The prices have changed a bit for gold members.  Here is the breakdown..

Old   (1, 3, 5, 7,  8, 10)
New (1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12)

-Mat

Looks like the watermark is changing on Fotolia.  As of this post it appears about half of my images have the new and in my opinion much improved watermark. 

I am very happy to see this change.

Mat

Do images submitted for Editorial use to Shutterstock fall under the same payout structure as RF photos there? 

Thanks,

Mat

Something that turns me off in a major way is people no matter what industry they are in, be it photographers, entertainers, restaurateurs or whatever that take themselves too seriously and buy into their own b.s.  I've been taking myself less and less seriously lately and I have been in the process of changing out my business plan for my wedding/portrait site to reflect that. 

I have updated the opening slideshow on my site and I'm interested in some feedback if you have a minute. 

Thanks!

www.MatHaywardPhoto.com

I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here.  It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all.

So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia.  I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company.  I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock."  That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself.  Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice.

Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?) Photographer I earn a 54% commission on my sales.  54%!  Not only is the commission high, but I set my prices at $5 for XS and $40 for XL so I'm getting a higher commission on a higher dollar amount.  Every time I sell an XL file I get $21.60 added to my account.

As an Emerald Photographer I also have an Infinite Collection account to sell photos at even higher prices ($20 for XS, $200 for XL) with increased visibility and a 50% commission.

As far as I know, even non-exclusive commission rates have always been dramatically higher than those of I-Stock.  I always found it shocking that so many people were so defensive of IS and their 20% commissions...now? 

FT has an option for Image Exclusivity which lets contributors raise prices on individual photos.  Of course you get the higher commission if you are an exclusive photographer but you can still get the benefit of higher prices on exclusive images even if not.  This doesn't benefit me as I'm totally exclusive anyway but I thought I would mention it regardless.

I can upload as many images as I want as often as I want regardless of being exclusive or not.  I heard there is some sort of bulk upload option for new photographers as well but I'm not too sure about that.  When I dipped my toes in the I-stock water a few years ago I was puzzled and frustrated by the limits.  I would never get caught up...ever!  Not that I am now but being chronically behind is solely based on my procrastination through FT not on silly limitations they put on me.

FT pays commissions on promotional and free credits as though they were purchased.  I heard that I-Stock does not do this?  From what I understand they send out a lot of these promo credits to recruit buyers.

FT is the number one micro-stock site in Europe and is picking up speed around the world!  I have always believed that FT has had my best interest in mind as their successes equate to my success.  I would both love and hate it if all the top micro-stockers were at FT.  Love it because the quality of imagery would be so high that the lions share of the buyers would have to be there too.  Hate it because the competition would be so fierce I would really have to step up my game.  I'm willing to do it if you want to give it a shot come on over!

For what it's worth guys, I'm sorry that you are getting dumped on so rough at IS.  Especially those of you that are exclusive.  If any of you have any questions about FT I'm happy to answer them.  I'm not always a shameless cheerleader, I'll give straight answers to the best of my ability and if I don't know the answer I will try to find it for you.

Good luck all,

Mat Hayward 

I am very curious about this.  As many of you know, I'm 100% exclusive to Fotolia and love the 55% commission rate on the inflated prices of my images.  For me it makes sense.  For most of you, I know you disagree.  That's OK.  Reading the polls and threads about favorite sites has me very curious about the level at which we are all at.  I remember there was a large poll that many of us participated in but the numbers were skewed because it was an average system where the top couple of guys made a disproportionate amount compared to the average. 

Please take a moment and answer this survey honestly. 

Thanks!

Mat

Howdy Y'all,

I'm sure this has come up many times in the past here so I apologize if it's a redundant thread.

As some of you know, 99% of my stock images are exclusive to Fotolia.  This works out for me personally for several reasons.  I realize that I am in a very small minority in the general Microstock world because of this.  I am curious if most of you simply upload all of your images to as many sites as possible (or at least the big 6) to get as much exposure as possible to your photo's or if you spread your portfolio around a bit with a few exclusives here, a couple more over there.  Or if you upload a certain type of image at one site but not another. 

The reason I ask is that while I became instantly frustrated with I-stock the first and only time I tried to upload to them a long while back and I've read on numerous threads how frustrated people are in general with them, I can't help but think their plan to force exclusivity on photographers if it caught on with the other sites would ultimately benefit photographers.

The primary complaint from serious photographers regarding Microstock is dominantly that the photo's are too cheap.  The problem I see with this is that all of the agencies are in competition with each other not only for the same type of images, but for exactly the same images. 

If I'm a buyer and have the option of the same photo at multiple sites I am going to buy it where it is the cheapest.  Why wouldn't I?  If I am an agency, I see this and want to attract the most buyers so I'm going to sell my stuff the cheapest.

Continuing to saturate the market with the same photo's everywhere seems to be counterproductive to progress in the industry though not doing so is a potential sacrifice to personal finances.  As mentioned, I submit exclusively to Fotolia for multiple reasons and it pays off for me.  I make low 4 figures every month with the higher commission rate and I frankly don't have the time to be uploading to other sites (not to mention the fact that Shutterstock closed my account because I am a moderator at FT  )

So what do most of you do?  Upload all images to all sites, some images to some sites, exclusive to some sites?

Mat