I don't think this started as a thread about exclusivity in IS especifically, but about the concept of exclusivity. Of course the recent discussions led to concentrating on IS.  My concerns about how they treat non-exclusives vs exclusives still remain.

I don't have anything against the decision of being exclusive to any site, but it is not a decision that suits everyone.  It certainly doesn't suit me.

I like the option of having exclusive images, however.  If there is an image or a subject that sells much better in one site than in others, it is an interesting choice to make it exclusive,  I did this with two images in DT.

Frankly, I don't see any benefit to either exclusives pushing exclusivity or independents pushing non-exclusivity. 

IMHO we have all made our decisions based on what business model works best for us, and in no way benefit from convincing anyone else to go our way.

For example, if most independents were to become istock exclusive it would very much dilute exclusive benefits.   

At the same time, if a significant number of exclusives (or just a few of the best ones) were to begin uploading to the other sites it would most likely mean a dilution of sales for many independents. 

The system as it works now seems like a good balance (my complaints about the recent best match notwithstanding).  I think it is in everyone's best interest for istock to keep its exclusives happy and preserve that balance. 

Rigth. And what's more; I tend to doubt that some of the other site's improvements for contributors (ranks at fotolia, extra bonus per no. image dl's at dreamstime, etc...) would had happen if not for the fact that these sites were losing contributors, and sometimes top contributors to istock-exclusivity . Have not proof, of course, is just an opinion, but I think that IS exclusivity has been and is positive for all shooters, IS exclusives or independants.

...but this goes both ways. Te effort tha some sites have had to do to keep some top contributers, means that this contributer's files can cost there 2 or three times what cost at istock.

Quote from: loop on December 04, 2008, 22:59

...but this goes both ways. Te effort tha some sites have had to do to keep some top contributers, means that this contributer's files can cost there 2 or three times what cost at istock.

Not in our experience .... istock is by and large the most expensive site out there for micro buyers - SS, D-time, Fotolia, etc are all cheaper ...

The only images I buy from DT are those that are still yellow. Anything more than that is not really cheaper since I always buy medium size and I can get my istock credits for 1 dollar by converting my earnings. If I was wanting web resolution, DT would be more expensive since their "S" (800 total pixels - 2 creds and up) is actually smaller than istock's "XS" (always 1 credit).

Anytime I find an image by a non-exclusive I will look for it on DT before buying it on istock.

The only images I buy from DT are those that are still yellow. Anything more than that is not really cheaper since I always buy medium size and I can get my istock credits for 1 dollar by converting my earnings. If I was wanting web resolution, DT would be more expensive since their "S" (800 total pixels - 2 creds and up) is actually smaller than istock's "XS" (always 1 credit).

We buy in excess of 100 images a week .... we use the subs plans by and large offered at the various micro sites ... the only sub plan we have not purchased is istock's because it is rather more expensive compared to the others without providing a better selection of images ....

Yes, high volume purchasers make out best with dirt cheap sub models... contributors, not so much. Is the average buyer purchasing hundreds of images a week? (This is an honest question; I don't know.) I kinda think that the majority are regular purchasers on a smaller scale, but I could be completely wrong about that.

I do know that we buy that many images because we can afford to with the sub plans - I also know that if we did not have the subs plans we would not be buying anything close to that many images - so I am not sure I agree that subs hurt the contributors - we buy hundreds and hundreds of photos we would never have purchased otherwise - and those are sales the contributors never would have had either ....     

That's my point: I prefer not to sell dozens of images, but just one at a fair price.  Whether a subs buyer uses all the images he buys or not, is irrelevant.  He has the images, he can use them, he pays too little for them.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: hoi ha on December 05, 2008, 00:24

I do know that we buy that many images because we can afford to with the sub plans - I also know that if we did not have the subs plans we would not be buying anything close to that many images - so I am not sure I agree that subs hurt the contributors - we buy hundreds and hundreds of photos we would never have purchased otherwise - and those are sales the contributors never would have had either ....     

That's my point: I prefer not to sell dozens of images, but just one at a fair price.  Whether a subs buyer uses all the images he buys or not, is irrelevant.  He has the images, he can use them, he pays too little for them.

Regards,
Adelaide

With all due respect what is the difference between selling your image one time for $100 or 4 times for $25? And at the end of the day isn't it the buyers who determine what something is worth? Isn't that what a market is all about?

I do understand - and respect - that you are taking a position as a matter of principle so I am just playing devil's advocate here and please don't take offense - but it seems to me that the market has already determined what images are worth - I mean by and large micro is the Walmart of the photo industry if you will - and I am really not trying to be offensive here because I think Walmart has real merit in that it has allowed people with limited income access to goods they otherwise would not have access to ...like micro - it allows buyers access to images they otherwise would never have been able to purchase.

Sometimes I think the photographers are unaware of the impact micro has had on the world of the buyers - I think many photographers see the buyers as big greedy companies who could afford to pay lots of money but are just cheapsters and looking to drive down prices for the poor photographers - but believe me I would bet that at least 95% of the buyers of microstock are small and medium sized companies out there that could never ever afford images from the traditional agencies and therefore could never have competed with the huge multinationals who could afford huge art budgets - as much as micro gave opportunity to photographers who never would have been able to sell their images otherwise, they also provided small companies with access to a product they could never previously afford and therefore an opportunity to enter markets they never could have .... I think this is good ... I think this increases the opportunity for all parties .... I really don't see a loser here ....

I have a dear friend who is a painter and she was offered $10,000 for one of her paintings ten years ago and she turned it down because she thought her painting was worth more than that --- today that painting is still in her studio and she is working a desk job to try and make ends meet - and as much as I love and respect her I often wonder whether she bit off her nose to spite her face? 

Let me ask any buyers out there a question. If subscriptions dissapeared overnight, they were outlawed as being unethical. Would you no longer buy imagery, or would you be prepared to pay a few $s for an image you or your customer needed? You might not be wasteful in your buying habits buying up photos you don't need "because they're cheap", but websites, advertising etc would go on and the demand for imagery would still be there. Would you and your customer be willing to pay a few $s for an image if there was no such thing as 30c subscription imagery?

We would be prepared to pay the $ for the image yes ... BUT - and this is the thing - instead of buying 10 images we would only buy 1 - that means less sales for the photographers - our budget would not change so the number of purchases we make would have to be drastically less .... I do not see how this helps the micro photographer - when we are talking about micro I honestly think that its more about volume and less about price ....

Quote from: Sophia on December 05, 2008, 07:23

We would be prepared to pay the $ for the image yes ... BUT - and this is the thing - instead of buying 10 images we would only buy 1 - that means less sales for the photographers - our budget would not change so the number of purchases we make would have to be drastically less .... I do not see how this helps the micro photographer - when we are talking about micro I honestly think that its more about volume and less about price ....

That's the point. Even in that extreme example 1/10, 35 cents or so can't compare with the 11 dollars I can get and get often for an XXL sale.
Subs can be good for certain buyers, but bad for contributors.

That's the point. Even in that extreme example 1/10, 35 cents or so can't compare with the 11 dollars I can get and get often for an XXL sale.
Subs can be good for certain buyers, but bad for contributors.
[/quote]

Yet many many photogrpahers have huge success at SS which is almost entirely based upon this principle ...  non-exclusives also get a grand total of 20 cents or so on sales of small images at istock ... with digital cameras - and in terms of the set-up of the shot -  does it really make any difference whether what you sell is a large, medium, small ... etc file? Is it about your work product or is it about what the buyer does with the image? If it is about your work product then how does the size of the file impact that? And if it is about what the buyer does with the image then why is it OK for a big company to buy a small file for 20 cents to help them sell thousands of vitamins (for example) on their website that is viewed by thousands of people every day who make hundreds of purchases but somehow the printed bulletin distributed to 200 people at church on Sunday or temple on Friday or the community activist group or the homeless organisation costs 5 times as much because their medium is print and they need a larger print resolution file?

Kind of demagogic. We can't know in advance who will buy each file, nor what the buyer  will do with it, and if for printing big, any microstock buying cost will be and almost irrelevant percentage of printing costs, you must know that. We were talking of revenue comparing subs to regular sales. About that, having in the last six months an RPIS (Return per Image Sold) of 2.20 dollars I just can state that it's almost 8 times more than 0.30 cents.

But on SS you are likely to have sold that file 8 times more no? We have these discussions here about people's average return per image and SS seems to be right up there with the rest .... and isn't this the very same argument we make against the pros who think micro is destroying their traditional business? .... don't we argue with them that it is better to sell one image 500 times for a "micro" amount than once every 2 years for a traditional commission amount? 

Each person has their comfort level.  Personally I'm at the point where the thought of selling at ss is completely unacceptable, and if anyone asked, I would steer them away.

At every micro site you and me will  have files that won't sell anyhing, zero, or one or two dowloands every six months. But obviously, nobody's files sell all only one time, not at SS not a IS, nowhere. So, you could sell the same file 500 times at a subs micro or 500 times at IS or to Fotolia or whatever, and you can get 0,30 dollars x 500 (150 dollars) or until 11 dollars x 500 (5,500 dollars). There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.

What I mean is that volume of sales is much higher from a subs model ... certainly I know for me that an image may sell 10 times on istock but that same image has probably sold over a hundred times on SS because with the subs model buyers simply purchase more than they would otherwise (subs allow for far more impulse buying for example) ... there is a reason SS is many people's top earning site ...I sell 3 times as many images on SS every month than I do elsewhere ...

But in the end sjlocke is right (not about SS - I disagree with him on that as it's a good money maker for many) - it does come down to comfort levels ... the great thing about all of this is we do have choices .... exclusive or not ...  that site or not .... subs model or not .... diversity is good ... choice is good .... I really hope this industry continues in this fashion ...