What some don't understand is that a Plan B may not involve spreading work to other micros. It might not involve micros, or indeed selling images at all.
So for some people it may be worth staying exclusive and focussing on getting their ducks in a row, or whatever that saying is, in other areas of their lives, rather than wasting time on the other micros.
There are not only two options, and everyone's port, expectations and are different. People can read all the infor about the different micros here and made their own decision. What's right for 'you' or 'me' isn't necesarily right for Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Exactly.

I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.

If all the top contribs, with 5,000 images or more each submit 1000-5000 images to Stocksy they need to get about 300 top contributors to get to 500,000 images. And then you will probably only have people in situation images and travel images. That will only attract a very limited amount of buyers and you will be competing with the likes of Yuri's people images.

If you want to make  it attractive, you need all kinds of contributors. But if you make the review process like Istock or Shutterstock you are guarenteed to have a high quality varied library. Which will benefit buyers and sellers.

Building on what Poncke said, Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach.  If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection.  If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point. I am not super familiar with licensing but is there any way Bruce could differentiate the Stocksy collection via how the licenses are written? I think it's wise to consider "other differentiators" in addition to image quality, "who the photographer is".  The have to be very careful to not fall into the trap of having all these Vetta-style images which have limited value.  This is not to suggest that Vetta images are "Crapsy" just that most are heavily pushed in PS and are more specialized than generic images.  I have many huge sellers that are generic, non-Vetta quality that Stocksy would be foolish to not have in their collection if their goal is to attract buyers...and the same with practically everyone in this forum.

The flip side is that they have a different clientele in mind that would preclude such generic images, a niche clientele of sorts.  Just thinking out loud.  I am on 14 MS sites (well 13, been approved at Veer for awhile but their image processing is so clunky and time consuming that I've just not uploaded anything yet) and if the Stocksy model was a fit (win-win for both me and Stocksy), I would consider moving most or all of my best sellers there as exclusive images once they have a proven clientele.

Quote

Laugh at me all you want.

I wasn't laughing at you per se, it was the suggestion that iStock is going to 'fall over' this year. I think someone here mentioned once that you sound very immature, I'd have to agree with that

I have no idea if $56k  is an impressive income or not, but as you mention it I assume it must be. My income is measured in �'s so is not directly comparable.
You say you make $300 a month from microstock. Although it's less common now, I used to think it was a bad week if I made less than that a day. I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to demonstrate that the exclusive/not being exclusive argument appears very different from different financial perspectives.

Quote

So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income.

IF IS falls over, as you suggest it may, I would be inconvenienced but not, as you put it, screwed, as I have freelance income. I have been in the business a long while and have a number of regular freelance clients.
I suppose I feel I am trying to explain an alternative scenario to the one that assumes being exclusive at IS is an unmitigated disaster and everyone
should/must leave ASAP, but it is rather like swimming against the tide.

Its not an impressive salary, I am not boasting either, I am just saying I am doing just fine as is. It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography. For you its your day job, if you make 10k a month being exclusive then kudos to you. I can only dream of that. But 10k says nothing without knowing your overhead, still its impressive.

I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen. Tough job, I wouldnt want to be in your shoes.

Good luck.

It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography.

If I sounded patronising I apologise, sometimes I write without thinking. I'd also add I don't make 10k now, that was then, this is now, sale are down overall for everyone pretty much at IS.

I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen.

Believe me, I do look, I do plan, I am in this with my eyes wide open and no illusions about the desire of big business to screw every dollar out of us.I pretty much gave up on freelance work when earnings were highest, I'm now doing a lot more again, and happy to do so and be less beholden to any microstock company. Lets just agree to hold slightly differing views on things whilst realising we all must try and gain strength from each other.

Quote

It was related to your patronizing comment I just make a few dollars a year doing photography.

If I sounded patronising I apologise, sometimes I write without thinking. I'd also add I don't make 10k now, that was then, this is now, sale are down overall for everyone pretty much at IS.

Quote

I see where you are coming from now, but still I would look for other options to spread the risk in case something bad does happen.

Believe me, I do look, I do plan, I am in this with my eyes wide open and no illusions about the desire of big business to screw every dollar out of us.I pretty much gave up on freelance work when earnings were highest, I'm now doing a lot more again, and happy to do so and be less beholden to any microstock company. Lets just agree to hold slightly differing views on things whilst realising we all must try and gain strength from each other.

And since none of you know anyone elses personal financial positions, maybe empathy could be extended to EVERY contributor who has lost income from these agencies. Even this "embittered" contributor who lost money she needed to pay bills with when she decided to implement her plan b. i just had a jump on you, i did it a year ago. 

Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach.  If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection.  If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.

If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.

Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.

If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.

Quote from: Mantis on February 09, 2013, 09:15

Bruce would be very wise to NOT lock out the masses, but maybe take this simple approach.  If joe-photographer can meet our acceptance criteria, joe photographer has two options: image exclusivity which will be put in our premium priced collection.  If no, it goes into our general collection at a lower price point.

If it follows the business model that many co-ops have, there might be a financial investment required from all members to get the model up and running. I wouldn't begin to guess on a number, if that is indeed the case. But I guarantee a lot of photographers will be screened out by their unwillingness to make such a commitment.

Most people here would, I think. But I believe the discussion at MSG is by and large carried on by people in the top 20%, and many cases top 1% of contributors. The photographer not on these boards, who uploads maybe 50 or 100 images to DT or SS and then forgets about it, content to make payout once or twice a year, won't even know about Stocksy let alone have an interest in making that type of time/fiscal investment.

If Stocksy were composed of 90% MSG contributors, it would probably be the highest quality microstock collection in existence.

Good post.  And I agree. And depending on the model and the buyer base, I'd be willing to invest something, say in the range of $5 to $10k. Of course I'd have to do some form of cost benefit, be privy to inside information via non-disclosure, etc.

I don't share the excitement about stocksy that was commonly expressed on the first pages of this thread.

I mean I have no problems to believe in good intentions and good payment share - but getting the buyers is difficult these days. Looking at the smaller agencies; and looking at the 2ns attempt of Stockxpert guys I don't have much optimism about the possible future of stocksy.

I would be glad to be wrong with that expectation

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on February 09, 2013, 07:57

Quote

If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.

I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.

Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.

It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.

You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.

I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.

What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.

Quote from: loop on February 09, 2013, 12:07

Quote from: Poncke on February 09, 2013, 08:27

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on February 09, 2013, 07:57

Quote

If IS falls over this year, you are screwed.

I just have to laugh at comments like this. You have been in the business a few months, probably earn a few hundred dollars a year, but feel free to pontificate about just about everything to do with microstock, with very little real experience.

Laugh at me all you want. It has nothing to do with how much experience I have. I made over 3000 dollar profit since I started selling photos 10 months ago. I guess I am doing just fine next to my 56.000 dollar day job. I am a fast learner.

It has everything to do you with what you said yourself and common sense.

You say you cant leave IS because it will be a disaster. So IF IS falls over this year, you are screwed, or not? Either way, you lose your income. Thats why me and other people say its best to spread the risk. How tough that may be, you better get started before its too late. THis doesnt apply to micro stock, but to any situation in life. And I have plenty experience with that.

I didnt attack you dude, I just made an observation. No need to get personal imo.

What you fail to understand, given your lack of experiencie in the field, is that the risk, the risk of saturation, the risk of falling income, the risk of being betrayed by the site owners, is global. Micro sites are all in the same habitat. Diversifying, not having all egss on one basket means to spread your work at your income out af micro, and even out of RF or RM. That's what I did years ago, even if having a really healthy monthly income at istock.

I do not fail anything. I know you all love to bash the newbie, but at least make sure you got all facts before you to the bashing.

Quote from: Poncke on February 09, 2013, 08:36

I dont need the income from photography, but I do like the extra money. I sell micro, macro, POD, direct and do freelance. Its all adding up. And if one fails, there is still the others.

Well, that's the correct way. If the main source of income fails, extra money don't pay the expenses if you only had this main source of income besides the extra money. Doing so many things besides microstosk and your day job must be titanic. Although is possible to do much more that the sum of all having the knowledge and one big and focused rf micro portfolio. Today, true. Tomorrow never knows.

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 09, 2013, 09:53

You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images.  IS has agreed to this when asked. 

If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.

I'm not saying to do it but it can be done by creating a company then transferring your istock account to the company. The company is exclusive with istock but you personally are technically only an employee of the company and not exclusive. When you shoot for the company they go to istock exclusively and when you shoot under your own name you can do what you wish.