MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I simply don't understand exclusivity?  (Read 33507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 02, 2008, 19:09 »
0
OK, I'm not interested in opinions like "it's fully safe" or "it's a hobby so I'm too lazy to upload to many more agencies".

I agree, exclusivity can put an agency in a good light but from the contributor's viewpoint I don't see the reason.

I was looking at my exclusivity estimator and multiplied these numbers with 3 and I still got a number of 1/3 of what I earn when I'm present at multiple agencies. If I produce something why sell this only in one store???

I think about putting all eggs in one basket. Risky? It's good to live in the shadow of a big but when something good/worse happens this big pulls everybody with him. See the new iStock's best match search algorithm. Except non-exclusives, many exclusives had BME/WME in November while at StockXpert, FL, DT, etc. there are no changes. Do they expect this???

Again, except a 'fully safe' and 'hobbyist' membership, an exclusive contributor only looses money not selling material with other agencies. We need to find the roots of exclusivity in the human behavior?


« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2008, 19:26 »
0
Yeah, I don't like iStockphoto's exclusivity agreement either. I like how Dreamstime does it, though. Basically, if iStockphoto rejects a non-exclusive's image then that individual can submit it to other agencies. More than likely, one of these agencies will like the image and accept it. This means that other agencies also have "exclusive" content that iStockphoto doesn't have. Of course, the image may not be any good; however, there are always exceptions. In my opinion, exclusivity does nothing to make iStockphoto more appealing to buyers. Hopefully, that made some sense.  :)

« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2008, 20:01 »
0
I suppose it makes sense if the site is a good earner and you have a good acceptance ratio.  Also, you can still sell other material as RM. 

Not that I would consider exclusivity, because my earnings are very spread among the top sites, but I understand it's attractive (less time-consuming) to upload to a single site, if overall you make a very good profit.

Regards,
Adelaide

jsnover

« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2008, 20:03 »
0
I submitted to multiple agencies for 4 years and went exclusive with IS in August. It was a complex decision, but it had to do with trying to find a good place to make a long term, financially rewarding part time business out of selling stock photos and illustrations. It was in part a decision about the positives about IS and in part a reflection on the unpleasant aspects of the other agencies. Of course there are risks - and one independent suggested anyone who considered exclusivity required mental health counseling :)

Uploading to multiple agencies is no issue, IMO. If I produce something, I want it to make the maximum it can, and not just this week or next, but over time. It's at least theoretically possible to do that more than one way, not only by uploading to as many agencies as possible.

« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2008, 03:47 »
0
I can't go exclusive with istock because they reject some of my best selling images.  My earnings with istock are often not much more than 20% of my monthly income.  I like selling RF on alamy and other sites that sell at much higher prices than istock.

It is nice not having to rely on one main source of income.  Being limited to big swings every time istock change the best match would drive me crazy.  I don't like the idea of one site dominating the market.  Using lots of different ones increases competition and hopefully makes it harder for one site to lower our commission.

« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2008, 05:09 »
0
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting  ;D  Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them  ;D
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 05:11 by Perrush »

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2008, 06:37 »
0
Nice. 

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2008, 09:21 »
0
Nice. 

come on, don't stick your head in the sand.  Do you tell no exclusives are copying non-exclusives ? Do you think non-exclusives are handled fairly at IS ? 

if not ?  why wouldn't we take advantage of your weakness (not being able to upload to other sites) ?


grp_photo

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2008, 09:41 »
0


my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting  ;D  Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them  ;D
Morally it is questionable. From a pure business point of view it is very efficient - granted! And you are right the best sellers are to more than 90% very easy to copy. I personally hesitating to make direct copies but there is certainly nothing morally wrong to get inspired by some exclusive portfolios.

lagereek

« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2008, 10:04 »
0
Nothing to understand really! and especially not in the Micro world but, there you go.
Lets move on from this IS/best match rubbish?  just dont upload anymore, concentrate on all the rest. Theres an ocean out there. Ive spent three hours, uploading Dealers on Trading-floors, Stockexchange, to two of my other Agencies.
Lets try and leave them alone and move on. Youre gonna feel a lot better.

Best.

jsnover

« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2008, 10:33 »
0
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting

This isn't an exclusive/independent issue, but is important. Copying easy to reproduce shots - or quick and dirty vector backgrounds with which SS is very flush - is a big issue.

I try to make images and vectors that are distinctive and not easy for anyone with two strobes and some white background to knock out a copy of. I'm also fortunate in that I'm not much of a target as I don't have those runaway bestsellers that copiers go for :)

 I also, for personal satisfaction reasons, want to make images that have my personal "stamp" on them. Vectors were (and I hope will be again) an interesting niche as the more complex ones aren't easy to make knock-offs of. There's a reason why some of RussellTate.com's work (as an example) isn't all over other agencies - he's very skilled and his work isn't easy to copy.

Great models, unique styling of the set, great locations and a good eye can mean that it's hard for the would-be lazy sod to copy even if they want to.

« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2008, 10:35 »
0
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting  ;D  Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them  ;D

Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.

helix7

« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2008, 10:38 »
0
My mistake in thinking about exclusivity and trying to understand people's reasoning for choosing to be exclusive was that I assumed that most people factored profitability into the decision. This is, afterall, a hobby for many contributors, and making the most money possible is not always a priority. For me, making money is the top priority and I wouldn't be here if I didn't make money at this. Sorry I'm not an "I do it for the community" guy, but that's just how it is. Similarly to my day job, I love what I do but I show up every day for the paycheck first and foremost. And so exclusivity doesn't work for me because it would drastically lower my earnings in the microstock business. However many people are here for the community aspect of it, for the simple fun of shooting/illustrating, and that is more than enough for them. The idea of uploading to multiple sites does not appeal to them, and so exclusivity makes sense.

There are also some people who do make more money as exclusive artists than they would non-exclusively. Statistically most people would financially benefit more from non-exclusivity, but not all.

Don't get me wrong; I love what I do and I was doing it before I got into microstock and while not getting paid for it. But I continue to do it to earn a living (or part of my living) and I wouldn't continue working at this pace if I wasn't getting paid for it. And so I opt to make decisions that maximize my profits in this business, one of which is to remain independent.

I know why I made my choice, but I can also see why people choose exclusivity over remaining independent.


grp_photo

« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2008, 10:52 »
0
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting  ;D  Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them  ;D

Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this. Actually one of the greatest copycat of all is the famous Lise Gagne and i don't see her get banned either so relax!

« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2008, 10:59 »
0
For me, making money is the top priority and I wouldn't be here if I didn't make money at this. Sorry I'm not an "I do it for the community" guy, but that's just how it is. Similarly to my day job, I love what I do but I show up every day for the paycheck first and foremost. A

Exactly. I treat macro/microstock as a full-fledged business, and it's too risky to put all my eggs in one basket. I realize that I may be diluting my sales at some agencies, but I sleep better at night knowing that I'm well diversified. The recent happenings at IS confirms my feelings about this.

I respect the hobbyists who choose to be exclusive with one agency. If I wasn't trying to build a business, I'd probably do the same.

« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2008, 11:01 »
0

LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this. Actually one of the greatest copycat of all is the famous Lise Gagne and i don't see her get banned either so relax!


concepts aren't , so there is no chance of being banned.  sane with vectors, but you have to draw them completely by yourself.

About lise ...  read and look at point 20.2 at the bottom of :  
http://www.perrush.be/SYF_micro_E_20.html

been seeing this from the beginning  ;)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 05:49 by Perrush »

« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2008, 11:04 »
0
Quote
My mistake in thinking about exclusivity and trying to understand people's reasoning for choosing to be exclusive was that I assumed that most people factored profitability into the decision. This is, afterall, a hobby for many contributors, and making the most money possible is not always a priority

you didn't make ANY mistake.  money IS the reason why people choose to go exclusive.  If not, they could go exclusive at DT which has a much easier upload system and give you 50% royalties.

So why IS ??  because they make money at IS !! point, other line


bittersweet

« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2008, 11:13 »
0
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is? I mean really, you guys go on and on and on... how many active threads are there about mean old istock right now?

Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!

Why can't we all just respect that it is an individual choice that is made by a person based on their own unique circumstances? Nobody is forced to either side of the fence.

Can't we all just get along???

« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2008, 11:25 »
0
Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!

Can't we all just get along???
You mean the secret exclusive's only forum at IS?  ;)

If history is any indication, no, we can't all just get along. Conflict seems to be a condition ingrained in everyone. Though, we can hope and expect at least some civility in a forum for discussion.

bittersweet

« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2008, 11:40 »
0
Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!
You mean the secret exclusive's only forum at IS?  ;)

YES! There is an exclusives only forum, no denying that... but my point is that nobody there discusses how crazy, stupid, insane, blind, lazy, etc etc etc that non-exclusives are. You know this; you've been there.

There just seems to be an attitude here that exclusive contributors somehow bear the responsibility for whatever beef someone may have with istock. There have been really mean attacks, characterizations that non-exclusives are being treated with "hate and envy" and all kinds of other stuff.

If Leaf intended this to be a non-exclusives only forum, he certainly has not made that clear. It's been my impression that he welcomes contributions from everyone; but I often feel like he is one of the very few who do.

« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2008, 11:53 »
0
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this.

Are you sure?

Added: BTW the coment about Lise Gagn is false, but its has no importance, because it doesn't portrait her; it portraits you and your feelings.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 12:29 by loop »

« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2008, 11:53 »
0
@ getalife whatalife :  ( ;) sorry, couldn't help it  ;D )

the exclusives aren't the problem.  They are just people like we are who just made a different choice.

The 'problem' (if we can call it that way) is that IS treats non-exclusives very different then exclusives.  And this is what some people don't accept.  

« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2008, 12:09 »
0
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is? I mean really, you guys go on and on and on... how many active threads are there about mean old istock right now?

Do you think there is a secret forum somewhere where the exclusives talk about what a bad idea being NON-exclusive is? Of course not!

Why can't we all just respect that it is an individual choice that is made by a person based on their own unique circumstances? Nobody is forced to either side of the fence.

Can't we all just get along???

There are loads of posts on the istock forum about how great going exclusive is.  It is nice to be able to debate it here without getting the thread locked.  Perhaps if istock paid us all a decent commission and increased our sales, there would be less complaining about them?

bittersweet

« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2008, 12:17 »
0
Does anyone else ever wonder why there is so much time and energy spent here discussing what a bad idea exclusivity is?

There are loads of posts on the istock forum about how great going exclusive is. 

So you don't see the difference? One is criticizing the choice made by others; one is cheering the choice made by themselves.

What is there to debate? Nobody is arguing with you or trying to convince you otherwise. You are preaching to the choir. That's the part I don't get. It is just pure commiseration.

Maybe you are all just trying to convince yourselves.   ;)

Oh never mind. Like a wise woman said somewhere recently, once you've got an idea in your head, there isn't much chance of changing your mind if you won't listen to anybody saying something different.

« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2008, 12:18 »
0
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting  ;D  Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them  ;D

It's this type of attitude that has led to the mind numbing repetition and boring lack of originality that has been so typical of microstock imagery these days. Since when are creativity and originality dirty words? Would it kill you to take a risk and try something that hasn't been tried before? As a microstocker who at least attempts to be original, I resent those who regard my portfolio as their personal grab bag for ideas to rip-off. >:(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
21920 Views
Last post April 15, 2008, 04:05
by Mormegil
17 Replies
10306 Views
Last post August 31, 2009, 19:12
by a.k.a.-tom
24 Replies
7054 Views
Last post November 19, 2011, 04:59
by Batman
25 Replies
10949 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 18:54
by Anita Potter
40 Replies
22812 Views
Last post November 06, 2017, 17:52
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors