iStock seems a tough nut to crack.  Most of my images tend to get ignored, but the few that do take off put up huge numbers. 

... Is the right answer.

Due to all the exclusive contributors (90%+ of the Top 100 are exclusive if I remember) the standards at IS are exremely high. You need to be producing images that are amongst the best in their subject for them to be successful ... but if you do then the rewards can be very worthwhile.

Unless the SAA makes a very public statement supporting microstock artists and acknowledging microstock as a viable and valid business model, I have to suggest that they be ignored. 

I'd very much agree with that. I think these organisations ultimately become self-serving entities more geared towards the interests of those that are running them than that of their members __ although of course they have to make a big play of pretending quite the opposite.

I'm guessing the folk running the SAA would welcome the sub's of a few thousand more photographers but would struggle to present that in a postive way to their members.

At some point in the relatively-near future there won't be micro, mid and macro divisions anyway __ we'll all just be 'stock' photographers. It's just a matter of time before the SAA come crawling on their fat bellies to welcome us with open arms. They'll be after our money just as soon as they can risk asking for it.

Remember the mortgage comes due on the 1st of the month.

You don't still have a mortgage do you? You must be buying Trump Towers or something.

Back to the question __ I love what I do. I don't need to motivate myself to do it anymore than I need to motivate myself to pour yet another cold beer, enjoy a nice meal or have sex. I'm actually off on holiday to the tropics again for a month in two day's time (I'll have my camera with me but no computer) and I'm already getting a bit frustrated at the prospect!

Quote from: gostwyck on February 28, 2009, 19:20

Quote from: michealo on February 28, 2009, 17:54

How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously

Where exactly?

Try a forum search ....

In other words you're just making it up

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place

Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.

No it isn't, profits are merely an accounting concept.

That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Profits are not a 'concept'. God is a concept. I can touch profits, stick them in my underpants and then go and spend them on shiny things. I can't do any of those things with 'concepts'.

To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.

Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.

Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?
I am not trying to change an equation in anyones favour, but if you must know increase in book value

What? There you go on about unrealised, conceptual 'value' again.

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".

And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....

With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?
Well having 16 distributers with different price points and strengths in different geographical regions would seem to be more resilient than depending on one agency.
And even if photographer Y has 3 times the cost per image created of photographer S, if it is sold through 16 channels I would wager that the more money is made.....
[/color]

At last we have something we can agree on. Being exclusive is a sure-fire way of maximising risk and minimising 'profit' __ the real stuff you can spend on wine, women and further investments.

... but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....

And not being dependent on one outsourcing supplier is pretty savvy

How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?

Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business. To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.

I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king". Yuri's preoccupation with being 'No1 Microstocker' comes to mind.

Mine's a black one.

What exactly is the point of this 'poll'? What are you hoping to 'discover' __  that some people use different cameras to others? Just a guess ... probably.

I know from when I turned Bronze and Silver, there was a noticeable jump in downloads - not being exclusive, this obviously wasn't due to an increased royalty percentage.

While its impossible to know what the best match is factoring in at any particular time, my guess would be that ranking is a significant factor.

I'm certain that this is not the case. I've monitored the performance of quite a few portfolios that have passed ranking points without ever seeing a difference.

You could of course use multimedia.de's excellent chart to see the effect 'live' as it were, observing the performance of other contributors who have recently passed Gold in comparison to those who have yet to do so. If Holgs theory is correct you should see a marked difference in the 30-day % gain/loss between each group. (NB: I've checked and there isn't).

Interesting & useful stuff there John. Thanks for the info.

I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on.  You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing.  And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.

Really? Have you tried uploading several thousand images to several different agencies as quickly as possible? Pretty painful I would think.

Commission increases with ranking/sales at SS, DT and FT and images also have to 'earn' their search-order placement too __ and that would make a huge difference. I'm absolutely certain that if I were to go exclusive, change my mind a few months later, and then become independent again it would absolutely crucify my earnings for months, probably years, afterwards.

... and I have been reconsidering it every few months since then.

For me this is the crux of the matter. Exclusives always seem to have this 'buyer's remorse' gnawing away inside themselves on whether they have made the right decision or not. Independents on the other hand, at least all the ones I know (and that's quite a few), are happy and confident that they are much better off remaining so. We only have to visit the IS forums and read the shrieks of indignation everytime there's a best match-change to confirm our thoughts.

Yes, it is a little more work ... but then you also have more fun, make more money and have a much more stable income. It never fails to surprise me how if one agency has a bad month or two the slack is invariably picked up by a couple of others. We all like getting EL's too and you have many more chances with your images available to different buyers.

As has been said before IS's upload system takes about the same amount of time and trouble as uploading to the next biggest 4 or 5 agencies together. I don't see any truth in the suggestion that you need different keywords for each agency (other than IS with all those phrases, etc).

Signing up for exclusivity is like assuming that the future is already cast and the natural order of each agency's market share is permanently written. This of course is nonsense as stock photography (all of it, not just the 'micro' bit) continues to change and develop on a monthly basis. I have no idea which will be the biggest and best agencies in 5, 10 or more years from now (and that's the timescale I'm thinking in terms of) and neither does anyone else. It might even be an agency that has yet to be launched.

As an independent contributor I am delighted everytime someone signs up for exclusivity but I simply don't understand why they do so. Everytime that they upload a new 'exclusive' image it makes it more difficult for them to break the habit though. Good.

Since when does being emotional/passionate about something = lacking credibility?

A hypothetical situation might be when you say you are going to do/not-do something (like participate in the IS forum for example) and then continue to do the opposite __ several times over whilst blaming everyone else for your actions.

This is a very refreshing change. An agency actually admitting their mistake, making full disclosure of the circumstances and then adequately compensating those who lost out. Well done StockXpert.