Author Topic: Is iStock's exclusivity program it's Achilles heel? (Read 14101 times)

crazychristina · « **on:** September 12, 2008, 18:22 »

Having lived through the days of intense competition between Apple and IBM/MS for the PC market, it seems to me that the open architecture approach of IBM is what allowed it to win out in the end. istock's exclusivity program attempts to lock photographers into istock alone. Sure, the quality is great, but seems that many contributors find lack of commitment to be an advantage. While the community on istock encourages new people to become exclusive, as these companies grow and become more impersonal, the lure might not be as strong.

michaeldb · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2008, 19:46 »

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 18:22

Having lived through the days of intense competition between Apple and IBM/MS for the PC market, it seems to me that the open architecture approach of IBM is what allowed it to win out in the end. istock's exclusivity program attempts to lock photographers into istock alone. Sure, the quality is great, but seems that many contributors find lack of commitment to be an advantage. While the community on istock encourages new people to become exclusive, as these companies grow and become more impersonal, the lure might not be as strong.

Thought provoking post. IS Exclusivity is frequently an issue here, as in "To go exclusive or not to go exclusive."

I do illustrations. Some time back IS, without warning or explanation, changed its Best Match search algorithm to essentially eliminate vectors from the results, and as the "best match" is the default search on IS, many of the exclusive illustrators, including some who were making thousands of $$$$ per month at IS, are seeing their revenues drop through the floor.

Some of those people are saying things like, "Maybe this is the end of vectors on iStock." One illustrator said that he hoped that IS would soon be BUYING other microstock sites.

I think this may be the secret hope of many IS exclusives, that IS/Getty will buy SS et al. And the IS exclusives will then get the best of all worlds?

yingyang0 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2008, 20:46 »

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 18:22

... it seems to me that the open architecture approach of IBM is what allowed it to win out in the end. istock's exclusivity program attempts to lock photographers into istock alone. Sure, the quality is great, but seems that many contributors find lack of commitment to be an advantage.

The open architecture of IBM was a benefit to the buyers! Here you're talking about an arrangement on the seller side. There's nothing about iStock's approach that locks buyers into anything. In fact, for the buyers the exclusive content is an added advantage, not a disadvantage.

crazychristina · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2008, 20:55 »

Not exactly true. Third party developers of both hardware and software could develop fairly easily for PCs, giving buyers greater choice. In relation to microstock, quite a few people have said that every one of their images is accepted SOMEWHERE, and most sell well SOMEWHERE. If you're producing for one brand, and an image is not accepted or doesn't fit with the search there, tough luck.

Non-exclusives on istock generally can't upload their entire portfolios due to upload caps. Hence, although buyers have greater choice of exclusive imagery, they have less choice of non-exclusive imagery than they have on other sites.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2008, 21:08 »

Not really getting the analogy here.

Istock's exclusive content is its strength. The more exclusive images the more of a competitve advantage they have and the more they can charge. If all the rest of the sites have the exact same images for around the same cost what's their competitive advantage? Nothing.

If anything, IS's upload workflow and search issues are more of its achilles heel. Ideally, IS should have all of the same images as every other site plus exclusive content. As it stands now, the upload process somewhat deters non-exclusives who upload a ton of stuff elsewhere first which is leaving IS lacking those images.

crazychristina · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2008, 21:17 »

I think there will be decreasing incentive for contributors to become exclusive on istock as more professionals get into the game, and they work out they can make more money by contributing to several sites. Given the real difficulties of upload caps and poor upload workflow, other sites could easily end up with the greater variety of good images.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2008, 22:19 »

That's if they can make more money uploading to several sites. Each contributor is different and some make a ton more submitting just to IS while others are better off at multiple sites. You'll never know until you try.

crazychristina · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2008, 02:26 »

Just been checking the istock forums on their recent best match change, and why several contributors have stated it's why they don't go exclusive there.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #8 on:** September 13, 2008, 09:02 »

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 21:17

I think there will be decreasing incentive for contributors to become exclusive on istock as more professionals get into the game, and they work out they can make more money by contributing to several sites. Given the real difficulties of upload caps and poor upload workflow, other sites could easily end up with the greater variety of good images.

Most professionals have long since been contributing to RF and as such can't become exclusive unless they pull those images off the market (according to iStock law). No professional would or probably could do that. Who would give up a steady income stream? So, yes iStock will get some of their images but only a very few of the ones that are available giving all the other micros an advantage to content. Yes iStock has some great exclusive photographers but I can see them lagging in some respects because of their submissions policy.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2008, 17:19 »

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 20:55

Non-exclusives on istock generally can't upload their entire portfolios due to upload caps. Hence, although buyers have greater choice of exclusive imagery,they have less choice of non-exclusive imagery than they have on other sites.

Non sequitur.

Don McGillis · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2008, 17:51 »

I'm still struggling with the exclusive versus nonexclusive question but given that my sales are so low and my portfolio is still tiny, I have time to figure it out and I'm tending toward exclusive. The PC/MAC analogy works to a degree (like all analogies) and I've been there since 1986 when I bought my first Mac SE but was forced to used PC in my day job. It was true then and it's true to today Apple (and the similar iStock) are all about brand and market capture. iStock is the default brand in micro (Apple was too, anyone remember the Apple II?) and iStock is looking to capture both buyers (by market dominance) and sellers (by exclusives). It's a choice they've made, a Steve Jobs style choice; big risk, huge payoff.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #11 on:** September 14, 2008, 10:06 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 13, 2008, 17:19

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 20:55
Non-exclusives on istock generally can't upload their entire portfolios due to upload caps. Hence, although buyers have greater choice of exclusive imagery,they have less choice of non-exclusive imagery than they have on other sites.
Non sequitur.

How so? Seems logical to me.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 14, 2008, 10:27 »

Quote from: Zeus on September 14, 2008, 10:06

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 13, 2008, 17:19
Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 20:55
Non-exclusives on istock generally can't upload their entire portfolios due to upload caps. Hence, although buyers have greater choice of exclusive imagery,they have less choice of non-exclusive imagery than they have on other sites.
Non sequitur.
How so? Seems logical to me.

Well the argument doesn't hold up because the other sites don't accept everything so just because you can submit more photos at another site doesn't mean they will be accepted and produce a greater choice of non-exclusive imagery. It's also worth noting that most people don't use up there entire upload limit every week.

Most of averil's points have been directed at why it's better for contributors to be non-exclusive and then from that draws conclusions about the buyers. The fact is that exclusive content for buyers at iStock is a huge advantage (it's why some of the others have started copying it). Buyers are able to know exactly how many times that image has been sold and know that is the only site that the image has been sold from. That's a feature normally only seen in the much more expensive RM licenses of the "big boys".

vonkara · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2008, 10:56 »

Exclusivity can be more and more appealing than it was a couple of months ago. That is before every agencies introduced subscriptions, like FT and StockXpert does and joined DT, SS and 123RF.

For example I have never sold more images at StockXpert. But 70% of them are crazy 0.30 subs at XL and XXL sizes.

crazychristina · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2008, 14:20 »

I wonder how many buyers care how often an image has been used. Seems to me that, even for the big sellers, a relatively small number of images sell very many times. Besides, given that they tend to use the same few models in all their images, anyone who knows the industry can immediately spot an image by yuri or lise. Who looks at the images closely anyway? To me, images in advertising are like background music in stores, there to give a general impression rather than convey specific information. I saw one of Yuri's business images on an ad for a major Australian online education provider recently. Not very appropriate for the business, but gave the necessary impression of 'being businesslike'.

grp_photo · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2008, 15:09 »

I thought Achilles works at Dreamstime

mollypix · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2008, 16:11 »

Microstock as an industry just hasn't been around long enough to weather enough "economic storms" and "fluctuations" to throw all eggs in one basket.

Who knows iStock may go the way of Lucky Oliver and Photoshelter.

If you look at any search using best match, it doesn't take long to find the end of the exclusives and the start of the non-exclusives. In fact you can see the dividing line. The percentage is still small.

Overall I like iStock, it doesn't have a head in the sand approach like Fotolia, their recent cull is a good start, slash and burn the trash, and if that includes some of my non productive images so be it. (Don't tell me that all of your images sell like hotcakes, don't p*ss down my leg and tell me its raining)

Survival of the fittest will determine the outcome, some sites will make poor business decisions, don't you be the one without a seat when the music stops.

Mollypix

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #17 on:** September 14, 2008, 18:29 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 14, 2008, 10:27

Quote from: Zeus on September 14, 2008, 10:06
Quote from: yingyang0 on September 13, 2008, 17:19
Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 20:55
Non-exclusives on istock generally can't upload their entire portfolios due to upload caps. Hence, although buyers have greater choice of exclusive imagery,they have less choice of non-exclusive imagery than they have on other sites.
Non sequitur.
How so? Seems logical to me.
Well the argument doesn't hold up because the other sites don't accept everything so just because you can submit more photos at another site doesn't mean they will be accepted and produce a greater choice of non-exclusive imagery. It's also worth noting that most people don't use up there entire upload limit every week.

Some of your points are valid when looking at a collection from the point of view of the average contributor. However when you start looking at it from the power house contributor then I think the iStock method of exclusivity fails itself. Take iofoto for instance. iStock loses big time because they only accept a teeny portion of what people like iiofoto can produce in a week. The average micro stock shooter may well not use their weekly limit however it can easy be argued that the average micro stock shooter is barely average when it comes to quality of image. So really who cares if the average guy is exclusive or not, it doesn't matter to the overall strength of the collection.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** September 14, 2008, 19:55 »

iStock does not really care about ifoto. He's one of a thousand contributors.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #19 on:** September 14, 2008, 20:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 14, 2008, 19:55

iStock does not really care about ifoto. He's one of a thousand contributors.

I believe you are correct in the above statement. My only point is that not all contributors are created equal and that not all of istocks methods work in their favour.

crazychristina · « **Reply #20 on:** September 14, 2008, 20:31 »

yuri will soon overtake hidesy as istock's second top seller. Might be a while before he catches lise though.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** September 14, 2008, 22:12 »

Download numbers aren't all that matters...

stock_fan · « **Reply #22 on:** September 15, 2008, 03:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 14, 2008, 22:12

Download numbers aren't all that matters...

sjlocke: What does matter?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** September 15, 2008, 04:37 »

Whether you are managing your costs, time and IP to best maximize your business income. 1000 SS downloads don't matter if you spent $5000 to get them.

stock_fan · « **Reply #24 on:** September 15, 2008, 20:45 »

thx. see what you mean.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is iStock's exclusivity program it's Achilles heel? (Read 14101 times)

crazychristina

michaeldb

yingyang0

crazychristina

PaulieWalnuts

crazychristina

PaulieWalnuts

crazychristina

PeterChigmaroff

yingyang0

Don McGillis

PeterChigmaroff

yingyang0

vonkara

crazychristina

grp_photo

mollypix

PeterChigmaroff

Sean Locke Photography

PeterChigmaroff

crazychristina

Sean Locke Photography

stock_fan

Sean Locke Photography

stock_fan

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors