Exclusive with istock--pros and cons

05/12/2006 05:10:13 PM · #1

Hi all,
As I've mentioned many times before, I'm reasonably new to stock photography (been going at it for a few months now). I don't have a huge amount of downloads by any stretch with any of the stock sites I'm on (istock, shutterstock, and fotolia). However, my DL's have been ramping up nicely at istock (more so than shutterstock, although they've been alright). Fotolia hasn't done squat, but I haven't put very much up there yet. Today I was looking around istock, and I found their royalty payout graph. I noticed that, once you hit 500 DLs you can go exclusive and your royalties go up. Once you hit the top level, they are DOUBLE the starting rate. I only have 62 approved images on istock, and 51 on shutterstock (forget Fotolia for now). I'm thinking down the road that going exclusive would make me a LOT more on istock, but I'm not sure I want to pull my portfolio at shutterstock since it's not doing badly.
So, I'm looking to hear from the veterans on the pros and cons of going exclusive with istock. I know melking doesn't go exclusive, but nico blue is looking to. What do you think? I'd like to sort this out now, before my portfolio reaches several hundred pix. Thanks!

05/12/2006 05:26:52 PM · #2

i wouldn't go exclusive.
There are many other stock sites that are also good, such as 123Royalty free, stockxpert, and dresmtime. If you add up all the sites, you will make a LOT more than you would on istock. Personally i make about 140% on shutterstock as compared to istock. Dreamstime is more than istock as well actually. I think it would be risky putting all your images in one boat in this volitile microstock business. There are too many factors and variables to say who is going to be on top in another year.

05/12/2006 05:28:03 PM · #3

I am truly curious,and apologize if i am rude to ask, but how much do you really make from micro stock? OP and anyone else for that matter.

I am under the impression that microstock site pay pennies on the dollar per DL. Does it really add up?

05/12/2006 05:28:37 PM · #4

Originally posted by leaf:

There are too many factors and variables to say who is going to be on top in another year.

That's a good point! Especially with Getty buying istock, that makes sense. Any other thoughts?

05/12/2006 05:30:30 PM · #5

Originally posted by cwlawrence:

Does it add up? Absolutely. There are some full-time stock photographers doing only microstock who are making thousands of dollars per month. Those are the people I want to hear from. :-)

05/12/2006 05:36:39 PM · #6

Yes, yes. I have heard of these so called microstock moguls. But it has been one of those "I know a guy that knows a guy who makes thousands a month from microstock".

I would love to get some real numbers on this

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

05/12/2006 05:48:37 PM · #7

You might check the forums at istock for more discussion of exclusivity too, Don.

I went exclusive there when I crossed the 500 download threshold last year. I can't argue with the fact that you can probably make more by diversifying, but then again that involves more time uploading too (and I'm on dial-up!) Right now I'm earning just under $200 per month at istock. I should qualify for another percentage bump (from 25% to 30%)around the end of June when I pass 2,500 downloads, and doing so will increase my earnings from $200 to $240 per month at my current rate of downloads (about 10-12 a day).

I'm not really advocating that exclusivity is right for you, just sharing what I did and why. I like dealing with just the one agency, the payout percentage is higher, my time investment is less, and then again there are all the other little perks (free business cards, faster upload reviews, etc). I think you're right, though. The time to sort it all out is before you are too invested with multiple companies. Good luck!

Message edited by author 2006-05-15 19:07:46.

fotomann_forever

05/12/2006 05:54:10 PM · #8

Originally posted by Pixl Mastr WannaB:

Does it add up? Absolutely. There are some full-time stock photographers doing only microstock who are making thousands of dollars per month. Those are the people I want to hear from. :-)

You are correct and that's something I'm working toward myself. Kinda my way of "investing in the stock market" ;-)

Let's face it. Microstock is here to stay. With the advent of "everyone can be a publisher" thre is much demand for microstock. I'm not saying that traditional stock is going anywhere, though.

05/12/2006 05:55:46 PM · #9

i think time is a big factor in the arguement. If you are on dial up it might be an easier arguement. However if you are on high speed, the time it takes to submit to one more site is far outweighed by the amount earned. Some sites like stockxpert take literly 2 seconds to submit 50 images (once they are uploaded) Others like shutterstock and 123RF take 5 minutes to submit 50, and the other are more.

and yes, there are a number of photographers earnings thousands a month. It is not a myth and doesn't take too long to find them. I imagine melking is not doing too bad. I am not making thousandS /month, but over one thousand i am. Although it isn't a full time wage yet, it obviously will be if I double my portfolio.

05/12/2006 05:57:59 PM · #10

on the earnings note.

if you want to check out how much the top photographers are making.. go to dreamstime, click on 'statistics' and then look at the top 15 photographers. Click on 'more photographers' and you will see the entire list, with how many images sold. My sales compared to the top photographers sales, are pretty meager, even though they are over a thousand$$... yes they are making thousands/month.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

05/12/2006 06:20:45 PM · #11

Not to hijack the point of my own thread, but I'm quite sure this istock photographer makes well over $100k per year. And this photographer is probably there as well. Granted, they are 2 of the top photographers on istock, but it certainly is possible, and they are not the only ones.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

05/12/2006 07:04:24 PM · #12

Some of my top sellers on one site have been rejected elsewhere. If I were to go exclusive, I could not sell those photos anywhere.

fotomann_forever

05/12/2006 07:10:11 PM · #13

There would have to be a large incentive for me going exclusive... but I think I'd still prefer multiple Points of Sale.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/12/2006 07:46:16 PM · #14

So, the general concensus is to stay diversified and not go exclusive. I've been leaning towards that idea, but the idea of getting up to 40% royalties does sound tempting. Who else wants to chime in?

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

05/12/2006 08:01:28 PM · #15

Ding

05/12/2006 08:58:55 PM · #16

But if the issue is more % in royalties (which to me, means more money) then why not put your stock in something like photographersdirect or alamy or masterfile? At these agencies the photographer receives over 40% and images are sold for quite a lot more. You might sell less but you'd make more per image. nes pas?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/13/2006 03:58:01 AM · #17

I guess you can choose what you want.

1. More big sales (go with macro stock)
2. More % of the sales (go with istock exclusive, or macro)
3. more overall income, go microstock across the board, with perhaps a few at the macros.

suemack

Canon EOS-20D

05/13/2006 05:11:29 AM · #18

I've just made the decision to go exclusive with iStock as from the beginning of this month. Thought about it a lot before I decided. Like Nova, I'm on dialup, work full time, so have a real lack of time to work on multiple portfolios......trying to upload to about 5 sites I was getting nowhere fast. iStock has always been my bestselling site so it was the best choice for me.

05/13/2006 11:27:44 AM · #19

Well, I just uploaded my "test" picture on to Dreamstime, so that will make 4 sites that I'll have pictures on. From what everyone here has said, the biggest reason to go exlcusive is the time factor. I can certainly understand why someone with very limited time and a dialup connection would want to do that. However, I have broadband, and I don't mind the added time for multiple site uploads if it means more $$$. Besides, when I add a picture to one site that I already have on another, I just go to the site the picture is already on, and copy / paste the title, description, and keywords into the new site. Saves tons of time, and I don't have to re-type the same keywords over and over. Thanks for all the input, and if anyone else wants to add their $.02, I'm all ears.

-Don

Message edited by author 2006-05-13 11:28:15.

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4.0G IF-ED

05/13/2006 11:54:06 AM · #20

i would sudjest putting the keywords and title in the iptc info. There is a number of programs that can do this. If you use photoshop you just press

ctrl-alt-shift-I

and it will pop up. Imatch is a fairly powerful program as well. It will save you TONS of time as the micro sites will automatically fill in the title, keywords, and description from your image data.

spydr

Nikon D850

05/13/2006 12:03:51 PM · #21

Last year I had images on Dreamstime, iStock, Canstock, and Shutterstock. Other than Dreamstime, iStock was the only one that I made enough money to ever cash out. So, I went exclusive with iStock. Altough they are much harder to get images approved I have made more money($400 in the past year on 95 images). More money on fewer images and free business cards using my images worked out nicely for me personally.

I now have over 100 images and am applying for iStockPRO.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

05/13/2006 01:12:28 PM · #22

Originally posted by Pixl Mastr WannaB:

...and this photographer is probably there as well. Granted, they are 2 of the top photographers on istock, but it certainly is possible, and they are not the only ones.

And according to her website that young lady is only TWENTY FOUR!