http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/msg161663/#msg161663

Does this mean you think I'm on some sort of magic list? How I wish that was true.
I'm sorry if what I wrote inferred anything like that - I merely wanted to say that my experience at iStock is not what gostwyck thinks it is.

ThinkStock is only cheap if you're a volume buyer. For the casual buyer, who just wants a few images per week for their blog, neither ThinkStock nor iStock meet that need anymore.

I think the vast majority of bloggers prefer to use images for free, and in that regard no microstock agency can ever meet their needs - only Flickr can. And does.

And you have never said anything derogatory about non-exclusives?  You do edit some of your posts quickly but if you type something derogatory and press the post button, some of us will see it.  Shame I deleted the quote in my reply.

I'm sorry you saw what you saw, sharpshot, but apart from that I challenge you to go through my 1800+ posts here to find anything inflammatory or derogatory. I'm not saying I'm an angel or that I have a holier-than-thou attitude: Sure, I get ticked off sometimes, and sometimes it gets the better of me and I write stuff I shouldn't - but for the most part I come to my senses and either don't post it or delete my post very quickly. It's not a huge jump to say this common to a lot of people.

As far as being exclusive or nonexclusive goes, I couldn't really care less about how most people make their money. There are a few people here I've spoken to privately whom I think would gain significantly if they made the jump, but that's about it. That being said, it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.


Oh, and thank you for editing your reply to my deleted post - your politeness and manners are much appreciated!

...
And before someone tries to paint me as an Istock fanboy, I'm not. Just presenting facts from my direct exerperience. I said a while ago I wouldn't be surprised if a performance model got rolled out and here it is.

Heh, I'm in the same boat. I was an independent longer than I've been an exclusive, but despite that I seem to get jumped on when I say anything even remotely positive about iStock. Given that there aren't too many people in this situation, and even fewer making a living from it, I'd like to think our experiences are worthy of more than derision. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

If earnings have increased, while downloads and commissions have decreased, the prices must have gone up a fair whack.  What percentage increase are we talking about and over period of time?

I guess it's just me, but when someone asks this sort of very basic question it makes me totally disregard any opinion they might have about microstock in general, and iStock in particular. How can you have an informed opinion when you don't even know the basic facts? Given some of the things you've said, pseudonymous, I'm surprised to be the only one to call you out on this. Although it's obvious you're not here for this reason, right now I think you should be doing more reading than writing.

...
Incorrect, I've been deleting based on my own cataloging system as I sort out what is going where next month.

Okay, my bad then - sorry.

As an independent you still might want to check up on product mix, though - you might find it more profitable to list some images exlcusively at DT/FT than have everything scattered everywhere. But then again, maybe the word "exclusive" isn't in your vocabulary anymore.

funny because i average about 9.5, (approx 40 cents per credit) so it varies per person - and i was never going to get to diamond level 40% anyways under the previously new cannister changes as they put that well out of reach, so being grandfathered to gold was my aim.  And seeing as I will either hit or come very close to getting to that level, I'm totally fine with that.  i'll refrain from saying anything else because whatever i say you won't believe me because it doesn't suit your agendas

Mine works out to 13.1, but my numbers show I might be able to get it higher once I can change my E+ images in October. Needless to say, if you want to maximize your income, there's more involved than simply adding stuff to your portfolio.

He's actually currently Silver. From January you'll need 40K RC's to stay at 35%, the existing level for Gold. I gather an exclusive might average about 7 RC's per sale? If so you'd need over 5000 sales per year to do achieve that. That looks like a big stretch to me and even then he'd only be getting what he'd have got anyway under the current system. He can certainly kiss his arse goodbye to ever getting 40%.

Yeah, I realized my mistake and corrected it while you were responding - sorry about that.

Your math is a bit off, but that's excusable because you don't have access to real exclusive sales data, and are going on speculation and heresay. Needless to say, gostwyck, being on the exclusive side of the fence puts me in a better position to make these calculations. As far as the numbers go, my data shows that 1 RC = $0.53 at Diamond, which can be scaled down to $0.46 for Gold. My data also shows that the average main collection commission for Gold to be about $4.80. Putting those numbers together gives 1 RC = 10 DLs. Or thereabouts - it's certainly not 7.

You may want to take a look at this chart to see how everything works out with respect to income and commission level.

The point you're missing is that Istockphoto aren't merely reshuffling things to give a higher sellers more and lower sellers less __ they're just keeping more of the money for themselves. Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another.
...

Heh, you've ironically made a statement - "Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another." - to someone who claims to be getting more money.

I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me.  I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it. I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me.

Aside from that, isn't the moral of the tale that you shouldn't expect someone's behavior to change just because they say it will? Tiger-changing-stripes, Leopard-changing-spots, Wolf-changing-coat are similar analogies also not so pertinent to the iStock situation.

... Simple logic is that once I can get my images on istock they are acceptable everywhere.

Not necessarily - just because one agency accepts an image dosn't mean another one will.
And just because an image sells well at one agency doesn't mean it'll sell well at others, either.

Good shots.

But what stops someone copying your niche?

Nothing ... I have plenty of competitors, and just because I'm successful now doesn't mean I always will be. I'm always keeping an eye on my competition and looking for ways to improve what it is I do - my livelihood depends on it!