Author Topic: Is iStock's exclusivity program it's Achilles heel? (Read 14095 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.

hoi ha · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2008, 20:48 »

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

Do you honestly believe that? With a straight face you could say that istock would not be interested in an excellent top notch photographer that makes them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2008, 22:36 »

He doesn't make them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Besides, he's way down a list of people with successful download histories.

hoi ha · « **Reply #27 on:** September 15, 2008, 22:52 »

He is making the other microsites that amount so i cannot imagine him not being able to replicate that on istock with its higher level of traffic ... he is not that far behind Yuri in terms of download numbers on the other sites so why would he not be as successful on istock?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #28 on:** September 15, 2008, 23:21 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 15, 2008, 22:36

He doesn't make them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Besides, he's way down a list of people with successful download histories.

Because he doesn't get to upload his entire portfolio. I tracked the following activity in the past 45 days. You made 1.42 DLs per image. Yuri made 4.07 DLs per image and iofoto made 1.99 DLs per image. ALL very respectable numbers. I wish I could be so good. However I'd have to say iofoto is doing just fine when you look at the number of images that have been placed and the number of sales they have generated.

Again, it's iStocks choice, but if I were running the business I wouldn't treat everyone equally.

Aetherial · « **Reply #29 on:** September 16, 2008, 02:22 »

they don't. but they also don't know who should get better treatment. check newest exclusive uploads. some percentage of pictures there are...well, just crappy, while many non-exclusives have fantastic images and only get to upload 15 a week, and their images get punked in the best match search in favor of excl.

sharpshot · « **Reply #30 on:** September 17, 2008, 03:17 »

Having exclusive images is nice but how many of them are significantly different to what is available on the other sites? All those photos of smiling business people, handshakes and goldfish jumping out of their bowl look similar to me. Perhaps exclusive images are not as important as it might seem?

Thanks to the upload limits, their competitors probably have a million good images that istock don't have. Doesn't this negate any possible advantage of having exclusive images?

I don't see a great advantage in knowing how many times an image has been downloaded when it is being sold with an RF license. It could be used for all sorts of purposes. Most of my sales come from images that have already sold a lot of time on istock and the other sites.

hoi ha · « **Reply #31 on:** September 17, 2008, 04:23 »

Having exclusive images is nice but how many of them are significantly different to what is available on the other sites? All those photos of smiling business people, handshakes and goldfish jumping out of their bowl look similar to me. Perhaps exclusive images are not as important as it might seem?

That's a good point - the truth is we complain all the time when people "are inspired" by our more successful images - but in terms of exclusivity and IS it means that a successful image by one of their exclsuive contributors is quickly "copied" and made available on the other sites ...

the big exception is the vector illustrations - istock still has the best portfolio of vector artists with some great work without doubt ... the other sites' portfolios are not nearly as good ... but I would argue that the other sites are absolutely on par/equal with IS on the photgraphy side ...

lisafx · « **Reply #32 on:** September 17, 2008, 12:07 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 17, 2008, 04:23

the big exception is the vector illustrations - istock still has the best portfolio of vector artists with some great work without doubt ... the other sites' portfolios are not nearly as good ... but I would argue that the other sites are absolutely on par/equal with IS on the photgraphy side ...

If Istock's current best match complaint thread is any indication, vectors have been moved way down in the search results. A number of top vector artists are upset and a few mentioned they are rethinking their exclusivity.

I know one long time micro contributor who just went exclusive with istock because of the superior vector pricing. Can't imagine she's real happy with this latest development.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #33 on:** September 17, 2008, 13:06 »

I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.

I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"

loop · « **Reply #34 on:** September 17, 2008, 14:15 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 17, 2008, 04:23

Having exclusive images is nice but how many of them are significantly different to what is available on the other sites? All those photos of smiling business people, handshakes and goldfish jumping out of their bowl look similar to me. Perhaps exclusive images are not as important as it might seem?

That's a good point - the truth is we complain all the time when people "are inspired" by our more successful images - but in terms of exclusivity and IS it means that a successful image by one of their exclsuive contributors is quickly "copied" and made available on the other sites ...

the big exception is the vector illustrations - istock still has the best portfolio of vector artists with some great work without doubt ... the other sites' portfolios are not nearly as good ... but I would argue that the other sites are absolutely on par/equal with IS on the photgraphy side ...

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

ludesal · « **Reply #35 on:** September 17, 2008, 21:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2008, 13:06

I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.

I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"

I thought so too, but it's the only explanation. Moving back vectors on the best match was the only thing that happened on August and our sales drop suddenly on the same date. And now, with the new change, a new drop... I don't like what's happening. I never complain, but this is too much, I'm losing a lot!
I used to love being exclusive, now, not so much. $:-\$

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #36 on:** September 17, 2008, 21:35 »

I'm exclusive and was a bit leery about the best match change. It has only been a few days so only time will tell. So far my average daily downloads and earnings are up slightly.

hoi ha · « **Reply #37 on:** September 17, 2008, 21:51 »

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

Well we can agree to disagree on that one ... my company does not purchase any IS photos anymore - we purchase all our photos from another microsite now. The only thing we use istock for is the odd vector a couple times a month. Sometimes, just out of curiosity, i will do a photo search on istock ... if I can remain patient enough with the slowness of the site and all the spam, I still never ever find anything we need that cannot be found elsewhere.

This is just my company though - I am sure there are other companies out there that remain loyal to IS and are willing to pay the prices because they find what they need there. Different firms have different needs.

hoi ha · « **Reply #38 on:** September 17, 2008, 22:28 »

I agree with SJLocke but only to an extent - by and large I think people go in looking for a vector and buy a vector (using the vector search). But oftentimes I imagine a designer does not know what she/he is looking for until they see it ... they have a theme in their head but look at images as a way of working that theme into a more complete product ... in that case they might not have a pre-conceived notion as to wehther they want/need a vector or a photo (or both for that matter). If vectors are pushed way back in the best match search results it's that sort of buyer who will be less inclined to purcahse a vector(s) because he/she does not see it toward the front of the search.

bittersweet · « **Reply #39 on:** September 18, 2008, 00:13 »

Quote from: latex on September 17, 2008, 21:18

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2008, 13:06
I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.

I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"

I thought so too, but it's the only explanation. Moving back vectors on the best match was the only thing that happened on August and our sales drop suddenly on the same date. And now, with the new change, a new drop... I don't like what's happening. I never complain, but this is too much, I'm losing a lot!
I used to love being exclusive, now, not so much. $:-\$

You gotta believe that istock is also "losing a lot" because vectors are extremely profitable for them. They represent only a small percentage of the total files, but generate a vastly disproportionate share of the income. If there has been a conscious decision to handicap vector files, it would be a really dumb (and costly) thing to do.

loop · « **Reply #40 on:** September 18, 2008, 11:00 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 17, 2008, 21:51

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

Well we can agree to disagree on that one ... my company does not purchase any IS photos anymore - we purchase all our photos from another microsite now. The only thing we use istock for is the odd vector a couple times a month. Sometimes, just out of curiosity, i will do a photo search on istock ... if I can remain patient enough with the slowness of the site and all the spam, I still never ever find anything we need that cannot be found elsewhere.

This is just my company though - I am sure there are other companies out there that remain loyal to IS and are willing to pay the prices because they find what they need there. Different firms have different needs.

It's your company, no doubt.

ludesal · « **Reply #41 on:** September 18, 2008, 14:05 »

Quote from: bittersweet on September 18, 2008, 00:13

You gotta believe that istock is also "losing a lot" because vectors are extremely profitable for them. They represent only a small percentage of the total files, but generate a vastly disproportionate share of the income. If there has been a conscious decision to handicap vector files, it would be a really dumb (and costly) thing to do.

I don't think they are losing, the same people that were buying our vectors, now are buying photos or 3D renders. Check this: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=74187&messageid=1148256
I think that we have lost the undecided costumer that would buy a photo or a vector.

hoi ha · « **Reply #42 on:** September 18, 2008, 20:16 »

It's your company, no doubt.

I wish - actually I take that back - after the markets this week maybe that's a good thing !!

sharpshot · « **Reply #43 on:** September 19, 2008, 02:57 »

Quote from: loop on September 17, 2008, 14:15

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

What about all the really great images that istock is missing? They are missing thousands from Yuri, iofoto andresr etc. and there are people who refuse to upload there as there is no FTP and only 20% commission for non-exclusives. Then there are all the non-vector illustrations that sell great on the other sites bet get 95% rejections from istock. Add that lot up and it is probably much more than 400 thousand.

loop · « **Reply #44 on:** September 19, 2008, 05:38 »

That's what a designer, a buyer for a great company told me: "I only look at two sites: Istock and another one, no matter what. Once I'checked the "another one" I know I will find the same stuff for my keywors at every microsite, and that only at Istock I will be able to find new and good stuff".

bittersweet · « **Reply #45 on:** September 19, 2008, 09:53 »

Quote from: latex on September 18, 2008, 14:05

Quote from: bittersweet on September 18, 2008, 00:13
You gotta believe that istock is also "losing a lot" because vectors are extremely profitable for them. They represent only a small percentage of the total files, but generate a vastly disproportionate share of the income. If there has been a conscious decision to handicap vector files, it would be a really dumb (and costly) thing to do.

I don't think they are losing, the same people that were buying our vectors, now are buying photos or 3D renders. Check this: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=74187&messageid=1148256
I think that we have lost the undecided costumer that would buy a photo or a vector.

I'm not sure what that link to a thread about slow server issues has to do with this topic, but what I meant was, if the person who before may have bought, for example, a 10 credit vector is now okay settling for a 3 credit photo or render (if size is not an issue), then the net profit is significantly less.

That being said, my sales are down some as well, but August also had some dips. At the end of the month I ended up where I wanted to be, and I'm hopeful (and fairly confident) that this month will settle out that way as well. However, if this trend continues into October, I will be really concerned.

ludesal · « **Reply #46 on:** September 19, 2008, 11:50 »

Quote from: bittersweet on September 19, 2008, 09:53

I'm not sure what that link to a thread about slow server issues has to do with this topic...

In this thread, kkthompson said this:
"We've had record days of downloads and accordingly the most we've ever paid out to contributors."

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #47 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:18 »

Indeed, there are a lot of times I have just a "concept" in my head and I go searching for photos and a lot of the times I end up with a vector. If IS screwed-the-pooch on vector placement, OUCH!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is iStock's exclusivity program it's Achilles heel? (Read 14095 times)

vonkara

grp_photo

lisafx

bittersweet

bittersweet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors