MicrostockGroup

One of two possibilities could lead me to exclusivity:

1.) Diminishing returns at SS brings istock up to at least 55% of my monthly earnings (preferably 60%).

2.) istock offers a fair commission for exclusivity.

At present, things are going well at SS for me, so #1 isn't likely to happen any time soon, especially with the raise coming next month. And I doubt very much istock will raise commissions. And if they did, it would probably just be the long overdue Black Diamond raise. At my present level (Silver) the exclusive commission is far too low, and even at Diamond it's not very good. How can they pay less than 50% for exclusive content?

As long as exclusivity still means a 20-30% paycut for me, I'll keep my distance.

Very good point about value, not just value to customers but also corporate value.  An agency without exclusivity isn't worth much more than than their equipment, structures, and holdings, the intellectual assets that they have, being non-exclusive, lack much in the way of value.  Exclusive intellectual assets on the other hand are much more valuable.  If a dollar value were to be placed on an agency's library, Istock's would be worth significantly more than anywhere else because of their content.  As a company, this is a very good thing, at allows a more favorable standing with financial institutions and should the owners decide to sell out (or the opposite not sell out), having the value of the company very high is always advantageous. 

I think that you are right on this one hatman, exclusiveness is the next step.  IS are the trailblazers of the industry on many fronts, and their foot is soundly in the door.  I think though that the FT approach is going to catch on, instead of full artist exclusivity like IS has, the push for single image exclusivity will enable the same net end result on the collection, while at the same time not turning away contributers because they must close up shop elsewhere.

If this is the way the industry is moving, and it really looks like it is, single image exclusivity will eventually lead to partial site specialization IMO.  For example say that you produce file X and you know that it is a good one.  It really fits what sells well at site Y, so offer it exclusive there.  Site Y now becomes better at what sells best and further cements their hold on that segment.  They all will still have the general libraries, that won't change, but single image exclusivity, if it becomes lucrative, leads to the decision, where do I list this.  The primary answer is where will it sell the best, the little differences and nuances between each site now will begin to become more and more magnified, and as the gaps in differences grows, the buyers too will slowly learn and adapt and migrate to whoever suits them best, further widening the margin.

There was a thread at SS a while back asking people if they would go exclusive with SS should the option ever become available. I said no, because SS isn't always my top earner. My ranking fluctuate too much between agencies to make exclusivity with any one of them too risky. But for many people SS soundly represents more than 50% of their monthly earnings consistently. Many people said that they would go exclusive, as long as the added pay per image was fair.

All SS would need to do is offer double commissions for exclusive artists, and I would guarantee that they'd have a nice roster of exclusives.

For IS, all they need to do is offer 50% commissions for Diamond earners and I would guarantee that their exclusive numbers would climb significantly. The top tier of 40% right now is too low.

Same for any other company: Offer a fair exclusive commission, and have proven sales records, and people will go exclusive.

Of course only a handful of companies can make this work right now, since a certain level of sales volume is required to entice people towards exclusivity. I just think that it would only take a small added commitment from the big sites to make exclusivity a realistic option for more people.

You can charge more for exclusive content on FT already as you start moving up though the bronze, silver, gold ranks etc - and get a higher percentage return for them

So what was the rejection reason - type of photograph or some type of technical complaint?

No idea.  "Image quality".  No specific explanation offered. 

I contacted Chad, who had encouraged me to submit in the first place, for an explanation, but that was a couple weeks back and no word yet.

Well the infinite collection certainly sells for more money, although I'm yet to be convinced that the work is actually all that much better. Not casting aspersions at you in particular Andres - your work is excellent.

Take a look at this:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/6800274

An XL of this image will cost you $480

Compare with any number of others, but for the sake of argument this one, where an XL will cost you $5

http://us.fotolia.com/id/1834279

I don't see how you can argue that the first (more expensive) shot is anything more than a competent, if uninspired shot. Lighting OK, models OK, but how is it worth nearly 10 times the price of the second?

Here's another example pair from a search of woman gardening (again $480 vs. $5 for an XL):
http://us.fotolia.com/id/6645259
http://us.fotolia.com/id/2664903


I suppose I should find it heartening that there is so much truly ordinary stuff in the Infinite collection - pricing that higher would make the regular collection (where my images live) more appealing.

OTOH, I recall some article a while back in the New York Times business section where a bag manufacturer was saying how sales went from lackluster to stellar when they started doing wait lists for the bag and controlling supply so that you couldn't just walk in and buy one. The appearance of something "special" doesn't always have to go with the reality of the product to boost sales.

The real problem is that microstock is too undervalued  (as today's prices) to make it attractive to become exclusive in any way.  If prices were midstock prices then one would consider becoming exclusive (image exclusive that is) with one agency.  The exclusivity model implemented by IS is absurd, to say the least.  They offer a less than generous comission and you become artist exclusive, which was unheard of before IS created this figure.  In today´s market, with low prices, and suscriptions, we rely on every single sale to make our portfolios work as a whole.  To require exclusivity with today's prices is to ask too much from photographers without offering anything in return.

I agree that micros have to become more exclusive with their material buthave to pay more (way more) to attract photographers into this model. 

The market value of the stocksite is not in the number of images exclusive or not, but just like the "real world" the value is in it's business model which means its Market Share, Turnover current and projected and the bottom line is the Order Book

So is exclusives good for the buyer, if you were looking for images would you prefer sites with more exclusive images, which could mean you have to buy credits and spend time at a number of sites to fill your picky clients requirement, or a one stop shop where you have a good range?

When you go to the supermarket you have a choice of branded or Store Branded economy and exclusive store branded goods, that is a good model in a free market, clothing is different if you want top end designer then you go to the designers outlet, but I would think stock sites are supermarkets, bringing a big range of different branded goods to a single outlet.

For the stocksites exclusives are not as profitable as they cut into thier margin, but may add a needed sales dimension to the business to attract buyers, who then purchase both the exclusive and non exclusive images, and overall everyone is happy, so I do not think there will be an exclusive war, just that other sites like SS may soon see the benefit of having a collection of exclusive images as a lower markup sales pulling strategy, but they will only be looking for a limited number of exclusive images.

That is I.M.H.O.   

David