Quote from: Freezingpictures on June 21, 2007, 01:23

Conclusion: for the majority of photographers it is not worthy if you just look at the income to turn exclusive at the bronze level.

I don't think your sample size was big enough to draw a conclusion that it is not worth it.

I think what he is saying  is     of those non-exclusives that took the poll, that was the feeling,  that it is not worth it..      I don't think he was implying all photographers in general...
       I'm not sure how IS works, but on most other sites,  you just make the decision and click the box and become exclusive.  It's that simple.  The point is, why are so many not clicking that box?  Because, they don't think it's worth it..
      At this stage in my life... I'd lose money being exclusive anywhere. I'm sure there are advantages being exclusive too. It's sure a lot less work uploading to one site instead of a couple dozen.
      But to each his own.. everyone has to make their own decision about that matter.
        peace. -tom
 

Freezing..    Thank you! Interesting data.  Appreciate your time and effort!
 -tom

Anyone else getting  'unexpected'  rejections from LO recently?

Paulo,

I would try to contact StockXpert support.  To me, they're a good site (apart from some silly rejections as exemplified here).  It's hard to image why they reject your work.

Regards,
Adelaide

I concur. I should have mentioned that myself.  I did have a couple problems when I first went to StockXpert... and contacting support worked out for me too.  Give it a shot.

pauloresende -  dude, you may not be doing anything wrong.  In fact,  if the same pix are on all those other sites, obviously you're doing everything right in their eyes (or the eyes of their  reveiwers) . There's nothing wrong with them there.
      It's just the way it is in this business. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here at MSG that hasn't had photo's that they sell by the dozens, even hundreds, that weren't rejected somewhere for some reason.  I know I have.
      Don't take it personal, bro. It's no biggie!

 I have stuff published in magazines that stocks shot down as not good enough to sell to those very same folks. I have a picture I personally sold last week, that is being used in a national ad campaign that  SS and  IS shot down as  'poor focus'  or  'harsh lighting' & 'blown highlights' a few weeks ago.  So much for those reviews.
 I just laugh it off.
      It's a perfect example.  I made a heck-of-alot more selling it myself than I would have gotten from both of them. A LOT more.  And... I'm willing to bet there are plenty of photogs right here on MSG that can say the same thing.  It's sure not unique to me.

      Sometimes there is no sense in it.  Sometimes there is.  However, it is always smart to consider why they shot it down.  Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't.   Sometimes you learn a thing or two, other times, you sit back, shake your head and pop open another beer. It's just like dbvirago said,  sometimes you just get a lame reviewer.
There's good cops, bad cops... good doctors, bad doctors,  good reviewers, and ... you guessed it.

       Photos are like nachos, you can always make more.  Chill out, and welcome to the club!     LOL    Peace!   -tom

modify:  i looked at your linked stuff above. Nice work, I guess StockXpert just doesn't need them.  I think  that's the biggest rejection reason I personally get from StockXpert.  If they don't want to sell them, somebody else will.  LOL

yeah, my rejection rate at DT has gone up a bit recently....  rejection doesn't bother me at all...        but, I have to say, a couple of the recent ones did surprise me....  I figure if I can get it on SS and IS... I could get it up anywhere... but... that theory got shot to heck.
     On the other hand,  I seem to be selling quite a bit of  "old"  stuff on DT. Things I posted months ago that never sold, are selling now?  Any clue? or just coincidence?  -tom

LOL....  I'm pretty sure KiwiRob was kidding!

I've got a question for the experts out there.  My landscape work is being used on an ongoing basis by a magazine publisher in the northeast U.S.
Here's my dumb question.   
      If I were exclusive to any microstock agency,  would I be able to sell my own pictures I had uploaded on their site without violating an agreeement with that microsite?  I wouldn't be able to sell them on any other micro agency,  would I even be able to sell them on my own?
      yeah, I really have and I.Q. of  148,  but this one baffles me.  I'm sure the answer is simple and I'll feel stupid.... but ... go ahead and let me have it.             LOL -tom

My biggest reason for not going exclusive is that rejected images get absolutely no chance of selling.

FP - filled out the non.

Solid point, Maco!!  You can't argue with that.  I've got pix that  IS rejected that have sold literally hundreds of times with other outfits. Why would I squelch those sales? 
    Let me be clear,  I'm a newbie with IS, and I'm now running around 75-80% acceptance, which I am happy with there... but I only send them what already sells well on SS & StockXpert.  So those 20-25% they reject would be useless if I were exclusive.....   being non-exclusive,  I'm making nice money on them.
      No doubt there are many good reasons to be exclusive as well. Foremost, it sure would seem to be a lot less work.    -tom

Perhaps the first reviewer was blinded by the beauty of your submitted pictures and could not find the keyboard to approve the pictures. After a certain period of inactivity in the review cue they reverted back into the general line.

Ha Ha HA Ha . . .  (PS. I am not making fun of you or your pictures. If only you could see the tear on my face regarding the performance of DT).

LOL.....Yeah, that's what happened I'm sure, RMR!!  LOL

I don't know why I even asked, there probably isn't a logical explanation anyway.  Sometimes I think these outfits ( and not only DT)  are on auto-pilot.  Who can figure?   Right now, LO is taking forever to review me, on the other hand,  StockXpert last night was reviewing them as fast as I could keyword them.  When I finished the second pic the first was already reviewed, and so went the batch. SS has been consistently reviewing me in less than 24 hours.  Lately, DT has been taking longer than IS, where I am still limited to 15 every, whatever it is.
           All part of playing in the game I suppose.  LOL   

-tom

removed comment ... t

There's probably a thread for this, but I didn't find it in a quick search... so I'll ask it here anyway.
    I occassionally do a google search on myself or on a keyword imbedded in one of my pix somewhere on a stock site.  Usually I can get a couple, few dozen of my pictures come up in the images section on the first several pages of Google.  LO, IS, FT, SS and others...  the majority of them are always IS and LO. 
    Under the LO hits,  my pictures were displayed, but when I clicked on some to establish a link,  ...........it went to some other photogs portfolio. I'd estimante  that about  40% of them went to another's pix even though mine was displayed.

          Is this to be expected?  I'm not a mastermind of the internet.  Any comments would be apprecitated.     -tom

Superb!!!