Author Topic: Do buyers care about RF exclusivity? (Read 8304 times)

Freedom · « **on:** February 24, 2009, 13:04 »

I don't really get it why a buyer should care if a RF image is exclusive or not. Given the RF nature, two competing companies can buy the same photo from the same agency even though the photo is exclusive to that agency.

I have asked a few friends in some advertising firms. They said they only wanted to get the most appropriate photos and exclusivity was not a concern for them.

What do you think?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2009, 13:26 »

An agency with exclusive images might be a draw because, as mentioned in another thread, buyers can see content that they haven't seen a dozen times over at another agency.

For instance, I looked at one of Veers promo lightboxes for business yesterday in the marketplace, and it appeared to be at least half of Yuri's images.

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2009, 13:26 »

Not sure how many buyers frequent this board.

My opinion is I don't think most of them care, but since I am not a buyer my opinion isn't worth much on the subject

vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2009, 13:33 »

They could look on the exclusive side for more diversity. Istock attract buyers mostly for that I think. They also the only agency who keep the prices at a better level. Probably because they offer more diversity that keep designers from buying there.

But I don't think they look more for exclusive images than for diversity. I heard some designers saying on forums that they felt like they had a look at all microstock images available...

Microbius · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2009, 13:34 »

Yes, in the sense that an agency with loads of exclusive images will have a greater selection that you won't find elsewhere.
No when it comes to any individual image, as it can sell multiple times irrespective of exclusivity.

Freedom · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2009, 14:09 »

Hmmm, Veer Marketplace might not be a good example because they have just started. Only a few established photogs are selected and most Snap photos are not transferred yet. That might explain why Yuri's photos seem to have dominated the place.

Since exclusive contributors are often allowed to upload far more than non-exclusives, would the buyers see mostly photos from the most productive contributors in a given agency? Will it have the same effect as your impression at Veer Marketplace?

Quote from: sjlocke on February 24, 2009, 13:26

An agency with exclusive images might be a draw because, as mentioned in another thread, buyers can see content that they haven't seen a dozen times over at another agency.

For instance, I looked at one of Veers promo lightboxes for business yesterday in the marketplace, and it appeared to be at least half of Yuri's images.

bittersweet · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2009, 15:31 »

Quote from: Vonkara on February 24, 2009, 13:33

They could look on the exclusive side for more diversity. Istock attract buyers mostly for that I think. They also the only agency who keep the prices at a better level. Probably because they offer more diversity that keep designers from buying there.

But I don't think they look more for exclusive images than for diversity. I heard some designers saying on forums that they felt like they had a look at all microstock images available...

That's how I use it as well. I do not search for exclusive images, but feel that the sampling at istock is a good mix of the best of what's on the other sites, as well as images that can be seen nowhere else. I lightbox possibles for a project, and then when I am ready to purchase, only then do I look at who the photographer is. If they are non-exclusive, I will then go to DT (where it's cheaper) to make the purchase if I can find the same image. If not, I purchase from istock.

melastmohican · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2009, 15:46 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 15:31

That's how I use it as well. I do not search for exclusive images, but feel that the sampling at istock is a good mix of the best of what's on the other sites, as well as images that can be seen nowhere else. I lightbox possibles for a project, and then when I am ready to purchase, only then do I look at who the photographer is. If they are non-exclusive, I will then go to DT (where it's cheaper) to make the purchase if I can find the same image. If not, I purchase from istock.

This actually great description of buying algorithm :-) I guess some buyers are aware that same picture is available in many places and shop around for lowest price. On the other hand images are already dirt chip. What difference is between 33 and 25 cents? Image itself is a fraction of the cost buyers will charge for their product.

bittersweet · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2009, 16:00 »

Quote from: melastmohican on February 24, 2009, 15:46

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 15:31
That's how I use it as well. I do not search for exclusive images, but feel that the sampling at istock is a good mix of the best of what's on the other sites, as well as images that can be seen nowhere else. I lightbox possibles for a project, and then when I am ready to purchase, only then do I look at who the photographer is. If they are non-exclusive, I will then go to DT (where it's cheaper) to make the purchase if I can find the same image. If not, I purchase from istock.

This actually great description of buying algorithm :-) I guess some buyers are aware that same picture is available in many places and shop around for lowest price. On the other hand images are already dirt chip. What difference is between 33 and 25 cents? Image itself is a fraction of the cost buyers will charge for their product.

To clarify, since you are quoting me, I do not "shop around". I am aware of the prices at DT vs. iStock. (Neither of which is 33 or 25 cents, or anywhere near that, by the way). I don't go scouring a bunch of sites to try to save a few pennies. When I go from istock to ONE other site, it is because I can get the same large image from the same photographer for as low as $4 at DT that would be $18 (12 credits) at IS, or the same medium image for as low as $3 that will be $9 at IS. Once I've decided to purchase an image, I am going to purchase it. If I can spend an extra 5 or 10 minutes to pay a fraction of the cost, then I will. Sure, the photographer is making a lot less, but I figure they made the choice to sell it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, so I'd be foolish not to save money where I can.

vonkara · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2009, 16:10 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 15:31

If they are non-exclusive, I will then go to DT (where it's cheaper) to make the purchase if I can find the same image. If not, I purchase from istock.

Ohhh gotcha LOL. It has been a year I asked myself this for the first time. Does buyers go on Istock to see and buy at Shutterstock. At least you go buy at Dreamstime... thank you - thank you for doing that

. But does you already purchased at SS after looking at a non-exclusive image on IS

Or you know people doing this ?

Freedom · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2009, 16:13 »

I am trying to figure out what impact your action has on the income of non-exclusive contributors. This is a random example I found at both IS and DT for comparison purpose:

At IS: An image:
- Large, 3817 × 2521 px 12.7" × 8.4" @ 300 dpi 1.77 MB,
- Buyer pays 12 credits
- a non-exclusive Bronz contributor gets 20%, or $2.40.

The exact same image at DT at Level 2:
- Extra Large, 3817x2521 pixels 32.3cm x 21.3cm@300 dpi
- Buyer pays 7 credits
- a non-exclusive gets 50%, or $3.50.

So really unless you are on a DT subscription plan, your "fishing" expenditure only benefits the non-exclusive photographer. If the extra time you spent is also factored in, you are not really getting a big discount.

Interesting, isn't it?

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 15:31

That's how I use it as well. I do not search for exclusive images, but feel that the sampling at istock is a good mix of the best of what's on the other sites, as well as images that can be seen nowhere else. I lightbox possibles for a project, and then when I am ready to purchase, only then do I look at who the photographer is. If they are non-exclusive, I will then go to DT (where it's cheaper) to make the purchase if I can find the same image. If not, I purchase from istock.

bittersweet · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2009, 16:34 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 24, 2009, 16:13

I am trying to figure out what impact your action has on the income of non-exclusive contributors. This is a random example I found at both IS and DT for comparison purpose:

At IS: An image:
- Large, 3817 × 2521 px 12.7" × 8.4" @ 300 dpi 1.77 MB,
- Buyer pays 12 credits
- a non-exclusive Bronz contributor gets 20%, or $2.40.

The exact same image at DT at Level 2:
- Extra Large, 3817x2521 pixels 32.3cm x 21.3cm@300 dpi
- Buyer pays 7 credits
- a non-exclusive gets 50%, or $3.50.

So really unless you are on a DT subscription plan, your "fishing" expenditure only benefits the non-exclusive photographer. If the extra time you spent is also factored in, you are not really getting a big discount.

Interesting, isn't it?

First of all, your math is a bit flawed. The credit price at DT is not equal to the credit price at IS. (An exception to this will be when I convert my IS earnings at the $1/credit rate, but this obviously does not apply to every purchase, nor to most buyers). I buy the smallest credit pack at DT, on the fly as needed, using PayPal. I don't use any subscription plans.

Second of all, when I'm wearing my buyer/graphic design firm owner hat, it does not concern me how much or little the photographer gets. I care about my bottom line. This may sound harsh, but if someone has chosen to put their images on whatever site, then they have agreed to whatever terms that site may have. They are doing it of their own free will, and I'm not going to spend any time struggling over the fairness of it all. If they happen to make more because I'm paying less, then by all means, woo yay.

And finally, as I mentioned before, I do not go "fishing" around a bunch of sites. I find the image I want. If, and only if, it is non-exclusive (and honestly many times it is exclusive), then I will enter the photog's name in Google, click on their DT portfolio link, and search for the image. This may take a total of 5 minutes.

Freedom · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2009, 16:55 »

The credit price at DT is not the same as IS in US dollars? Can you please explain the difference? Thanks.

I understand you need to follow your bottom line. As we all do.

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 16:34

First of all, your math is a bit flawed. The credit price at DT is not equal to the credit price at IS. (An exception to this will be when I convert my IS earnings at the $1/credit rate, but this obviously does not apply to every purchase, nor to most buyers). I buy the smallest credit pack at DT, on the fly as needed, using PayPal. I don't use any subscription plans.

Second of all, when I'm wearing my buyer/graphic design firm owner hat, it does not concern me how much or little the photographer gets. I care about my bottom line. This may sound harsh, but if someone has chosen to put their images on whatever site, then they have agreed to whatever terms that site may have. They are doing it of their own free will, and I'm not going to spend any time struggling over the fairness of it all. If they happen to make more because I'm paying less, then by all means, woo yay.

And finally, as I mentioned before, I do not go "fishing" around a bunch of sites. I find the image I want. If, and only if, it is non-exclusive (and honestly many times it is exclusive), then I will enter the photog's name in Google, click on their DT portfolio link, and search for the image. This may take a total of 5 minutes.

bittersweet · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2009, 17:06 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 24, 2009, 16:55

The credit price at DT is not the same as IS in US dollars? Can you please explain the difference? Thanks.

Here's the link for purchasing iStock credits:
http://www.istockphoto.com/buy-stock-credits-pay-as-you-go.php?
Smallest package: 12 credits, cost $18.00 ($1.50 per credit)

Here's the link for purchasing Dreamstime credits:
http://www.dreamstime.com/credits
Smallest package: 7 credits, cost $6.99 ($1 per credit)

Surely we can agree that there is a noticeable difference between paying $18 and $7 for the same image?

Freedom · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2009, 17:14 »

Thanks for the clarification.

So the re-calculation is as follows: the non-exclusive photog will get US$3.60 at IS and $3.50 at DT, for the image of the same size.

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 17:06

Quote from: Freedom on February 24, 2009, 16:55
The credit price at DT is not the same as IS in US dollars? Can you please explain the difference? Thanks.

Here's the link for purchasing iStock credits:
http://www.istockphoto.com/buy-stock-credits-pay-as-you-go.php?
Smallest package: 12 credits, cost $18.00 ($1.50 per credit)

Here's the link for purchasing Dreamstime credits:
http://www.dreamstime.com/credits
Smallest package: 7 credits, cost $6.99 ($1 per credit)

Surely we can agree that there is a noticeable difference between paying $18 and $7 for the same image?

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2009, 18:27 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 16:00

...If I can spend an extra 5 or 10 minutes to pay a fraction of the cost, then I will. Sure, the photographer is making a lot less, but I figure they made the choice to sell it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, so I'd be foolish not to save money where I can.

Actually, in all likelihood the photographer is making the same or more from the sale at DT as they would have made on istock.

Dreamstime pays its photographers 50% vs. 20% to independents on istock. I find that my average sale on DT nets more than my average sale on IS.

bittersweet · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2009, 18:38 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2009, 18:27

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 16:00
...If I can spend an extra 5 or 10 minutes to pay a fraction of the cost, then I will. Sure, the photographer is making a lot less, but I figure they made the choice to sell it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, so I'd be foolish not to save money where I can.

Actually, in all likelihood the photographer is making the same or more from the sale at DT as they would have made on istock.

Dreamstime pays its photographers 50% vs. 20% to independents on istock. I find that my average sale on DT nets more than my average sale on IS.

Yep, I see that now. As I said, I never really gave it a lot of thought. Good to know I'm not hurting the artists when I save myself some money.

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2009, 18:48 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 18:38

Yep, I see that now. As I said, I never really gave it a lot of thought. Good to know I'm not hurting the artists when I save myself some money.

Definitely a win/win for everybody

hoi ha · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2009, 20:44 »

Do buyers truly care if a RF photo is exclusive to an agency or not?

Not in the least - what may be of concern in the amount of times an image has sold ... if it has sold in the hundreds I might hesitate cause I don't want an image I use to be all over the place in other magazines - but where it is available is totally irrelevant to my purchase decision. There was a time when we would purchase the occasional image from istock because we couldn't find what we needed at other sites but the other micros' collections have grown so fast that I cannot even remember the last time we purchased from istock ... maybe a couple vectors in the last year but that would be it.

We also struggle with istock's search function (sooo slow and cumbersome) so we rarely even look on istock anymore.

This is not meant to be a slam at istock ... they still have the best selection of all microstock ... it' simply, as others have said, too expensive when compared to what it offers and what can be found elsewhere.

Imagecom · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2009, 02:25 »

Hi ,
Tks for the honest input whatalife.
"To clarify, since you are quoting me, I do not "shop around". I am aware of the prices at DT vs. iStock. (Neither of which is 33 or 25 cents, or anywhere near that, by the way). I don't go scouring a bunch of sites to try to save a few pennies. When I go from istock to ONE other site, it is because I can get the same large image from the same photographer for as low as $4 at DT that would be $18 (12 credits) at IS, or the same medium image for as low as $3 that will be $9 at IS. Once I've decided to purchase an image, I am going to purchase it. If I can spend an extra 5 or 10 minutes to pay a fraction of the cost, then I will. Sure, the photographer is making a lot less, but I figure they made the choice to sell it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, so I'd be foolish not to save money where I can."

travelstock · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2009, 17:41 »

I'm actually surprised that IS remains as popular as it is with buyers - other sites such in particular DT have exclusive content, and generally work out cheaper than IS. On top of that you can get editorial images from DT which just aren't available on IS.

On the other hand the upload limits on IS mean that most non-exclusive photographers have only a fraction of their portfolios online on IS - for me its less than 50%.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2009, 04:22 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2009, 18:27

Quote from: whatalife on February 24, 2009, 16:00
...If I can spend an extra 5 or 10 minutes to pay a fraction of the cost, then I will. Sure, the photographer is making a lot less, but I figure they made the choice to sell it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, so I'd be foolish not to save money where I can.

Actually, in all likelihood the photographer is making the same or more from the sale at DT as they would have made on istock.

Dreamstime pays its photographers 50% vs. 20% to independents on istock. I find that my average sale on DT nets more than my average sale on IS.

I agree .. I'm not a big istock fan

CraigSwatton · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2009, 18:22 »

I suspect buyers don't care whether any given image is exclusive, it doesn't make much odds when it's on sale RF.

What buyers do care about is like you say, finding good images that match their requirements. If there are a whole load of good images only up for sale at one place, that site has a unique selling point that'll bring buyers back.

It's more important to the sites than to the buyers as it means they can then compete on quality and breadth of content rather than just quality of the search and the price.

It also means buyers won't go to the site with the best search to find an image then use the contributor name to find the image on the site with the best price.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Do buyers truly care if a RF photo is exclusive to an agency or not?

Author Topic: Do buyers care about RF exclusivity? (Read 8304 times)

Freedom

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

vonkara

Microbius

Freedom

bittersweet

melastmohican

bittersweet

vonkara

Freedom

bittersweet

Freedom

bittersweet

Freedom

lisafx

bittersweet

lisafx

hoi ha

Imagecom

travelstock

Randy McKown

CraigSwatton

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors