I had some long and bitter argument with Achilles in emails when they started that stupid 'too many similars' policy. We couldn't agree so I stoped uploading to DT for a long time. I was angry and to tell you the truth I still don't like them. On the other hand, name me any other owner/CEO I could have discuss my problems in person?

After closing this month I took a look at the long-term graphs. I saw some interesting tendecies (during the last 3 years):

1. Number of downloads are increasing at every agencies except IS where it is going to be less and less every month.
2. 3 years ago the income at IS was 1,5 times higher then SS or FTL, now it less then the half of FTL and the third of SS.
3. 3 years ago RPI at IS was 3 times bigger then SS or FTL now they are nearly the same (even if added like 10+k images to SS and FTL and only 2K to IS) I predict IS will lose its throne in PRI very soon.
4. In RPD FTL pesistently leads during the whole 3 years long period, IS follows closely and SS is way behind.

Any oppinion? Similar experiences or different?

I observe the same tendencie every months. IS is going down while FT and SS is going up. If I compare it to Jan 2010 my overall income is +50% higher while my IS income is down by 15%. DT is very slowly growing but I can't check the recent  statistics since their site is down all day.

I see the point in that I am promoting their product statement... in theory it works but legaly it's not working. Because it must be their decision to allow that kind of advertising not your... the prop release is a good way to make it legal

Anyway, I am sure you guys already realized that most of the stock photos and movies are promoting Apple products. Even if the logos are cloned off we all now it is Apple and I do not hear it very often that Apple would have sued anyone for this. For me it means it is ok for them. And it is easy to understand why. Someone told me once that if a historian from the future would like to describe our century by using stockphotos as his source would say that everyone in this century were very happy and everyone used apple computers. It's a funny observation.

I have plenty of images in this subject - stuffed animals and toys. I do have the property release from the manufacturer what I always attach when a toy is visible on the photo. Even though IS is having a tendency to reject these images because inspectors were trained on that way and many times they do not expect and realize a property release is attached. I told this to warn you, there is no chance on IS to get your images accepted without a proper property release. If other sites accept them they (and you) take a risk.

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2011, 14:58

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 01, 2011, 11:08
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.

They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale.  Since the price change last year, non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission.  I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.

You got the point. Since I am a non-ex I completely forgot that. Anyway, you have eliminated the only reason what made their decision reasonable in my eyes.

There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.
But there is a long term effect and it can hit back to IS. Non-exs are having very tight upload limits compared to other places so the content on the other sites are growing more and becoming more fresh and unique. IS could compensate it with the exclusive imagery but they need a lot of top exclusives for that.
There are two factors where IS can beat the competition: lot of exclusive images and notoriety. The second one is slightly melting away so they really shouldn't lose form the fist one. I all other factors (prize, better site, more images... etc) the competition is already more attractive for the buyers.

BaldricksTrousers: Your description is perfect. This is exactly how I think and feel. I am very discouraged.
I was disappointed by their 20% commission  - which was already the lowest in the industry - but they made me enough money compared to the other agencies and they showed me a perspective so I was motivated. Since then the other agencies were growing big while my downloads were going down at IS. SS and FTL are already way ahead of IS - once they were way behind. I had more downloads on IS in 2008 then I have this year !!! despite of the growing size of my portfolio.
But my main reason for not uploading is not the 5% cut but the fact that uploading is a waste of time, new uploads - at least my new uploads - are not selling. If a new image gets 10 downloads during its first 6 months I must be be happy now... once you could reach that in a few days, or even on a single day.
I still have a reasonable number of yearly downloads because I have some 3-4 years old bestsellers and they are still selling, But I am unable to improve my situation at IS. I am unable to move ahead, moreover I am slowly sliding backwards and I am not able to do anything against it.

Quote from: aeonf on December 31, 2010, 22:24

Quote from: NitorPhoto on December 31, 2010, 22:21

Quote from: aeonf on December 31, 2010, 21:52

Quote from: NitorPhoto on December 31, 2010, 21:41
I am a non-ex. I leaped the limit for 19% on 27th of Dec... huh, that was close!
I am losing 1% which is a 5% cut. Since new uploads are not selling, IS has fallen back to the last position in my uploading queue. It means I do not upload there too many new images anymore. They do not care, I do not care.... status quo.

Yes, this is why they are rewarding me with a 5% cut

Very respectfull figuers!

Have you considerd going exclusive ?

I did... two or three years ago. I was very close to it, already made my decision but had to wait until some other contracts do expire. By the time they finally expired IS wasn't so appetizing anymore. Now I am very happy I didn't. IS is falling badly while other agencies are rising significantly... at least for me. Being IS ex is not even an option anymore.

Quote from: aeonf on December 31, 2010, 21:52

Quote from: NitorPhoto on December 31, 2010, 21:41
I am a non-ex. I leaped the limit for 19% on 27th of Dec... huh, that was close!
I am losing 1% which is a 5% cut. Since new uploads are not selling, IS has fallen back to the last position in my uploading queue. It means I do not upload there too many new images anymore. They do not care, I do not care.... status quo.

Yes, this is why they are rewarding me with a 5% cut

Very respectfull figuers!

I am a non-ex. I leaped the limit for 19% on 27th of Dec... huh, that was close!
I am losing 1% which is a 5% cut. Since new uploads are not selling, IS has fallen back to the last position in my uploading queue. It means I do not upload there too many new images anymore. They do not care, I do not care.... status quo.

I find it very cool, especially the map. No, it's not really usefull but definitely interesting, it's a nice toy. I respect that SS still can be innovative. And there is one thing I respect even more: they are an agency who is still trying to satisfy their contributors. Other agencies do not care how unfriendly, buggy and difficult is their upload page and their contributor site. Other agencies are making your/our life more and more difficult every year.  But look at SS they are trying to give something to us, to contributors not to the buyers!

Quote from: Elenathewise on October 03, 2010, 05:45
Or maybe I pissed off someone on SS and they started to push down my images in search results and you pissed off someone on IS?   :-) Anyhow, I can not find any rational explanation:)

Yes Elena, this something what comes into my mind many times. Search engine placement, that can be the most probable reason for such discrepancies.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your stats, I need every incentives for not to stop new uploads to IS.

Quote from: aeonf on October 02, 2010, 00:05
I can tell you I took a peak at someones port (diamond exclusive) and he DIDNT add any photos for over a year and he sees a growth from year to year.

Yes, IS is pretty good in staying on the level without new uploads. This is their strongest side. But also this is where my problem lies. Only old files are selling. My port is nearly unsensible for new uploads. Only my old images are selling, this is why my downloads are not increasing or slightly decreasing even if I add a lot of new/better files. That might be different for exclusives... but I talked to same and took a look at some ports... fery few uploads on the recent pages. This is where the other two agencies are different. While they are still selling the old bestsellers they are also selling the better and updated new uploads as well. Please take a look at the graph I attached. Something happened around the end of 2009: the IS curves started to go down while the others are extremly turning upwards. 
Do not misunderstand me, I am not here to blame IS but to understand and hear opposing voices. I am losing my faith in IS but I want it back

Quote from: aeonf on October 01, 2010, 22:50
Don't mix up wishfull thinking with statistcs. you are a single case from over 35K contributors.
And don't forget that for exclusives the picture might be completly different.

Maybe you are right. But I am around the 80th position in all time total downloads according to istockcharts and I am still climbing in positions. Not too many independents are listed before me. So I do not have a reason to think my files are not suitable for istock.

Every months in a year is different so it is pretty difficult to compare them to each other and make a judgement of how your things are progressing. But I like to compare the same month of consecutive years - from this you can see how your microstock business goes. There is a trend I realized about a year ago: IS is falling... well... other agencies are growing while IS doesn't or slightly even decreasing. There is the graph that tells you everything.



I am steadily uploading to each of these sites and my portfolio is growing and growing. SS and FTL is clearly rewarding it, but on IS I am having less downloads then two years ago even if I doubled or quadrupled my portfolio. This is interesting... worrying... well, I know IS doesn't care. What is bad. I liked them.

I am sure I am one of their best selling photographers, having 10k+ images online, but I am still getting flawless images rejected because of poor lighting or bad focus... or my personal favourite the image is not good for stock. Funny, I would be happy to take a look at the portfolio of that reviewer But I don't have to because I can see what a heap of junk they accept every single day.

Anyway, the majority of the Shutterstock reviewers are good and well trained. But they definitely have some very untrained guys... I mean untrained in photography at all. When you meet these guys you can decide how to react: be angy or laugh. When I get that kind of rejections, especially  when it is not just one image but let's say half of the batch I am usually getting very angry first. Secondly I am always thinking on to write an email to support (I never did) because finally I laugh on it and move on.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 21:48

Quote from: NitorPhoto on September 09, 2010, 21:38
Their business modell is not working - they said it - because the royalty percentage of exclusives is contantly raising and it is too much for them now. I accept cuz I see why is it happening. So what they do? They cut the royalty of the independents even below the base level? Is this fair?

Of course it's not fair. Twenty effing percent is grossly 'unfair' as it is. Why do you 'accept' them stating that their business model is not working? That is obviously utter bollocks too. The only thing that is 'unsustainable' is the insatable greed of Istock's management.

If you let them get away with this one then it'll just get even worse next year ... and so on.

Well, what I say might sound a bit dispassionate... but I belive it is true.
They know their business better. I accept what they say because it sounds logical. I can understand why do they want to change the current royalty stucture and I agee the direction they have choosen. I just don't like the numbers they attached to it. And I tell you why... because I don't mind/buy what a company tells. As I don't mind how they calculate my royalty... I do not mind if they make a lot more money on my images as I do. This is how the world goes. But there is one thing I do care, because it is the only real thing: how much income my whole portfolio is making for me in a months with that given agency. All the rest are just reasoning and complications.
I am worried cuz I think my income will be lower if they lower my royalty percentage. Yes, they will lower it for sure cuz there is no chance I'll reach that 1,4mil credits. But who does?
Currently all the other agencies are going up while IS is going down when I look at my monthly figures (from the very 1st place they felt back to the 3rd) and this is not a good sign together with a royalty decrease.

Their business modell is not working - they said it - because the royalty percentage of exclusives is contantly raising and it is too much for them now. I accept cuz I see why is it happening. So what they do? They cut the royalty of the independents even below the base level? Is this fair?

Let's be constructive! There are some points in the new concept I do like. Measuring the seriousness of contributors according their current annual performance is not such a bad idea. What I dislike are the actual numbers. They took what Yuri can produce (and he alone) and made it as a starting point, I mean as the highest limit. I do not mind if they give him extra, no doubt he is the most serious player in the league, so give him more. But please open the 20% (independents) club for some mortals as well. Place this limit to somewhere around 60-100k, then most serious players can jump it and secure their current income. I suggest that IS should shift this whole limit-structure with one or two steps backwards compared to the annoucment - then I could take side with them.

As an example: I am on the brink of being qualified for that 150k limit club. Last year I passed it, this year I have a chance but it's not sure yet - I'll be close that's for sure. And who am I? I am a bit late starter compared to the real IS veterans but I am already somewere around the 80th position in overall number of downloads. That's cool, we can say I am doing well and I feel myself pretty serious. It seems I am in their first 10 most successful indenpendents (if not then definitely within the first 15) but still I have no chance to keep my income and have a chance to miss even the second group? I think this is disproportionate.

I have very bad experiences with Veer. I am getting plenty of images rejected with the reason of "Unfortunately, we cannot accept this image as it is the second time it has been submitted with poor keywords." Does anyone know what is this? I never submit an image twice so I don't know what they are talking about.
I have 450 images online and 174 rejected with reasons like this and with the reaon of similarity (they are not similars). While I have zero downloads, ZERO at all. I give it up, waste of time.

My one months earning on Thinkstock is about the half of what I earn on SS... on a single day. This is NOT promising. I don't mind if they sell images for cents while they sell them in volumes - like SS does.
Ok, I know they just have started. I give them another 6 months to significantly raise the monthly income. I they will not I'll remove my portfolio.

What if the reason behind these very hectic delays is the pretty common credit card fraud. You request for payment. After a week (or the usual time) they check who bought your images. When there is a new/unknown volume buyer on your list they wait an additional 2-3 weeks before they pay your commission. Just a theory.

I had several issues with their webdav gate as well. Mostly speed problems. I switched to the BitKinex client (look for it in google) and all problems gone.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 06, 2010, 21:03
You'd be far better off placing your trust in the track record of the well-proven contributor rather than the judgement of some junior editor who may well have never produced a successful stock image in their life.

If I would have to tell in one single sentence what is my biggest problem with all of the microstock sites I would quote this. This sentence above is a diamond!