The same cannot be said of any other agency both because of the $ spend of their customer base and/or because they don't have so many exclusive contributors. That's why.

I've joked with some exclusives in this forums about staying exclusive, asking them not to drop the crown for my own benefit. But really, a mass exodus of exclusives doesn't worry me. I'd say right off the bat you can cut the pool of formerly exclusive content heading to other agencies in half, as SS and many others simply won't accept it with the "too many on site" rejections. Really there are maybe 5-10 people I'd really rather not see go independent because their work is similar to mine, only better.

And they're not always who you'd think. Much as I respect sodafish's work, I have no worries about him ever going independent because he mostly does icons and icons are very very rarely being accepted at SS anymore.

As far as buyers go, I think it would be better for the industry to have buyers move away from istock and into companies that serve both buyers and contributors better. Some agencies have thrown around the term "Fair Trade", and I'd love to see buyers taking their business to companies that operate on a more fair royalty plan and with pricing that also benefits the buyer. Everyone can benefit from that.

In general, I think if you take istock out of the equation the microstock business is better and stronger because of it.

ridiculous. if iStock were to disappear, the focus would simply move to the next agency. and iStock is the only agency charging decent prices for images in microstock. be careful what you wish for or every one of your images will be sold for a penny before you know it.

thanks to all the site issues etc., my seasonal uploads have all been kicked in the ornaments by the sucky best match. by the time I managed to get them up...big surprise, they were buried

December sales suck

^ I think if you were to combine all these theories, divide them by 42...and add some eye of newt...we'd get a real answer. as in, the truth is obviously a combination of factors.

specifically @gostwyck...I'm not telling myself the drop in traffic is forum conversations. that's just silly. I think that is one factor that is being completely ignored here though. I do believe iStock has alienated buyers and contributors, without question. the question is, how does this alienation compare in numbers to past years? we will never have that information.

I agree with Jasmin, however, that silence is scary. it may as well confirm the fear since they're not quelling it with numbers. why not brag if you've got the numbers?

Alexa Traffic Rank

Istock

Global Rank = 325
US Rank    = 243


Huge drop at the end of 2010 (Nov-Dec) for istock in pageviews.
What cause the drop? Most here are hoping it's because buyers are
leaving. I would think if that was true we would see a different type
of chart.

exactly ^ alexa is often quoted around here with glee...but if we pretend their stats are accurate, the drop in traffic is probably due simply to the huge change in the forums. at one point I personally visited the iStock forums maybe 50 times a day give or take. now....maybe three or four times per week. and I'm not alone. pageviews mean nothing. contributors have all but stopped going to iStock's forums except for important stuff.

But i just bought my horse glasses

a poll is only as good as its sample group. a poll here is entertainment at best.

Aldra - your work is so unique and beautiful. I'm perplexed as to why you would choose to go independent since you're clearly successful in the exclusive model. but you know, I'm realizing some contributors just want out of iStock exclusivity. it's difficult not to feel owned these days, and I guess economics aren't always behind the decision. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand it. if iStock continue to make me money and give me new sales avenues, I won't drop exclusivity. I don't operate under any illusion that the other agencies are more fair, or nicer.

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2011, 14:01

... then there are contributors who upload the same stuff with different models over and over. this has to have a cannibalizing effect on their own sales. to some degree we all do this, but if you do this and you're a niche shooter...I think you're hurting yourself

Not true. If you're a niche shooter and you already 'own' certain niches ... then you'd better keep shooting them to make sure you still own them in a few years time (if you don't then you can be sure that others will). By doing so you're guarding your future income and also making it more difficult for others to grab some of your action. You also become better at shooting that subject and on each shoot can introduce variations to make sure you have as many bases covered as possible. Obviously your efforts in each subject need to be in proportion to the size of the market for them and you also need to keep expanding your range of subjects __ but you certainly don't abandon the stuff that generates your core earnings.

okay, I would agree with that. but I also think there is truth to the argument that repeating what has worked for you in the past (without deviation or consideration for current market conditions) ends up hurting you.