MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: eyeidea on January 10, 2012, 17:38

Title: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: eyeidea on January 10, 2012, 17:38
hello all, well it's official, I have left iStock exclusivity on video too now, left exclusivity on photo Sept.2010 like so many others, it has been a lot of work but well worth it, I will not be pulling my portfolio but I am making new upload priorities different across several sites.

PRESS RELEASE HERE...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9085704.htm (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9085704.htm)
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Karimala on January 10, 2012, 17:53
Wow...congratulations and good luck!
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: lisafx on January 10, 2012, 17:55
Congratulations Chad!  With the quality of your work, I am sure you will be extremely successful as an indy, just as you were as an exclusive :)
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: traveler1116 on January 10, 2012, 18:11
 I think video will probably be a lot better than photos as a nonexclusive, but let us know how it works for you.  Good luck.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: fotoVoyager on January 10, 2012, 18:20
Good luck!
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: rene on January 10, 2012, 19:24
Congratulation. I'm sure it's a good decision. I made it 2 years ago and never regret.
But I don't think contributing to Fotolia is a good choice. They have lowest commissions.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: jamirae on January 10, 2012, 22:18
wow!  big step but I know you'll be successful!
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: jamesbenet on January 10, 2012, 22:23
Very encouraging, hope you have an easy time extending your portfolio across the entire stock spectrum. Wish you much success in 2012.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Pheby on January 10, 2012, 22:28
Congratulation. I'm sure it's a good decision. I made it 2 years ago and never regret.
But I don't think contributing to Fotolia is a good choice. They have lowest commissions.

Depends - they pay me 45 %. ;)

Good luck, eyeidea!
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: click_click on January 10, 2012, 23:22
Wonderful work! Are you a "one-man-show"?
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 10, 2012, 23:44
Your press release is pure class - it says what needs to be said, without sugarcoating or any hint of animosity. Hope 2012 as an independent is a good one for you.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: suemack on January 11, 2012, 03:58
Congrats Chad, and the best of luck in the next chapter of your journey
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on January 11, 2012, 04:02
Welcome to the wild side.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: rubyroo on January 11, 2012, 04:08
I hope it works out well for you  :)
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: ayzek on January 11, 2012, 06:49
Good luck!
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 11, 2012, 06:59
Your press release is pure class - it says what needs to be said, without sugarcoating or any hint of animosity. Hope 2012 as an independent is a good one for you.

Yes, nice copywriting.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: scottdunlap on January 11, 2012, 08:34
Best of luck going independent, hope everything works out well for you.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: SNP on January 11, 2012, 14:14
Your press release is pure class - it says what needs to be said, without sugarcoating or any hint of animosity. Hope 2012 as an independent is a good one for you.

despite the spelling mistakes.....it needs a good proofread....

I question the wisdom of eyeidea going non-exclusive after such success with iStock. but I certainly wish Chad the best of luck. His work is so good.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on January 11, 2012, 15:40
Welcome fellow pariah.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: SNP on January 11, 2012, 15:47
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Karimala on January 11, 2012, 16:01
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: cobalt on January 12, 2012, 07:22
Good luck!

Looks like more and more contributors are following your example or thinking about it. Another gold video contributor just announced that he cancelled exclusivity.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: cthoman on January 12, 2012, 11:06
Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

I don't know. I wouldn't want to make that transition. It's not exactly friendly outside the gates at IS and you're basically asking people to start over when they give up exclusivity. I've said it a couple times that I think the best place to be if you're going to be on IS is as an exclusive.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 11:27
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income. 
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: scottdunlap on January 12, 2012, 11:53
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income. 

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: SNP on January 12, 2012, 12:00
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income. 

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.


exactly.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Karimala on January 12, 2012, 12:49
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income. 

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.


exactly.

That's understandable.  Hopefully pulling my portfolio helps you guys out.   :)
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 13:14
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income. 

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.


exactly.

That's understandable.  Hopefully pulling my portfolio helps you guys out.   :)

Haaa.  Yes, thanks, sounds like a great idea. I hope more people follow your lead. ;D
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 13:49
Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: ShadySue on January 12, 2012, 13:53
Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.
It does look that way, other than the current best match.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: cthoman on January 12, 2012, 14:04
Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.

I thought they made more off of exclusives because the increase in prices is higher than the royalty increase for the same file.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: Karimala on January 12, 2012, 14:07
Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.
It does look that way, other than the current best match.

Not only pay them less, but also provide less services for contributors.  Indies don't have the benefit of IS acting as an agent to pursue copyright infringements, etc.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 14:38
Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.

This would seem to contradict the direction they've been headed with pricing.

If there were no more exclusives then wouldn't most of the Vetta and Agency prices drop back to micro level? All that would be left of the higher priced stuff is the the Getty content.

Plus, if there were no more exclusives most of the files would be on every other site. What other unique benefit could they tout to justify higher prices?

If they dumped exclusives the only way I'm seeing it would make sense would be for them to drop micro prices to compete with other micros then and dump a ton of Getty content on IS at higher prices to try and tap buyer's wallets.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 15:17
This would seem to contradict the direction they've been headed with pricing.

If there were no more exclusives then wouldn't most of the Vetta and Agency prices drop back to micro level? All that would be left of the higher priced stuff is the the Getty content.

Plus, if there were no more exclusives most of the files would be on every other site. What other unique benefit could they tout to justify higher prices?

If they dumped exclusives the only way I'm seeing it would make sense would be for them to drop micro prices to compete with other micros then and dump a ton of Getty content on IS at higher prices to try and tap buyer's wallets.

Yes.

Most exclusives do not have many Agency or Vetta files. The option also exists for them to introduce an exclusive content option. Maybe with the site update.
Title: Re: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock
Post by: jamirae on January 12, 2012, 16:23
This would seem to contradict the direction they've been headed with pricing.

If there were no more exclusives then wouldn't most of the Vetta and Agency prices drop back to micro level? All that would be left of the higher priced stuff is the the Getty content.

Plus, if there were no more exclusives most of the files would be on every other site. What other unique benefit could they tout to justify higher prices?

If they dumped exclusives the only way I'm seeing it would make sense would be for them to drop micro prices to compete with other micros then and dump a ton of Getty content on IS at higher prices to try and tap buyer's wallets.

Yes.

Most exclusives do not have many Agency or Vetta files. The option also exists for them to introduce an exclusive content option. Maybe with the site update.

it would be nice to have an exclusive content option (i.e. exclusive by the image not by the artist) as I could then make more off the minilypse event photos that I can only sell through iStock.