I'm just looking for a better alternative to iStock which is not the same company at all that I joined in 2007.

i would echo your statement and replace the word istock for shutterstock.
jumping ship istock for ss is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
with istock you already know your devil ..vs the unknown.

Quote from: BlueMoonPics on July 24, 2016, 23:24

I'm just looking for a better alternative to iStock which is not the same company at all that I joined in 2007.

i would echo your statement and replace the word istock for shutterstock.
jumping ship istock for ss is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
with istock you already know your devil ..vs the unknown.

It's still the same company, it's just the industry that changed with everyone competing on cheaper. Something had to give.

Hi All.  I've been with iS since about 2008 and last week I deleted all my images and asked to drop exclusivity.  Sales dropping dramatically there for me and new rules prompted me to try some new places.
I'm thinking of joining SS but don't know anything about the company.
I know these answers can vary from person to person but...
Compared to iS, how are sales in SS?  Any advice like things to avoid or things to do at SS?
Thanks for reading.

BlueMoonPics . . . your honest inquiry deserves an honest answer. Forget about it. You're about ten (okay 8 years) years too late. When you were messing with IS that was the time you could also have been uploading to SS. Now? Just do yourself a favor and concentrate your energies elsewhere where some psychic or real income is possible.

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 24, 2016, 13:51

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 24, 2016, 13:25

maybe Locke can chime in, he had to take a similar route

Unfortunately Locke's next moves were reactionary, whereas the OP's move were action oriented so it's not remotely the same route at all.

I have a feeling that if I was exclusive, I'd probably be making the same now or less at IS as I am making from multiple agencies.  Just from reading the reports of others.  A lot of my coin came from the Agency collection, and of course, that ended up going poof.  But as for SS, no, at least for me, is nowhere near what I was or think I would be making now.  Especially this month, lol.

hello Sean, thank you for coming in to tell us like it is.
it means alot, esp when after so many experienced contributors complain about it here and got
hell for making things up.

when i mentioned your name here on this thread, it had nothing to do with minding your business,
but more so, in respect of your resume , and notoreity to speak out ,
it good to know where we stand , in relation to the real money-makers' situation.

iow, if you are finding it ridiculous this month, ... we are looking even more ridiculous.
i don't feel so bad now, really

cheers! for your honesty!!!  you could have chimed in and say, "problem? what problem??
i 'm selling so much, i 'm buying everyone champagne at ss !!!"
... and we would still believe you. but you didn't... you told us like it is.

I�d like to add that macro is not an instant get rich scheme. The agencies might have very high list prices, but often you get sales of 1 dollar or less.

But in the time of oversupply, macro and edited collection agencies simply have much less files in their system or in their edited areas. So you get much better exposure.

Especially for niche content I think working with macro agencies is a good idea.

For ultrageneric content I still think the micros give a good return, especially longterm.

One drawback is that many macro sites require that you process the full series immediatly and let them pick what they like. I have a problem with that, because I usually process and upload my files over several years, so that a series will always be visible whatever the best match returns. You also can�t process files according to the current style, one year agencies want everything with lens flares, other years wit strong vignette...uploading it all at once you lose flexibility.

Uploading the whole series in one go can be very risky, you need to get returns fast or it has to be something rare so that it will keep showing up.

It really is a complex issue - how much  money did you invest in the shoot, how fast do you expect to get a return, which agency has proven to be a good seller for this theme, especially longterm etc...

So the micros have their place, even today.

But I am glad that it is complicated, it is much harder to copy what I do or to see which agency gives the best returns.

My experience is the same as Sean's.  I went non-exclusive in February 2015, so about a year and a half ago.  My income from multiple agencies is now about the same as in my last few months as an exclusive.  However given what's happened at Istock over the past year or so, I suspect that I am now earning a little more than I would have done had I stayed.  Difficult to say, because it really depends on how many S+/E+ you produce and have replicated on the Getty site.

It has been extremely hard work getting established as a non-exclusive.  Like Sean, I've found SS difficult and I'm making only about half of my expectation there.  I like SS, and they are clearly the leading Microstock, but they are awash with images.  No easy route to riches there.

Overall I'm more relaxed being non-exclusive, without the 'eggs in one basket' worries.  But it has been very hard work.  Whether it is still possible to drop exclusivity and get a similar or higher income elsewhere really depends on the individual portfolio and how much work the person is willing to do to make it a success (re-keywording every file, for instance).

Edit:  my only other observation is that you really should have asked all these questions BEFORE cancelling your exclusive contract.

good to hear your POV too, hatman!
it is sad that we have all come to this stage. i know we are not entitled to anything,
no more than feeling the trials of each turn of events..
eg for me... the transition from view camera to 35mm.. from 35mm to digital.. from old school
commercial work to micro,..
is no less painless than what you and Sean and others go through with "progress".

all in all, it could have been better if the providers think long-term and realised that short-term gains and greed is really unsustainable . still, it's human nature to think, "we owe you people nothing
at all. so stop whining and face reality
... we call the shots, we say jump, you don't tell us what to do..
you ask how high???"

there is no eventual winner , really. ideally , we would have all a better future
had the providers learn the sense of good will to appreciate that the boat (providers)
cannot sail without oars and sailors (contributors).

but as i said, ideally!!!
in a real world, the moral would be , "enjoy it while it lasts"...
because there is no such thing as ( in ancient rumi poetry )
..the cow in the field eating just enough
because tomorrow , the grass will still grow back.

it just doesn't work that way, in microstock.

Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time. 

Or, if one former poster here is to be believed, he gave his pals at the macros the nod and got other people in. Sort of like a secret handshake. After that you were his bonded slave for all time (slight hyperbole).

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 25, 2016, 09:57

Quote from: sharpshot on July 25, 2016, 09:32

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 25, 2016, 09:22

Quote from: cobalt on July 25, 2016, 02:42

going macro makes a lot of sense.

And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.

Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.

What you say is true if you really want to believe it. In my books micro never made sense, but yes now we have the inevitable where you can't get out of microstock. Why couldn't you get into macro? Oh hang on, I keep forgetting it was a closed shop. Albeit a closed shop that opened up based on merit.

Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time.  Lots of people were very good but got nothing but rejection letters.  The macro sites caused their own downfall by not adapting to the internet and the digital camera era.  Now, years later, we still get these ridiculous condescending comments from people that really have no idea what they are talking about.

Tell me all about rejection letters, I tried several times to get into the macros, the third time lucky. From first time to third time was a span of a few years. I simply upped my game through experience. You want to call that thinking I am so special and condescending, go for it. I worked my way up and it felt really good.

Quote from: sharpshot on July 26, 2016, 06:12

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 25, 2016, 09:57

Quote from: sharpshot on July 25, 2016, 09:32

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 25, 2016, 09:22

Quote from: cobalt on July 25, 2016, 02:42

going macro makes a lot of sense.

And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.

Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.

What you say is true if you really want to believe it. In my books micro never made sense, but yes now we have the inevitable where you can't get out of microstock. Why couldn't you get into macro? Oh hang on, I keep forgetting it was a closed shop. Albeit a closed shop that opened up based on merit.

Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time.  Lots of people were very good but got nothing but rejection letters.  The macro sites caused their own downfall by not adapting to the internet and the digital camera era.  Now, years later, we still get these ridiculous condescending comments from people that really have no idea what they are talking about.

Tell me all about rejection letters, I tried several times to get into the macros, the third time lucky. From first time to third time was a span of a few years. I simply upped my game through experience. You want to call that thinking I am so special and condescending, go for it. I worked my way up and it felt really good.

Lots of macro contributors couldn't pass the initial SS review until they lowered the standard.  Having seen the standard of many macro contributors, I still have no idea how they chose who should be accepted and who got the rejection letters.

It isn't difficult to average a lot more than 28 cents a download with SS.  For many years, earnings were good there.  I have no problem selling for low prices if there is high volume.  Some images are ideal for low cost high sales volume and others are ideal for high cost low sales volume.

I make 30% less on iStock than what I do on Shutterstock. Although the amount of sales are a lot closer due to the lower rates on iStock.