MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: would I do well on SS?  (Read 9932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

stacey_newman

« on: April 16, 2009, 22:44 »
0
I'm still exclusive on iStock. I wonder if a couple of SS veterans would mind having a look at my iStock portfolio and letting me know if I would do well on SS with my portfolio and the type of work I shoot?

I know this is a hard question, especially since helping someone new is technically helping the competition. I'm hoping someone won't mind having a look. it is just good information to have should the decision be in the foreground again.


« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2009, 23:58 »
0
Stacy

I am not the veteran you ask for - sorry for barging in... But, did I read somewhere that an istock exclusive that chooses non-exclusive will loose all photos uploaded since exclusivity? They all need to be uploaded and reviewed again as a non-exclusive? I hope that is incorrect because that seems harsh. If it is true then in my opinion I would definitely stay as you are. The build would be slow everywhere else and it would take a long time to get back to the sales you are used to. But again... My port is way smaller than yours, I base this only on what I read in forums.

« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2009, 00:34 »
0
Studio10, that definitely isn't correct information. .
Stacey, I think that you would do very well with your portfolio at SS if you upload in the correct way there which is trickle your portfolio up slowly there instead of all at once.   This keeps the attention on your images and you will then keep selling all the good images. Most images sell as soon as they get in the search, good images keep on selling and average images drop never to be seen again. You have plenty of good images which should easily keep on selling. Also you need to upload images there at least weekly to keep the sales going.
I've been at this for 3 and a half years.  To get an idea of the earning potential of SS I earn more there than at IS and I am a diamond at  IS. The place that I earn the most is Fotolia but that takes years to get to that level of earnings whereas at SS it can be as soon as your whole portfolio is up.
DT is a good site too but I only make about half what I do at the others and that also takes time to earn good money because of a tiered earnings systems where each image earns more the more it sells.
I hope that help and good luck whatever you decide.

 
Stacy

I am not the veteran you ask for - sorry for barging in... But, did I read somewhere that an istock exclusive that chooses non-exclusive will loose all photos uploaded since exclusivity? They all need to be uploaded and reviewed again as a non-exclusive? I hope that is incorrect because that seems harsh. If it is true then in my opinion I would definitely stay as you are. The build would be slow everywhere else and it would take a long time to get back to the sales you are used to. But again... My port is way smaller than yours, I base this only on what I read in forums.

« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 11:12 »
0
I think you should check whether or not you would have to remove your portfolio because it is uploaded under the exclusivity status first.  If not, and you feel like going through the pain of uploading to SS and their horribly subjective review process, go for it.  I would stay exclusive and just shoot more.  You will be GOLD soon too. 

stacey_newman

« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 11:29 »
0
the information about removing your portfolio is misinformation. Rob Sylvan already posted the correction about this issue in a previous thread. no files are removed.

thank you for the other points. I am a constant uploader, I work freelance full-time, so I have the opportunity to produce images constantly. I had already presumed that constant, slow uploading would be the best approach at SS, so thanks fotografer for that info.

I didn't think I would question exclusivity so soon again. but now that 2.0 is rolled out over here, I'm feeling discouraged and a bit war weary and frankly tired of thinking about. a colleague recently said 'screw it, just take the plunge" and maybe that's the way to go.

it is FAR too early to make any judgments about the new best match, but at the same time, it would be nice to have things spread out a bit so it doesn't feel so acute and probably easier to go non-exclusive when things are down. I have close to 2,500 files that were selling about 40 - 60 a day, and I am down to 10-15 dls a day now. my income is down to 1/3 of what is consistently was at last year even though I have close to 1,000 newer, better files. I am about to hit gold, so I should probably wait for that...then again, I had originally projected that I would be gold at the end of December '08. probably tw weeks I will be gold, if I maintain my measley 10-15 dls a day.

we'll see. thanks so much for the information.

« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 12:30 »
0
Stacy, With your portfolio, the downloads you are getting seem too low! Your images are good.
I started with the expectation to go exclusive at IS, but then, just as I passed the 250 download mark, the best match shake happened and I was very turned off. I said to hell with it and joined some other sites in January. Figured I'd give non-exclusive a chance first and then decide instead of always wondering. For what it's worth, my portfolio of 102 images on shutterstock consistently gets between 4 and 8 downloads per day. But that is at $0.30 each. I would thing you could expect 20 times that amount, so maybe it's worth it. The trick with shutterstock is not to dump everything there all at once. Send a few a day every day over a long period and the sales will remain steady. But other sites don't do nearly as well for me. Some say to give it time. On each of BS, FT, SX and DT I am hanging between $10 and $40 total, so they don't seem to be doing well. But others rave about DT and FT. Hey Stacy - I am a canuck too (Calgary), and have clients in your town that you probably know!

stacey_newman

« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2009, 12:56 »
0
^ thank you, yeah, I would not dump my whole portfolio in at once...I would slowly add it. we'll see,, even if I decide, I have to wait 30 days. makes me kind of mad that I didn't just do it two months ago, I would already be getting established. I think I'll wait for gold and another few weeks and see what happens. for all I know, sales might really pick up.

I can't even really complain because frankly, the new best match at IS is pretty fantastic, it does exactly what it should. so, I think I might just have to cut my losses. I'm pretty sure the majority of my portfolio is lost in iStock limbo. all the changes they made, it is no wonder. who knows what to do now. I don't think there is much a contributor can do to control the sale of their files. and it seems with the new system that once a file is lost, it is just gone.

I have also noticed lately that most of the big Canadian newspapers seem to buy from SS. that kind of stirred my interest again.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2009, 13:25 »
0
Stacey, I have checked out your portfolio a number of times and I can honestly say I think you would do well anywhere.  IMHO you have an artistic eye, combined with technical skill and an intuitive sense of what makes good stock. 

If you decide to drop exclusivity consider that you would need at least the top 7 sites to compensate for the loss of the exclusivity bonus.  Shutterstock alone won't do it.  I sell roughly the same number of images on IS and SS each month yet make 2 - 3 times a much on IS. 

I had thought things at Istock had resolved themselves for you.  I'm sorry to hear you are back up on the fence.  I spent several years there and have to say my bum got pretty sore ;)


« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 09:52 by lisafx »

stacey_newman

« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2009, 14:49 »
0
hi Lisa - I know I would have to really spread it around at the top 7, if I am ever brave enough to actually go non-exclusive. I'm never really off the fence when it comes to exclusivity, but sometimes the view is nicer than other times, lol. I think that once you get the bee in your bonnet, it is hard to let it go. especially since my sales are so bad at IS. I don't really know what else I can do to fix the situation. I was doing so well last year, and then wham, and I just can't seem to bring sales back. now that the new best match is implemented, I think realistically that this is the new normal and I just have to deal. which is fine, but I need to get sales somewhere...I am working so bloody hard and the return is just not acceptable to me. it could change, and I have my fingers crossed.

thanks for the kind words about my portfolio and for your support, as always :-)

« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2009, 20:45 »
0
I'm still exclusive on iStock. I wonder if a couple of SS veterans would mind having a look at my iStock portfolio and letting me know if I would do well on SS with my portfolio and the type of work I shoot?

I know this is a hard question, especially since helping someone new is technically helping the competition. I'm hoping someone won't mind having a look. it is just good information to have should the decision be in the foreground again.

Didn't you decide 2 weeks ago after a month of advise that you would stick with istock when a istock administrater told you to do that.

stacey_newman

« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2009, 20:50 »
0
exclusivity, like Lisafx said, is an ongoing decision. yes, last month I had made the decision to remain exclusive. two benchmarks I had in mind were going Gold, which will happen in a few weeks. and the roll out of best match 2.0. which has just happened.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions about performance this week being related to 2.0. I had only 9 dls today. that is typical for a Sunday for me, certainly not for a weekday. I am guessing it has little to do with the new best match. I am going to give the new best match a fair shake and it is always my preference to stay exclusive at iStock. I was just asking how my work would be received at SS should my sales totally dump. seems like a pretty smart thing to do, but it is not a harbinger of some huge change in my position. I want to be exclusive at IS. that is fairly obvious. I think some contributors struggle with that decision for years and I am struggling with it.

stacey_newman

« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2009, 23:01 »
0
so, how is SS about posting on third party forums? as long as you behave in their forums, are you 'permitted' to ask questions in this forum without ruffling feathers at SS?

« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2009, 23:03 »
0
so, how is SS about posting on third party forums? as long as you behave in their forums, are you 'permitted' to ask questions in this forum without ruffling feathers at SS?

What on earth are you drinking talking about?

stacey_newman

« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2009, 23:07 »
0
and thank you gostwyck...as always

stacey_newman

« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2009, 23:18 »
0
my question, to be more clear, was a result of a conversation I had with a colleague tonight. I was talking about the opinions we all post on this site, and that I'm sure the admins from the agencies all come here to read. and neither of us knew the SS policy on asking questions on third party sites. I have heard it is very frowned upon at Fotolia. and I just wanted to know if it is frowned upon by the SS PTB to ask questions here?

« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2009, 23:48 »
0
I've never heard of anyone at SS getting their feathers ruffled over comments on another forum, as long as those comments were truthful.  The only problem I can think of was over someone who was both abusive and lying through his teeth.

By the way, I've made almost exactly as much on Shutterstock and iStock since I started.  One advantage of Shutterstock is that you aren't limited on uploads, so if you produce a lot, you can have a much bigger port there.

stacey_newman

« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2009, 23:56 »
0
^ thank you...I was just curious. the SS forums are quite unruly, which is what prompted the discussion.


« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2009, 03:03 »
0
Just relax.  What is this to you, the cold war ???     Were a bunch of photographers with an opinion and a free will...  Why punish that?

tan510jomast

« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2009, 09:12 »
0
Stacey, instead of jumping the gun to quit your being exclusive with IS especially at this point when Getty has thrown a curved ball with their new relationship (re: sjlocke's thread)... you know which one i mean, as you 're there discussing it too.
... why not just try submitting editorials with DT, BigStock, Alamy?
you are, as IS exclusive , allowed to work with other sites to submit non RF, right?
i feel this might be a better option for now, if you are testing the waters. just lateral thinking, perharps a win win situation for now tentatively. at least to get a fix on how things must look for you elsewhere.

stacey_newman

« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2009, 12:04 »
0
I'm not jumping at anything. I have already looked into editorial elsewhere. I would also like to sell some editorial through Getty. so that is something to consider when looking at exclusivity also.

KB

« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2009, 12:19 »
0
Stacey, instead of jumping the gun to quit your being exclusive with IS [...]
... why not just try submitting editorials with DT, BigStock, Alamy?
you are, as IS exclusive , allowed to work with other sites to submit non RF, right?
Just because an image is editorial doesn't mean it isn't RF.

Editorials at DT and BigStock are RF, and are not allowed under IS exclusivity.

stacey_newman

« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2009, 12:39 »
0
^ you are correct. the only avenue for editorial for me right now is custom and I recently asked about submitting editorial to Getty.

KB

« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2009, 12:54 »
0
^ you are correct. the only avenue for editorial for me right now is custom and I recently asked about submitting editorial to Getty.
But as previously mentioned, RM editorial such as on Alamy is also allowed (or even non-editorial, as long as it's RM and not similar to RF images in your iStock port). I'm sure you know this, I just want to make it clear to someone else who might be reading it who doesn't.

stacey_newman

« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2009, 12:56 »
0
yeah, thanks. I looked into Alamy, but the problems they are having are a big deterrent. I don't think the ROI would be worth it. and the iStock exclusivity agreement has always freaked me out a bit. there is a lot of ambiguity, so unless I were to go non-exclusive, I won't take the chance on contributing eslewhere for RM.

tan510jomast

« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2009, 18:26 »
0
yeah, thanks. I looked into Alamy, but the problems they are having are a big deterrent. I don't think the ROI would be worth it. and the iStock exclusivity agreement has always freaked me out a bit. there is a lot of ambiguity, so unless I were to go non-exclusive, I won't take the chance on contributing eslewhere for RM.

smart , if it ain't broken why fix it !  8 8)

« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2009, 19:00 »
0
In the last couple of years, some photographers try to seek refuge in Alamy, hoping to escape the subscription mode and decrease in prices. But the truth is, Alamy is no salvation. It has introduced subscription model and some sales prices are lower than IS. If you are accepted in Getty, your images will be on Alamy anyway. Alamy has more than 16 million images in its database. If you do not have a great variety of subjects and a decent number of images, you will not see any results for a long time.

yeah, thanks. I looked into Alamy, but the problems they are having are a big deterrent. I don't think the ROI would be worth it. and the iStock exclusivity agreement has always freaked me out a bit. there is a lot of ambiguity, so unless I were to go non-exclusive, I won't take the chance on contributing eslewhere for RM.

tan510jomast

« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2009, 19:16 »
0
xxxxxxxxxx freedom YOU SAID....
 
If you do not have a great variety of subjects and a decent number of images, you will not see any results for a long time
   xxxxxxxx


sounds like me. so, in your opinion how many images do i need in Alamy, if i do want to see result ?
 i've been with them about 6-8 months now. i moved there after Photo Shelter's demise.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 19:19 by tan510jomast »


« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2009, 19:30 »
0
... But the truth is, Alamy is no salvation.

You're not kidding. The last financials I read (2008) had Alamy generating about $11M pa from 9.5M images. That's just over $1 per image/year.

Currently IS has about 4.7M images and, judging by the stat's on multimedia.com, are generating something like $150M per annum (although that figure is consistently rising), which equates about $32 per/image year.

Even when you take into account IS's pittiful commission rates your portfolio is far more likely to generate more income on IS than at Alamy. Oh __ and the equation is swinging ever more towards IS and against Alamy and the like. Trad RF is basically dead in the water.

« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2009, 19:33 »
0
Tan, I know a lot of people say it's a number's game, but it's yes and no. Some people were complaining about zero sales last month with a few thousand images. I'd say you need at least a few hundred with many different subjects. It is a British agency so European contents sell well, but the competition is also stiff because many contributors are Europeans.

xxxxxxxxxx freedom YOU SAID....
 
If you do not have a great variety of subjects and a decent number of images, you will not see any results for a long time
   xxxxxxxx


sounds like me. so, in your opinion how many images do i need in Alamy, if i do want to see result ?
 i've been with them about 6-8 months now. i moved there after Photo Shelter's demise.

« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2009, 06:09 »
0
Stacey,
you would do good on SS. But if you decide to stop being exclusive to IS I would also suggest you to join few more big agencies. If you are not exclusive there is no reason to join only SS and stay without income from other big agencies. Yes, you will need few more minutes for adding images to categories, but it's worth it.
That's my opinion.
Regards,
Ivan

« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2009, 10:16 »
0
Does anyone fear (like me) that every one of the big 6 someday will demand exclusivity from all contributors (maybe even after excluding contributors that don't perform well and demanding fees for uploading)? What then? Would IS take ex-exclusives back?
Just a thought.

batman

« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2009, 15:12 »
0
Does anyone fear (like me) that every one of the big 6 someday will demand exclusivity from all contributors (maybe even after excluding contributors that don't perform well and demanding fees for uploading)? What then? Would IS take ex-exclusives back?
Just a thought.

IF there should be an IS  ... ;)   it could be only PC

stacey_newman

« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2009, 15:28 »
0
I thought this at one point too. it doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. if agencies were to do that it would upset the whole cart and completely change the agency model.

agencies would have to lure the best contributors with incentives and this would result in shrinking their profit margins substantially, for little gain. I think most agencies are more concerned with branding themselves rather than branding their contributors.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 16:19 by stacey_newman »

« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2009, 15:46 »
0
I thought this at one point too. it doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. if agencies were to do that it would upset the whole cart and completely change the agency model. t

agencies would have to lure the best contributors with incentives and this would result in shrinking their profit margins substantially, for little gain. I think most agencies are more concerned with branding themselves rather than branding their contributors.

That makes sense. I just got that idea when fotolia started copying istock's exclusivity model. Since then, I have the strong feeling that sometime soon they will just kick me out ("Thank you, white, bronze, and silvers - we've reached 10 Million images now...").
That is also the reason that I'm staying with all of the big 6. I just don't think all of them will survive. And when 3 of them have gone, I don't want to have been exclusive with one of those. Although, from the beginning, being exclusive at istock has always tempted me, but I'm not nearly there jet (61 DLs :-[  ;D

BTW, I enjoyed looking through your portfolio a few times since you've come over here. I'm sure that you'd do well anywhere. Not sure whether anyone has made this point before, but suddenly having to get used to uploading, categorizing, and keywording to many agencies and also getting a few of their wild rejections might be quite a pain to someone who's been exclusive for quite a while. It's not just the time factor.



 

« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2009, 15:47 »
0
IF there should be an IS  ... ;)   it could be only PC

What does  PC mean?  :-[

batman

« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2009, 15:50 »
0
IF there should be an IS  ... ;)   it could be only PC

What does  PC mean?  :-[

Photos.com

« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2009, 15:53 »
0
IF there should be an IS  ... ;)   it could be only PC

What does  PC mean?  :-[

Photos.com

Oh no! Let's hope not!  ;D


batman

« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2009, 16:20 »
0
IF there should be an IS  ... ;)   it could be only PC

What does  PC mean?  :-[

Photos.com

nobody hopes for this, but the river runs in that direction whether we like it or not.
the only way we can survive through is to think smart and cover all bases to protect ourselves.
just like the real stock market, the winner over time is the one who knows how to diversify.


Oh no! Let's hope not!  ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2009, 02:27 »
0
... But the truth is, Alamy is no salvation.

You're not kidding. The last financials I read (2008) had Alamy generating about $11M pa from 9.5M images. That's just over $1 per image/year.

Currently IS has about 4.7M images and, judging by the stat's on multimedia.com, are generating something like $150M per annum (although that figure is consistently rising), which equates about $32 per/image year.

Even when you take into account IS's pittiful commission rates your portfolio is far more likely to generate more income on IS than at Alamy. Oh __ and the equation is swinging ever more towards IS and against Alamy and the like. Trad RF is basically dead in the water.

Your figures are either intentionally misleading or you just want to ignore that RPI between the two agencies is an irrelevant creative number the way you figured it. Of course they are going to have a lower RPI, because they have 300% more images for buyers to choose from.

ALAMY: The average price of all images sold in 2008 was $152.66 (78% RM images sold for average of $135.5 and 22% RF for $213.5).

What's the average price for a sale on IS?  :o

True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 02:40 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2009, 05:35 »
0
Your figures are either intentionally misleading or you just want to ignore that RPI between the two agencies is an irrelevant creative number the way you figured it. Of course they are going to have a lower RPI, because they have 300% more images for buyers to choose from.

ALAMY: The average price of all images sold in 2008 was $152.66 (78% RM images sold for average of $135.5 and 22% RF for $213.5).

What's the average price for a sale on IS?  :o

True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.


I'm not sure I understand you here? How is RPI 'an irrelevant creative number' when comparing between the two agencies? If Alamy has 300% more images then why aren't they producing 300% more revenue for example __ instead of less than one tenth?

An average image sale at IS would appear to be about $6 (based on 5000 of my own sales this year).

So, using the figures quoted earlier, an 'average' portfolio of 1000 images on IS should generate $32K in total per year which would be worth $6400 to an independent contributor.

If that portfolio was instead placed on Alamy then it should generate about $1000 per year and presumably be worth about $650 to the contributor.

Are those figures wrong or am I missing something somewhere? I know we are comparing IS numbers for 2009 and Alamy's from 2008 but that shouldn't make a huge difference.

I've been meaning to upload to Alamy for years but, from the statistics I read and reports from friends/colleagues who are there, I struggle to find the incentive to do so __ with the possible exception of editorial images.

RacePhoto

« Reply #40 on: May 11, 2009, 21:25 »
0
Your figures are either intentionally misleading or you just want to ignore that RPI between the two agencies is an irrelevant creative number the way you figured it. Of course they are going to have a lower RPI, because they have 300% more images for buyers to choose from.

ALAMY: The average price of all images sold in 2008 was $152.66 (78% RM images sold for average of $135.5 and 22% RF for $213.5).

What's the average price for a sale on IS?  :o

True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.


I'm not sure I understand you here? How is RPI 'an irrelevant creative number' when comparing between the two agencies? If Alamy has 300% more images then why aren't they producing 300% more revenue for example __ instead of less than one tenth?

An average image sale at IS would appear to be about $6 (based on 5000 of my own sales this year).

So, using the figures quoted earlier, an 'average' portfolio of 1000 images on IS should generate $32K in total per year which would be worth $6400 to an independent contributor.

If that portfolio was instead placed on Alamy then it should generate about $1000 per year and presumably be worth about $650 to the contributor.

Are those figures wrong or am I missing something somewhere? I know we are comparing IS numbers for 2009 and Alamy's from 2008 but that shouldn't make a huge difference.

I've been meaning to upload to Alamy for years but, from the statistics I read and reports from friends/colleagues who are there, I struggle to find the incentive to do so __ with the possible exception of editorial images.


It's not the same system. Yes you are selling photos, which is the same but when people sell images for and average of 69 cents on IS, or 33 cents on SS, it's not quite the same as getting $125 for selling one image is it?  ;)

If you are averaging $6 an image on IS, you are limiting yourself by not uploading to Alamy. Those must be some pretty good photos. Personally I average about 69 cents an image on IS. Here again someone can look at RPI or return per sale, and the numbers are going to look very different. Some other exclusives are going to have to weigh in with average sales numbers for IS, it would be interesting since I've seen people mention $1.50  and nothing like $6 per image.

Anyway, one place is volume one is price. (here we go again)  ;D You go to McDonalds and they sell Billions of inexpensive hamburgers, or you go to some posh restaurant and they sell less, but they are finer meat and cost ten times more. You go to a steak house which is selling "cooked beef" and you pay much more. Somehow all are doing just fine, and all are selling the same product in different forms. Hope that makes some sense.

Comparing Alamy to IS is not very relevant because they are different markets and different pricing. While we may see some sort of bulk sales on Alamy, or discounting, we aren't going to see microstock style "subscription" sales. Sometimes it's not even valid to compare SS to IS, because the way they market and sell is very different. The target clients of any of the above three may be very different as well. I know that the people who buy from Alamy and the type of material they seek from Alamy is not the same as others are buying and looking for on microstock sites.

RPI isn't the only way to measure the potential profits from an agency. That's why I said PRI is irrelevant for comparing Alamy and IS, or any other micro site.

You keep mentioning only one agency in your comparison. How about other people who can have 1000 images up on Crapstock (that fictional place we all know) and they don't even reach a payout in a year, or will never reach payout. RPI must really be low and sales stink. You keep using IS as an example, while there are hundreds of other places that sell stock photos. All of a sudden Alamy doesn't look so much a waste of time, does it?

My best return for images is SS by the way, I hardly sell anything on IS. Something else to consider is Photos of What, when comparing agencies, how good are the photos?

Last of all, if you go look at the "average IS portfolio of 1000 images" it's nowhere near $6 per image in sales. There are people with 1000 photos since 2005 who have been passed by new photographers with 250 photos, that started in 2008. There is no average, just by looking at photo numbers, the quality of the images has to be considered. You may sell 5000 images in a year, but there are others with same size portfolios who don't sell 1000 photos per year. You need to look at the overall agency, not just the best people, or successful people like yourself.

With that, there are many other ways to evaluate how good an agency may be than just looking at RPI.  8)

« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 00:26 by RacePhoto »

Milinz

« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2009, 06:03 »
0
Hi Stacey!

I think for SS you must be quite stock oriented and some images you have need a bit more touch - no offense - but, microstock images are more to be with a bit more boosted colors than ones you've used to upload on iStock (as original untouched contrast/colors)...

Otherwise you should do well on SS. But, as Whitechild said there are more good sellers as FT, DT, 123RF and what I expect by some indicators FP. StockXpert is place interesting to be too... But I don't know what future Getty planned for them.

Nevertheless, I am non-exclusive and I manage my types of content accordingly with uploading on micros as well on mid-stock agencies...
I believe that additinal attention you get on IS as exclusive is not worthy enough to make doubled or trippled monthly earnings if you spread as non-exclusive...

It is just my own way and I think it is better than being exclusive on any of micros!

So, for me acceptable exclusivity is only on the way if I can upload specific image to some place and make that specific image as exclusive image...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 07:12 by Milinz »


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors