0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
StacyI 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.
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.
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?
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?
^ you are correct. the only avenue for editorial for me right now is custom and I recently asked about submitting editorial to Getty.
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.
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
... But the truth is, Alamy is no salvation.
Quote from: Freedom on May 02, 2009, 19:00xxxxxxxxxx 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 xxxxxxxxsounds 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.
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.
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. tagencies 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.
IF there should be an IS ... it could be only PC
Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:12IF there should be an IS ... it could be only PCWhat does PC mean?
Quote from: stardust on May 07, 2009, 15:47Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:12IF there should be an IS ... it could be only PCWhat does PC mean? Photos.com
Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:50Quote from: stardust on May 07, 2009, 15:47Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 15:12IF there should be an IS ... it could be only PCWhat does PC mean? Photos.comnobody 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!
Quote from: Freedom on May 02, 2009, 19:00... 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? True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.
Quote from: RacePhoto on May 11, 2009, 02:27Your 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? 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.