Istock- What Should I Know!

there are many that sell stock here. just remember though once it's in stock you probably won't get a ton for it, and once out, besides probably having to deal with them if someone else wants it. there would be little reason to buy the art here if i can get it for pocket change there.

---Mike Savad

Thanks Mike, I suppose that is my guts feeling about it!

I do very well there. But it is not for everyone. Your work here is not what would do well as stock and may hurt other licensing opportunities. If you are interested in licensing I wouldn't go to a microstock. Art like yours need to be marketed RM at prices comparable to what an original would sell for.

If you like to create vector illustrations and can gear them to commercial users you might do well. In the beginning you will be getting only a few dollars per sale, so if you can not do volume in producing and selling, it will not be worthwhile.

The market for jpeg illustration art images in microstock is almost nil. It is geared to photography, video and vector images.

This is the first i ever heard of istock soliciting contributors in my 8 years of selling there.

Thanks very much Bradford for the useful info!

Very little return for the artist in Microstock. FAA has the option to license commercially which is a great option for you. Get yourself a copy of Fotobiz to get an idea what license fee are in the market. http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/ the software has great information to guide you in the process.

It's pretty much a myth here that buyers search for art online on microstock sites and then print it themselves. I suppose some do. Its possible but rare. The istock POD never even got off the ground. Getty is doing it but thats not a micro. To get the low prices at istock you would have to buy a credit pack. Then you would be downloading a file that is not ready for print. To get it to look right it needs to be edited. Then you would have to get it printed. You would not be able to legally sell the print with a basic RF license. In many cases it would could you more to do that then buy a print here. The minimum purchase there is 8 credits at 8 dollars a credit.

Bradford is right! for the kind of works here, its RM for sure. I get some cracking sales at the Getty-RM, then again I been with them since, 94. Micro-stock as its called, like Istock is OK, been with them since 2006 and they used to sell incredibly well, easily a couple of grand/month. Nowadays its much more competition, there are tons of micro-agencies and they all compete. Not as easy earning good revenue anymore.

The biggest four micro-agencies are Ok, they have good and bad days, same as everywhere. In Micro-stock, quantity is as important as quality. In RM, type Getty, quality combined with a niche is very important.

For more info - Spend some time on microstockgroup.com

I did microstock on and off for a few years. It was just one endless story of royalty cuts, corporate giveaway deals, oversupply and general chaos. They keep raising the bar on technical perfection (or their idea of it) while paying you insignificant token returns.

I still make a few dollars every day, on what I submitted years ago. But IMHO - unless you have a niche, something you can do well, do cheaply, and which hasn't been done to death - it's a complete waste of time today.

FWIW, IStock is considered one of the worst agencies to be involved with and many long-time contributors there have pulled out.

For more opinions, go to www.microstockgroup.com.

IŽam at SS,FT,DS,DP,123. I spoke with my former classmate recently , who is actually best microstocker in my country and maybe between 10 in Europe. And he adviced me to join Is too.

Always register your images with the US copyright office prior to signing up to a stock image company.

Thanks all for the info, much appreciated!

Wow, uploading proces to IS is pretty lengthy. Even when you use deep meta.

In short words, after few years on micros - forget about iStock! It used to be good place years ago, not today. Respect your work!

"FWIW, IStock is considered one of the worst agencies to be involved with and many long-time contributors there have pulled out. "

They are owned by a private equity firm and the original founders. Big corporations are not always fun to deal with. They also go through changes and are not out to please the contributors. It gets ugly sometimes. That said istock exclusives generally make more money per download then those on other agencies. Non-exclusives get the same raw deal as the subscription agencies they seem to flock to, and that accounts for a lot of the sniping at them. In Microstockgroup.com surveys istock exclusives earn more then those in the top agencies combined. Up until the recent change I was averaging $15 dollars a download. Far higher than royalties on Shuttterstock. I was also making up to $80 a dl on files shared at Getty. With the new single price I only make $8 a dl , but it is for all sizes and the volume has increased. It is still far higher than other microstock sites.

For me and many it is by far the best agency for making money. Only a few ever pull out. They just drop exclusivity and keep all or most of their files at istock.

Like Bradford says - IStock - not worth the headache unless you are exclusive.

Keep in mind the commissions from these agencies are typically in the 80% to the agency range. Of course they have buyers ready and waiting if you have what they need.

Bradford is right, they work for me, one thing I would say is, that if you are like me and are just doing it to add a 'tiny' bit to your income, upload to at least the top 5 or 6 agencies, it multiplies your sales opportunities for your port.

Also beware of the fine print. Some agencies charge more for extended print runs - say over 250,000 pieces, others just give it away with the basic subscription price meaning you don't get anything extra for something like being published in a book.

In general microstock is the opposite direction to go from fine art sales. IMO. One should consider the life long earnings potential of an image but at microstock rates it could take 50 ms sales to equal one fine art sale.

Microstock is also about volume and constantly uploading so you have be be prepared to create a lot of work.

50 ms sales to equal one fine art sale. Yes, or just one, high priced download. There is a wide range of licencing. My personal record is 106 usd for one dl on SS. And that is more than I will ever make on POD sites.
And yes it is about volume, the more you upload, the more you have. And great think is, that you can see the result in a few days. Not after years, like on POD.
Martin: Of course if you are selling well here, it wouldnŽt be a good step to upload your work from here to micro. Also your vector work is pretty good. But the best vector sellers are just simple banners, icons, elements etc(go on some microstock and search for most popular vectors). Try to make work like that, It wonŽt be a problem for you.

Martin- Yes that might be a good idea of yours to do simple vector icons etc. I'm happier with that idea than uploading 'proper' work. Thanks.

No problem: ) But there is one annoyng thing with vectors. Each stock agency has different requirements while uploading. You need zip eps+jpg together, or high res jpg, or low res jpg etc.

The Getty RM house collection, is by far and light-years the best to be with, I came via Image-Bank and Stones in 94. The actual House-collection is a pretty closed shop, you get in by merit and unique imagery. However, their other collections are open for membership, if they like your stuff that is.
They are still capable of selling a picture for thousands of dollars, depending on rights, etc.

BTW my best return on an image licensed at istock was $180. That included several extended licenses but not all the ones possible. ELs are not something you can count on but they do add an nice extra to the payout when you get them. It's not in as much of a giveaway on istock as some seem to think. RF does not mean do whatever you want.

My best one of Istock was, the same, 185 dollars but my best one at, Getty RM House, was, 5500 dollars, rights, etc. jeez, some difference.

Has anyone used Alamy

The price paid is related to the usage.
....
I've sold one image on Alamy.
.....
I had a regional magazine cover sale via iStock and they paid me $1.
....
Basically I've put microstock on the back burner. Occasionally I'll upload lesser quality work. But I'm concentrating on the higher end - fine art and boutique stock. Microstock is great for hobbyists and for learning your craft and perhaps earning a few bucks to pay for equipment.

Edward, what would you recommend

SS is a monster in microstock. I've had some large sales there as well has high volume.

But in general I'd recommend selling fine art. You have to start recognizing the value of your work. Some is microstock worthy, other will be higher end. Patience is the key. It will take several years to get established in any pursuit.

Video is the next big thing. Stock video is in its beginnings right now and will be increasing needed.

What is SS

shutterstock

Keep in mind, as with anything, results may vary. People who were in stock 5 - 10 years ago could have tossed up anything and made sales. When the bottom fell out, several major players cashed in by writing books about the market. Always a sign that something has peaked when the insiders start telling others about it.

A good place to start: microstockgroup.com

I agree about keeping my fine art branding, and did some research. I find that Corbis would be the only one I would consider selling some work in this manner.

' I had a regional magazine cover sale via iStock and they paid me $1"

Maybe the image should have been RM.

You get paid for the allowed type of use and quantity and until recently, the size of the file. I won't tell you how little Nat Geo paid for my falcon image. I will tell you that regional magazines have some of the lowest budgets. A regional magazine is a nice tear sheet and you should be proud. So is Nat Geo. But it is microstock and you get what you signed up for. It

With stock you take the good with the bad. My best selling image has earned me over $7,000. I doubt it ever sold for a dollar but it really does not matter. It still earned me $7,000 and is still selling.

Like I said. Its a learning process. I chalk it up to education and exposure. Hate to see people heading in the wrong direction blindly. The more rare and specialized an image, the less potential buyers but then when you do find that special buyer, the image has more value. These are the type of images that should be RM.

BM's oil rig photos are a great example. How many people have access to an oil rig? Not many so they command higher fees.

On the other side of the coin, I have an image of an everyday food item that sells daily - RF. Useful images to a large market and the buyers don't care about exclusivity.

Bradford "ouch" have been paid $2500 for a regional cover licensing it myself

Talking about oil-rigs, my on-shore refineries and oil industrial images have been downloaded close to 800.000 times, counting RM, RF and microstock. My best sales here are also oil industrial images.