Have you considered how much money 45000 will give you in return if you invest it wisely? Money like that can be invested (carefully of course) and bring a significant return in the next 5 years.

Or how many image production could you finance with this amount of money? How much would those images earn you?

I'd take it!

You never know if i  a year from now you still get an offer like that. The value of images are dropping fast, even if your images are very unique.

"Trust me most of those markets are already 'open'. Courtesy of Shutterstock's map, showing where your latest sales took place, I'm continually surprised how many of my sales occur in India, the Middle East and in South America."

I�d love to have a map like that on istock :-(. That must be very helpful in targeting customers.

"From my time in the Far East I would say we're unlikely to ever crack the market there. For starters even microstock prices would be considered expensive in most of the Far East."

Yes, but companies are the end customer, not the single user. Our images maybe to expensive YET for the small bakery, but not for any business in the growing Middle class. My own background is from the Middle east, not Asia and I am seeing a huge growth in Middle Class businesses. But to become fully involved in these markets you need staff on the ground and a local office. You can�t run it by remote from Canada. As for cheaper content - istock is en route to push several agencies with different price points. I wouldn�t be surprised if the cheaper agencies are being created with the emerging markets in mind.

 "Judging by the advertising you see they also have a preference for 'idealized' images that is simply off the scale compared to what we produce __ for example everyone has been 'whitened' to the point of being almost translucent. My guess is that their needs will eventually be met by their own agencies."

I don�t think it would difficult for microstockers to adapt to a new market. Besides, there will obviously many new artists joining from these markets who already know how to create that "look". And then we all copy them :-)

They just have to train the inspectors to accept overprocessed content...again, something JJ indicated when he said that some of their agencies would accept content at smaller sizes, even if there were too many artifacts for the normal istock collection.

The majority of sales would probably go to the local artists, nothing wrong with that. Just like US photographers will be best in creating "US style smiling" images.

"Interesting how dropping sales means new markets opening up to some "

Dropping sales mean that I worry that the sales and marketing team is not pushing hard enough for new customers. Most photographers seem to worry about dilution or Best Match. I am mostly interested in growth.

Dilution doesn�t worry me. The majority of images added have nothing to do with my own little subject niche. I don�t care how many sunsets or flowers or business images are being added every week. I only look at my own subjects. And the number of people creating high quality content is very small.

I think the concerns of Yuri who runs a large business with a lot of staff is very different from those of individual contributors. For us it is easier to carve out a niche specializing in "children and their pets ", "easy recipes for camping" or any other subject we choose.

The more specialized, the less competition you have.

But you still need the growth in customers. Maybe it is time to do more of our own advertising - keep active blogs about our favorite subject, become more active in non stock forums to interact with the community of potential buyers.

For Yuri this could mean more direct interaction with business customers, direct sales from his website, selling image Cd�s at trade shows or whatever else the agencies themselves do to attract buyers. Maybe even get a few exclusive contracts with companies so they only buy from him directly.  Part of the website could be hidden from public view so all of us lurkers can�t copy him. Or just hide "exclusive" images during the first 6 months...whatever...

But maybe he is already doing that.

"And this is the only business where I've seen people helping their potential competitors getting on board.   Honestly, I'll never understand it!"

Because the economics of microstock used to be based on producing images very, very cheaply.

You share costs for models or model for free for each other, you share locations with each other for free, you train each other with software and gear without charging each other, you do free advertising and evangelizing for your favorite agency without charging them for the time...this way microstockers can produce images much, much  cheaper than traditional macro artists and therefore our images can be offered at much lower prices on the market. And you also got a huge variety of images from all kinds of people. It is a lot easier for a restaurant chef, a medical doctor, a housewife, a gardener etc... to learn about photography and then go on create content that is typical for his area of expertise than it is for photographers to learn about all kinds of different subjects and create industry specific content. In the beginning many microstockers were amateurs in photography but usually experts in many other fields. The photographers benefitted from their unique knowledge or locations.

The low price of the images then made it possible to sell to the masses, similar to the software apps in the itunes store that sell for 2.99 instead of 30 or 300 dollars. Cheap production, cheap marketing, high volume sales.

The concept of sharing is the economic basis of the success of microstock and all social network based advertising and commerce.

Boys! Is the spitting competition next?? (bangs head on table...)

FWIW I am having a really good week on istock and it isn�t the xmas files that are beginning to sell. My sales are all over with quite a few first time downloads for very, very old files?

Could it be that the price slider is helping customers discover older (cheaper) files on istock and customers are coming back because they can finally find files that fit their budget (and the summer holidays are over...I know)

I usually search photos only. so setting for the top two price options gives me only v/a results.

What a relief!

Well, this will be istock�s challenge: build a site that is even one third as successful as Shutterstock. It will take very passionate, dedicated people to build it, they can�t do it by remote.

Money for advertising is necessary but it isn�t everything. Brainpower to come up with innovative ideas and passion to drive you forwards are just as important.

Because I believe that they haven�t really got the program going (advertising wise). I am expecting a lot more money, otherwise it will never be a competitor for Shutterstock.

If it doesn�t bring in a decent return in 2 years, I may pull it, I don�t know. But they have to push the site first and I don�t think they are. I�ve been following the traffic stats for thinkstock and photos.com compared to many smaller sites mentioned here. And both sites have very little traffic. They will need to reach a level of at least dreamstime before I will see any serious returns.

Personally, I think they had a lot more IT problems than anticipated and JJ keeps talking about a whole new interface for all of istock/getty. I really would like to see what that looks like follow how it works 18 months, before I make any decisions. So - another 6 months, until they are ready (my guess), 18 months to build a track record.

The returns on the pp vary greatly, as you know. I haven�t uploaded a lot of files, so these are all old files (older than 2 years).

If I felt that it was hurting my portfolio on istock, I wouldn�t leave the files there, but I am really not seeing that.

Here is the traffic for thinkstock:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thinkstock.com/

Looks like a pretty dead site to me. photos.com has nearly 40 times more traffic. But both are insignificant compared to istock.

So how much money can you expect from a site like that?

Here is my take as an exclusive:

1: I am exclusive because I save a lot of time focussing on one agency only.

My acceptance rate is over 90% so I don�t have to worry about selling rejected files elsewhere. My files are being sold by several agencies within the Gettyverse. I also now have a house contract with gettyimages directly. I doubt I would have been able to get in there without istock. So I also have an additional portfolio on Getty that Getty seems to license everywhere - I now even have images on Corbis (although I am upset that my name is missing in the credits).

istock has always, always paid me on time since I started uploading in 2005. I never, ever, ever had to run after my money. I don�t take that for granted.

Legal protection: because I am exclusive to istock/getty I just contact contributor relations if I see that one of my images was abused. For instance there were two cases where someone sold my image as his own on another agency. I just contacted istock and within 24hours my image was removed. They won�t sue for damages because the lawyers are more expensive than the returns, but my image was gone. I didn�t have to lift a finger.

istock Lypses and exclusive workshops.

I�ve learnt a lot on those and think these events are great for encouraging community interaction.

RC system:

If I look at my credits/ download ratio I�ve calculated that I need about 3400 downloads a year to remain at 35% (I see no problem with that). I would need around 12600 Dl/year to get back to 40%. Considering that I have hardly uploaded in the last two years (for other reasons, not stock related) the numbers look reasonable especially if there is enough growth on istock itself. If I could get back to shooting 150 images a month for 18 months I am sure I would have a real chance of getting back to 40%.

But of course: I would have very much preferred to remain at my diamond level.

I would need a lot less downloads if I had more Vetta or even a single Agency file. But I do "normal" stock, not art, so I have very few Vetta files.

2: PP programm

I have over 2700 images in the PP programm which nets me between 160 - 300 Dollars a month. Although I dropped a level in Royalties with the new RC system, the partner program is making up the difference. In the beginning I only opted in slow sellers or very old files, but in time my confidence grew and now most files are in PP. I don�t have the impression that my downloads at istock are affected, many bestsellers in PP are not bestsellers on istock.

3: can�t comment on the other sub sites

4: In the past there where many occasions when istock introduced a change and the contributors opposed it bitterly - torches and pitchforks and flames all over the forums when the prices where doubled from 50 cents to 1 Dollar...

But in the past, in many cases, istock was right and we actually made more money.

This time it is different, the new RC system lowered royalties for many, then other additional revenues were lowered or removed completely. And then the communication was nowhere near what istockers were used to.

I think the biggest problem is low sales. If we all saw a big growth in sales and money, the mood would be different.

The independents are also reporting that Shutterstock has overtaken istock as the biggest earner which in return frustrates also a lot of exclusives who are used to seeing their agency as No1.

With the new ASA it is obvious, that istock will be moving content around even more sites. So going exclusive now really means going exclsuive with the whole Getty universe of agencies and partners.

In the end it is a personal decision, if you feel comfortable working with one very large agency and their partners or if you prefer independence and maybe also want to sell from your own website. It also depends what other streams of income you have.

Mirroring is good. They can mirror all they want, as long as my portfolio on istock stays the way it is.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=32#post6471028

I am not really surprised by the new ASA. It�s been obvious since the change of the Getty agreement that they want to have the flexibility to move content between their different agencies. As long as the content is mirrored and my main istock portfolio stays under my control, I have no problem with that. I am anyway opted into EL and the partner program.

The one thing I really welcome is that all video content will be mirrored on getty, even if it is just a clip of ducks in the park. I know many photographers who are exploring video and are not thinking of going exclusive, because there was no additional incentive for exclusive mixed media artists. Now at least we get two sales channels, so even if I never produce video in volume I can stay exclusive with both photo and video and hopefully generate enough income.

That so many photographers are thinking of signing up with pond5 for video, was worrying me a lot, because customers will obviously not just buy video there, but also pictures.

I hope they will mirror more content (illustrations, flash...) to encourage mixed media artists to stay fully exclusive.

Obviously I am still upset that our copyright isn�t being attributed properly in the gettyverse. my images are showing up on Corbis under strange names. They said it is on their radar and I hope it will be adressed as soon as this new upload system that JJ keeps talking about is complete.

It sounds like they want to create a huge Gettyecosystem, so that as a contributor my images will become part of an endless image machine that keeps moving content around.

Will I feel comfortable with that? Well, as an exclusive I appreciate that I only have to deal with one upload process and one payment system. I also wonder if the new gettyverse will be so different to what the independents experience who deal with many agencies,i.e. I do expect there to be problems with late payments from some agents, some image transfers getting stuck etc...if you have so many different parties involved it will not be perfect.

I think those who have a reason to be most worried are the traditional Getty photographers. Whenever Getty comes out with a creative brief, they no longer have to wait for the few photographers interested to shoot something for them - they can dive right into the pool of all 120 000 artists and come up with very specialized, regional, fresh content. That is why they also want to be able to move independet content "upstream" if necessary.

This will be great for the customers, getty really will be a one stop shop and probably can fullfill most image needs globally, including editorial.

As contributors I suppose we have to come to terms with this vision.

Either you become independent and supply only those agencies you feel you can "bond with" or fit whatever criteria you choose plus maybe have your own store, you can differentiate between Rf and RM, giving higher quality RM to your preferred agencies and RF to everyone, or you can sign up to be exclusive with the universe of Getty.

For me it will be a combination of the Gettyverse and other freelance work, maybe even something not photography related. It will still be a much better life than "traditional business".

Thank you for sharing, that was interesting.

So - obviously, "we" are for still sale...

The part I really don�t understand - he says himself the market for images has grown immensly, billions of images are needed. And yet - both getty and istock are very restrictive. getty dislikes similars, istock has severe upload restrictions for non exclusive content. And all the emphasis on V/A makes it look like they want to become even more specialized.Plus all the discouragement of artists, especially mixed media artists.

If the image market and needs have grown so much (and I fully agree) - where is the growth??

And why not encourage the artists to work together to produce more content? Why not encourage the photographers to do video with every shoot they plan and encourage the videographers to take pictures with every set??

Strange.

I�ll run my own test when they hit the store. I don�t think dpreview develops their RAW files with stock photography in mind.

The small Nex5 gives excellent files. I hope the new sensor is even better.

But we will see.