Author Topic: A Fable for those considering exclusivity (Read 16337 times)

Allsa · « **on:** September 20, 2010, 21:46 »

A warning fable for anyone who might be considering exclusivity:

]A young girl was trudging along a mountain path, trying to reach her grandmother's house. It was bitter cold, and the wind cut like a knife. When she was within sight of her destination, she heard a rustle at her feet.
Looking down, she saw a snake. Before she could move, the snake spoke to her. He said, "I am about to die. It is too cold for me up here, and I am freezing. There is no food in these mountains, and I am starving. Please put me under your coat and take me with you."
"No," replied the girl. "I know your kind. You are a rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you will bite me, and your bite is poisonous."
"No, no," said the snake. "If you help me, you will be my best friend. I will treat you differently."
The little girl sat down on a rock for a moment to rest and think things over. She looked at the beautiful markings on the snake and had to admit that it was the most beautiful snake she had ever seen.
Suddenly, she said, "I believe you. I will save you. All living things deserve to be treated with kindness."
The little girl reached over, put the snake gently under her coat and proceeded toward her grandmother's house.
Within a moment, she felt a sharp pain in her side. The snake had bitten her.
"How could you do this to me?" she cried. "You promised that you would not bite me, and I trusted you!"
"You knew what I was when you picked me up," hissed the snake as he slithered away.

Beware

SNP · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2010, 22:16 »

brilliant, so iStock is the bowl of porridge? hmmm, I think that's another story.....the third little piggy? oh, hang on, I get it now, iStock is the grandmother.....great story, can't wait for the prequels.

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2010, 01:48 »

I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

sharply_done · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2010, 11:30 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48

I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it. I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me.

Aside from that, isn't the moral of the tale that you shouldn't expect someone's behavior to change just because they say it will? Tiger-changing-stripes, Leopard-changing-spots, Wolf-changing-coat are similar analogies also not so pertinent to the iStock situation.

SNP · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2010, 11:44 »

+ 1 sharply_done

loop · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2010, 11:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48

I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

The sentence is right, but maybe your interpretation isn't. The question is: what is the basket? My answer: the basket is not istock, or FT or DT... The basket is microstock as a whole. Not tomorrow, but I think what has been done by Getty/Istock will be done for other in the short mid-term. In some way, with less margin, it would be more difficult for them to compete... at least that's what probably will be said. At it will be raining everywhere.
So, my advice would be: diversify, look for income from photography, but not just from microstock or stock. It is the safer way.

cthoman · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2010, 11:53 »

Yeah, I don't think the fable works either. I felt treated fairly for many years by IS, so I don't really consider them a bad company. In the end, this more of a disagreement. I think my work is worth more than a certain percentage and they don't.

tdoes · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2010, 12:07 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48

I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

I feel the same way! As a contributor it makes better business sense for me to not go exclusive because there isn't one company I see me being able to earn more than what I do earn from multiple sites. I'm following the same principles of investing in real stock by diversification. These Microstock agencies futures are still too uncertain for me to just settle with one!

Allsa · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2010, 12:27 »

I was looking back to a few years ago when iStock was sold to Getty. Bruce Livingstone & Co must have been well aware of Getty's track record of exploiting photographers and treating them poorly. They sold out anyway. They knew what kind of 'snake' Getty was, and they handed us over to them anyway. Still, the warm, fuzzy, happy community illusion persisted, except for those of us who never drank the the koolaide in the first place. I never felt warm and fuzzy about a company that took 80% of each sale. It was always about the money, right from the beginning. I hope Bruce is enjoying his $50 million. Somehow I doubt he lies awake at night worrying about what's happening to the likes of us.

click_click · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2010, 12:36 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

...Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it....

I have a problem with it - I hate a 9-5 job. Many people are "lazy": Apply once, get hired and be told what to do every single day for the rest of your life. Psychologically this is like fast food for your life in general (it may not be good for you but you do it anyway because it's convenient).

You get your checks on time (supposedly), get your teeny weeny 10 days of vacations per year (maybe 15 days after slaving in the same company for 10 years) and maybe even health benefits. What else could you ask for one would ask?

Well, what the fudge happens when you get fired or laid off?

These days, if laid off at age 35 or older, you're pretty much unemployable because you have too much experience that no employer could (or wants to) pay and you will be put 2nd in line when some 18 year old youngsters apply with salary expectations 50% less than yours because they still live with their parents and never paid for car insurance before.

Now in iStock's case I feel like with their latest move they've laid off a lot of people. Not literally but psychologically on several levels. As an exclusive, I'd be walking on eggshells, not knowing what future tricks are up iStock's sleeves.

Anytime Hellman & Friedman could walk into Getty's office shouting more and radical orders to all branches of that corporation to squeeze the last bit of life out this once socially vivid center of microstock heaven.

I'm so happy not to be exclusive with any agency.

I understand that it works for some people but the disproportional split of exclusives to non-exclusives shows that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2010, 12:56 »

Quote from: loop on September 21, 2010, 11:50

The question is: what is the basket? My answer: the basket is not istock, or FT or DT... The basket is microstock as a whole. Not tomorrow, but I think what has been done by Getty/Istock will be done for other in the short mid-term. In some way, with less margin, it would be more difficult for them to compete... at least that's what probably will be said. At it will be raining everywhere.
So, my advice would be: diversify, look for income from photography, but not just from microstock or stock. It is the safer way.

I think this is excellent advice. Which I wish I had followed before now. Having had all my eggs in the microstock basket (if not the Istock one) I feel pretty vulnerable as each of these changes hits. Diversifying into other markets seems like the smart thing to do.

I never really thought exclusivity was a mistake. It seems to have worked out well for a lot of people. I think over the past year or two I might have made more if I had been exclusive. But for me, the frequent changes at IS just were more than I could handle. I just feel there seems to be more stability, overall, in being on multiple sites. But I can definitely see the allure of exclusivity at IS to other people. At least up to now.

click_click · « **Reply #11 on:** September 21, 2010, 13:10 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 21, 2010, 12:56

... But for me, the frequent changes at IS just were more than I could handle. ...

I'd be on tranquilizers 24/7. $:-\$

jamesbenet · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2010, 14:04 »

Quote from: Allsa on September 21, 2010, 12:27

It was always about the money, right from the beginning. I hope Bruce is enjoying his $50 million. Somehow I doubt he lies awake at night worrying about what's happening to the likes of us.

I have to step in here and defend Bruce. He didn't get 50 million, he had to give most of the sale money to the creditors that were owed for bankrolling the iStock Startup who wanted a nice return to their investment. If he made 2-3million himself I would be surprised. I think he was never in there for the money and when the iStock baby grew up to be big bucks he was not connected to that. He was not a cash hog or a bean counter, he was a rebel that made the right moves at the right time to get something started that changed a bunch of lives for the better, while making a difference for his own life. He had a decision to make, either take it public or sell it off to gather the funds for expansion and pay the creditor shares. In the end I believe he could have gotten even more for the company but he made the right decision. Going public could have been a much more stressing scenario with a pure for profit culture. He was assured control of 3 years and he got it; I bet that was a hard to negotiate position but he got it!

I for one think he got the short end of the stick "money" in the deal, he probably deserved much more as well as some of the staff that started it all with him. But as with any visionary/rebel, he is probably looking into building something cooler and different in the future rather than steer a ship that is already sailing. It would be boring and a spirit killer.

He entrusted the company to KK and I believe it was the best decision at the time. He has done a great job of expanding this place, and I am willing to find out what 2011 brings. It's a thankless job for the most part and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes but I respect the guy, because lets face it he is our horse and you don't change your bets mid race.

Sylvie · « **Reply #13 on:** September 21, 2010, 15:52 »

Quote from: tdoes on September 21, 2010, 12:07

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

I feel the same way! As a contributor it makes better business sense for me to not go exclusive because there isn't one company I see me being able to earn more than what I do earn from multiple sites. I'm following the same principles of investing in real stock by diversification. These Microstock agencies futures are still too uncertain for me to just settle with one!

As an assignment photographer for the past 25 years i never sign up with stock agencies before 2007,because before microstock some RM agencies were asking for a production of 5000 images accepted a year,that was not suitable with my business.In live and in business there are no warranty,the only warranty you have is that things will always change,so you always have to adjust,be more creative and working harder.Yes you have to diversify,but do it at something you are good at it.I am not sure about contributing to all those agencies,they supply the same images and only compete on prices...Exclusive with iStock for the last 18 months has been great for me better than to be with all those agencies,this year my assignment revenue has gone down,and my stock revenue gone up quite a bit.Not the same business than 25 years ago when i started.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** September 21, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me.

OK. I won't.

It's good to know how little interest you (and hawk-eye) have in understanding other people's analysis of the industry.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** September 21, 2010, 16:02 »

Quote from: loop on September 21, 2010, 11:50

So, my advice would be: diversify, look for income from photography, but not just from microstock or stock. It is the safer way.

Absolutely. I think art online/gallery sales is one option for people with talent who want to steer clear of the drudgery of running a portrait studio or doing weddings. Assuming they have the talent and business skills to organize it. For the moment, microstock is a safety net that allows you to develop in new directions but I wouldn't count on it always being there.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #16 on:** September 21, 2010, 16:24 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it. I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me.

+1

SNP · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2010, 16:25 »

Quote from: jamesbenet on September 21, 2010, 14:04

Quote from: Allsa on September 21, 2010, 12:27
It was always about the money, right from the beginning. I hope Bruce is enjoying his $50 million. Somehow I doubt he lies awake at night worrying about what's happening to the likes of us.

I have to step in here and defend Bruce. He didn't get 50 million, he had to give most of the sale money to the creditors that were owed for bankrolling the iStock Startup who wanted a nice return to their investment. If he made 2-3million himself I would be surprised. I think he was never in there for the money and when the iStock baby grew up to be big bucks he was not connected to that. He was not a cash hog or a bean counter, he was a rebel that made the right moves at the right time to get something started that changed a bunch of lives for the better, while making a difference for his own life. He had a decision to make, either take it public or sell it off to gather the funds for expansion and pay the creditor shares. In the end I believe he could have gotten even more for the company but he made the right decision. Going public could have been a much more stressing scenario with a pure for profit culture. He was assured control of 3 years and he got it; I bet that was a hard to negotiate position but he got it!

I for one think he got the short end of the stick "money" in the deal, he probably deserved much more as well as some of the staff that started it all with him. But as with any visionary/rebel, he is probably looking into building something cooler and different in the future rather than steer a ship that is already sailing. It would be boring and a spirit killer.

He entrusted the company to KK and I believe it was the best decision at the time. He has done a great job of expanding this place, and I am willing to find out what 2011 brings. It's a thankless job for the most part and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes but I respect the guy, because lets face it he is our horse and you don't change your bets mid race.

this a a great post. I see people at both ends of the spectrum, your middle ground perspective about Bruce seems bang on and more likely than any of the other bitter legends

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** September 21, 2010, 16:46 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.

The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it. I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me.

Aside from that, isn't the moral of the tale that you shouldn't expect someone's behavior to change just because they say it will? Tiger-changing-stripes, Leopard-changing-spots, Wolf-changing-coat are similar analogies also not so pertinent to the iStock situation.

I have had 3 regular 9-5 jobs and walked out of all of them. With most 9-5 jobs, its easy to leave and go to work for someone else. I don't think its easy to go from exclusive to non-exclusive, as people have found out. How long does it take to re-upload images on all the sites? Several of them are very picky now and new images don't seem to sell as much as they used to. It might not be so hard for you though, as your portfolio stands out and wont have as much competition.

TimAck · « **Reply #19 on:** September 21, 2010, 17:01 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.
The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it.

Not sure where you've been working in the past, but I've never had an employer abruptly cut my pay and tell me to work harder if I want to make what I used to.

loop · « **Reply #20 on:** September 21, 2010, 17:33 »

It's true that the history of Bruce getting the 50 millions all for himself must be a legend. Obviously, Bruce had debts and credits istock-related to pay (f that wasn't assumed by getty), but no so much as you hint. The Istockphoto start-up didn't had a cost; it was a very small site all based in community work. Istock had a steady growth through the years, and, being the first, didn't need the strong inversion that, for example, needed FT back in 2005. istock was sold because there was a need of money to grow big and expand. That said, I agree that Bruce is a nice a passionate guy. I met him years ago, when he already was the boss of the most successful stock site in the world, and he was the humblest, friendly and most approachable boss that I've ever met.

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** September 21, 2010, 17:48 »

Quote from: loop on September 21, 2010, 17:33

It's true that the history of Bruce getting the 50 millions all for himself must be a legend. Obviously, Bruce had debts and credits istock-related to pay (f that wasn't assumed by getty), but no so much as you hint. The Istockphoto start-up didn't had a cost; it was a very small site all based in community work. Istock had a steady growth through the years, and, being the first, didn't need the strong inversion that, for example, needed FT back in 2005. istock was sold because there was a need of money to grow big and expand. That said, I agree that Bruce is a nice a passionate guy. I met him years ago, when he already was the boss of the most successful stock site in the world, and he was the humblest, friendly and most approachable boss that I've ever met.

Very nice post and puts IS history in perspective.

But about Bruce being a "passionate guy".... must have been one heck of a meeting you guys had

loop · « **Reply #22 on:** September 21, 2010, 17:51 »

haha... passionate for his work... For other passions you should ask Brianna....

gbalex · « **Reply #23 on:** September 21, 2010, 18:29 »

Bruce is long gone.

A giant snake with a history of biting photographers has taken his place.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #24 on:** September 22, 2010, 01:30 »

Quote from: TimAck on September 21, 2010, 17:01

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30
Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.
The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it.

Not sure where you've been working in the past, but I've never had an employer abruptly cut my pay and tell me to work harder if I want to make what I used to.

Don't try to explain it to him, he doesn't want to know. He'd rather imagine that he is an employee working for Getty instead of a self-employed businessman supplying goods to a sales outlet.

Microbius · « **Reply #25 on:** September 22, 2010, 02:10 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it.

That is exactly right. You work for Getty, that's why your comments on this forum are so incredibly biased.
The only difference between the exclusive contract and a standard employment one (especially with the new bonus structure) is that you have zero protection if they decide to cut your pay again or in fact change the contract in any other way they see fit.
Enjoy.

sharpshot · « **Reply #26 on:** September 22, 2010, 02:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 22, 2010, 01:30

Quote from: TimAck on September 21, 2010, 17:01
Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30
Quote from: sharpshot on September 21, 2010, 01:48
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.
The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it.

Not sure where you've been working in the past, but I've never had an employer abruptly cut my pay and tell me to work harder if I want to make what I used to.

Don't try to explain it to him, he doesn't want to know. He'd rather imagine that he is an employee working for Getty instead of a self-employed businessman supplying goods to a sales outlet.

I also wonder if you can be classified as self employed when most of your earnings come from one company? I'm not a tax expert and there is probably a way around it but I wouldn't want to risk my self employed status.

Imagecom · « **Reply #27 on:** September 22, 2010, 02:57 »

I got to second that. Yes Bruce was (is) a nice, fair guy all the way back from Istockpro time.

RT · « **Reply #28 on:** September 22, 2010, 04:01 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 22, 2010, 02:23

I also wonder if you can be classified as self employed when most of your earnings come from one company? I'm not a tax expert and there is probably a way around it but I wouldn't want to risk my self employed status.

You wouldn't in anyway whatsoever risk your self employed status by only supplying one agency, even if your total income only came from them. You'd need to have a contract and rights of employment (i.e. sick pay, holiday entitlement, working hours etc) before you'd even be considered 'employed'.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** September 22, 2010, 05:46 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 22, 2010, 02:10

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30
The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it.

That is exactly right. You work for Getty, that's why your comments on this forum are so incredibly biased.
The only difference between the exclusive contract and a standard employment one (especially with the new bonus structure) is that you have zero protection if they decide to cut your pay again or in fact change the contract in any other way they see fit.
Enjoy.

Errr ... no. There are lots of differences. No basic salary, no health insurance, no sick pay, no end-of-service benefits, no job security, no employment contract, no workers' rights, no expense account, no paid for holidays or days off without loss of pay .... in fact, not a single one of those things that make people feel it is safer and better to be an employee rather than self-employed.

Instead, he has all the disadvantages of being self-employed, such as signing a contract in which he personally indemnifies his agent against loss arising from a defect in the goods he supplies, his relationship with the agent can be severed instantly at the agent's discretion losing him what he thinks is his job and he has no right of appeal, and the goods he is supplying can be hidden at the back of the shop any time the agent feels like it, without him having any say in how they are or are not marketed.

Yet he makes his business decisions on the false assumption that he has taken a "job" like any employee and asks not to be given any information that might disabuse him of that notion. It's incredible, really.

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** September 22, 2010, 06:25 »

Quote from: RT on September 22, 2010, 04:01

You wouldn't in anyway whatsoever risk your self employed status by only supplying one agency, even if your total income only came from them. You'd need to have a contract and rights of employment (i.e. sick pay, holiday entitlement, working hours etc) before you'd even be considered 'employed'.

Also employees generally have their equipment provided for them, have business expenses paid and receive instructions on what work to do.

Microbius · « **Reply #31 on:** September 22, 2010, 06:46 »

Yeah misuse of the word "only" in my last post!
Maybe it would have been better to say "only difference is you get none of the benefits of being an employee"

helix7 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 22, 2010, 10:04 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

...I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me...

I would think anyone might be interested in the anti-exclusivity sentiment if it has to do with how much money you could be making. And that is where a lot of the sentiment comes from. Much as most exclusives don't want to believe it, most would stand to earn more non-exclusively. Look at earnings polls going back for years and for most independent contributors, iStock is not their top earner. For most independents, going exclusive would equal a pay cut. Sometimes a big one. For me, we're talking a few thousand dollars per year.

The debate gets heated when a few exclusives start pushing misinformation out there about working independently, in what I can only imagine is an attempt to scare people away from trying out the competition. I'm not vehemently against exclusivity. I'm against people making poor business decisions based on warm fuzzy feelings rather than numbers and facts. And that's not to say that going exclusive is a bad decision for everyone. Just that it's something that shouldn't be entered into lightly and without doing some research and figuring out if it really is the best move.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** September 22, 2010, 12:46 »

Quote from: helix7 on September 22, 2010, 10:04

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30
...I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me...
I would think anyone might be interested in the anti-exclusivity sentiment if it has to do with how much money you could be making. And that is where a lot of the sentiment comes from. Much as most exclusives don't want to believe it, most would stand to earn more non-exclusively. Look at earnings polls going back for years and for most independent contributors, iStock is not their top earner. For most independents, going exclusive would equal a pay cut. Sometimes a big one. For me, we're talking a few thousand dollars per year.

The debate gets heated when a few exclusives start pushing misinformation out there about working independently, in what I can only imagine is an attempt to scare people away from trying out the competition. I'm not vehemently against exclusivity. I'm against people making poor business decisions based on warm fuzzy feelings rather than numbers and facts. And that's not to say that going exclusive is a bad decision for everyone. Just that it's something that shouldn't be entered into lightly and without doing some research and figuring out if it really is the best move.

So you're saying other people are spreading misinformation but you're basing your opinion that most people would see a decrease on non-exclusive polls and other annecdotal guestimates? How do you know you would drop a few thousand dollars a year? Based on what calculations?

When I went exclusive a couple years ago my earnings jumped to surpass what I was making at a total of 13 sites. Who knows if that's still the case with becoming exlcusive today... I dunno.

And before someone tries to paint me as an Istock fanboy, I'm not. Just presenting facts from my direct exerperience. I said a while ago I wouldn't be surprised if a performance model got rolled out and here it is.

sharply_done · « **Reply #34 on:** September 22, 2010, 13:03 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 22, 2010, 12:46

...
And before someone tries to paint me as an Istock fanboy, I'm not. Just presenting facts from my direct exerperience. I said a while ago I wouldn't be surprised if a performance model got rolled out and here it is.

Heh, I'm in the same boat. I was an independent longer than I've been an exclusive, but despite that I seem to get jumped on when I say anything even remotely positive about iStock. Given that there aren't too many people in this situation, and even fewer making a living from it, I'd like to think our experiences are worthy of more than derision. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

helix7 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 22, 2010, 13:03 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 22, 2010, 12:46

...How do you know you would drop a few thousand dollars a year? Based on what calculations?...

Percentage increase from the canister change, estimated percentage increase from better best match placement, bonus offerings (E+, Getty option, etc), and I even figured it out up to Diamond to see what my max potential income as an iStock exclusive would be. From info I've gleaned from forum discussions about the best match placement effect and canister change, at best I might expect to double my income at my current Gold level, and slightly more than double it at Diamond. Just to be safe, I added another 20% to that to account for any unforeseen extra best match help, and it still just doesn't add up. iStock currently accounts for 20% of my monthly earnings, with a nearly identical portfolio that I have at 13 other sites. I don't see my iStock earnings multiplying 5 times by going exclusive, so as far as I can tell exclusivity equals a big pay cut for me.

sharpshot · « **Reply #36 on:** September 22, 2010, 13:39 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 13:03

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 22, 2010, 12:46
...
And before someone tries to paint me as an Istock fanboy, I'm not. Just presenting facts from my direct exerperience. I said a while ago I wouldn't be surprised if a performance model got rolled out and here it is.

Heh, I'm in the same boat. I was an independent longer than I've been an exclusive, but despite that I seem to get jumped on when I say anything even remotely positive about iStock. Given that there aren't too many people in this situation, and even fewer making a living from it, I'd like to think our experiences are worthy of more than derision. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

And you have never said anything derogatory about non-exclusives? You do edit some of your posts quickly but if you type something derogatory and press the post button, some of us will see it. Shame I deleted the quote in my reply.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #37 on:** September 22, 2010, 14:04 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 13:03

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 22, 2010, 12:46
...
And before someone tries to paint me as an Istock fanboy, I'm not. Just presenting facts from my direct exerperience. I said a while ago I wouldn't be surprised if a performance model got rolled out and here it is.

Heh, I'm in the same boat. I was an independent longer than I've been an exclusive, but despite that I seem to get jumped on when I say anything even remotely positive about iStock. Given that there aren't too many people in this situation, and even fewer making a living from it, I'd like to think our experiences are worthy of more than derision. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

Your points are perfectly valid. Until this year it was widely reckoned that exclusivity and independence probably panned out at about the same in terms of earnings. The price revamp for exclusives and the introduction of schemes like exclusive plus and vetta made a lot of people think that the iStock option was probably more lucrative as of the beginning of this year and I know quite a few senior independents who were planning to go exclusive. Then they promptly dropped the double bombshell with thinkstock: first the announcement and then the effort to poach buyers away from iS into TS. That caused a lot people who were about to commit to exclusivity to rethink.

I would need to treble my current iStock earnings to recoup the losses from giving up independence. Today, when I would go to straight to 40% I could probably do that, taking account of Vetta and E+ possibilities. But in January I would be down to 30%, making it unlikely that I could even double my 2010 iS takings in 2011. That would amount to a loss of a third of my current income, while staying independent will cost me just 5% (a 15% fall in iS, but only 5% overall).

So while I don't doubt you when you say that it has worked for you since you made the jump, it clearly wouldn't work for me now. And of course, most people choosing that course today will never get to the 40% level that they might have had before, so unless iS accounts for more than 50% of their total income at the moment, it is unlikely to be a wise move for them.

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** September 22, 2010, 14:50 »

Balderick, I am in exactly the situation you cited. Istock is usually 38-40% of my earnings. If I had been exclusive from January of this year I have no doubt my earnings would be more than they were as an independent. Perhaps quite a bit more.

As I said earlier in the thread, it was the TS changes and the general trend of big (worrying) changes coming faster and faster that changed my mind.

It is a fairly safe bet that if I were exclusive I would not see my IS income drop this coming year either. Although as an independent I would need the completely unrealistic 1.4 million credits to keep my rank, as an exclusive I would be able to hold on to the 40% level. For next year.

But that doesn't take into account whatever the next big announcement is and whatever problems that brings with it. This is only one more change in a long line - there will be others. I am quite confident that 2011 will not pass without more major changes, and the trend would indicate that they won't be favorable to contributors.

Hope I am wrong.

sharply_done · « **Reply #39 on:** September 22, 2010, 14:57 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 22, 2010, 13:39

And you have never said anything derogatory about non-exclusives? You do edit some of your posts quickly but if you type something derogatory and press the post button, some of us will see it. Shame I deleted the quote in my reply.

I'm sorry you saw what you saw, sharpshot, but apart from that I challenge you to go through my 1800+ posts here to find anything inflammatory or derogatory. I'm not saying I'm an angel or that I have a holier-than-thou attitude: Sure, I get ticked off sometimes, and sometimes it gets the better of me and I write stuff I shouldn't - but for the most part I come to my senses and either don't post it or delete my post very quickly. It's not a huge jump to say this common to a lot of people.

As far as being exclusive or nonexclusive goes, I couldn't really care less about how most people make their money. There are a few people here I've spoken to privately whom I think would gain significantly if they made the jump, but that's about it. That being said, it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.

Oh, and thank you for editing your reply to my deleted post - your politeness and manners are much appreciated!

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #40 on:** September 22, 2010, 15:17 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 21, 2010, 11:30

The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it.

Many, but not all. Not having an employer - let alone regular 9-5 job - is the main reason I am in microstock now.

sharpshot · « **Reply #41 on:** September 22, 2010, 15:21 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 14:57

Quote from: sharpshot on September 22, 2010, 13:39
And you have never said anything derogatory about non-exclusives? You do edit some of your posts quickly but if you type something derogatory and press the post button, some of us will see it. Shame I deleted the quote in my reply.

I'm sorry you saw what you saw, sharpshot, but apart from that I challenge you to go through my 1800+ posts here to find anything inflammatory or derogatory. I'm not saying I'm an angel or that I have a holier-than-thou attitude: Sure, I get ticked off sometimes, and sometimes it gets the better of me and I write stuff I shouldn't - but for the most part I come to my senses and either don't post it or delete my post very quickly. It's not a huge jump to say this common to a lot of people.

As far as being exclusive or nonexclusive goes, I couldn't really care less about how most people make their money. There are a few people here that I've spoken to privately whom I think would gain significantly if they made the jump, but that's about it. That being said, it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.

No problem, there are always going to be tensions between exclusives and non-exclusives. I enjoy reading your posts most of the time and its good to get the exclusives perspective. Sometimes it is hard to deal with some of the people in this forum but I still prefer it to any of the sites forums that delete or lock posts they don't like.

sharply_done · « **Reply #42 on:** September 22, 2010, 15:23 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 22, 2010, 15:21

...
Sometimes it is hard to deal with some of the people in this forum but I still prefer it to any of the sites forums that delete or lock posts they don't like.

Yeah, same here.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** September 22, 2010, 16:16 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 14:57

it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.

Why does lack of participation invalidate observations? I've never taken cocaine but I don't think that means I can't hold an opinion about whether it would be good for me or not.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #44 on:** September 22, 2010, 16:35 »

It really does depend on your personal situation. For some, going exclusive would be a disaster, for others it's the smartest business move you can make. People that have not seen both sides of the fence really have no idea how it would actually play out for them with all the factors involved. You can guess, but it would be just that. If your sitting at gold and Istock only makes up 20% of your income it's a no brainer. If you are diamond and Istock is 40% of your imcome then...well...that's a tough decision. Posters that come in here and say everyone is losing money by being exclusive are passing bad information.

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** September 22, 2010, 16:50 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 14:57

That being said, it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.

By definition nobody can know both sides of the fence with any certainty __ other than perhaps for a few short months after going exclusive. Things change all the time (like IS now) and the market moves too so whatever you may once have known becomes invalid if not kept up to date.

Ten of my dollars says Sharply will not be exclusive with Istockphoto in 18 months time. Put this date in your diary __ 22nd March 2012. Will Sharply still be wearing his crown? I doubt it. Any takers for my money?

cdwheatley · « **Reply #46 on:** September 22, 2010, 16:58 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2010, 16:50

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 14:57
That being said, it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.

By definition nobody can know both sides of the fence with any certainty __ other than perhaps for a few short months after going exclusive. Things change all the time (like IS now) and the market moves too so whatever you may once have known becomes invalid if not kept up to date.

Ten of my dollars says Sharply will not be exclusive with Istockphoto in 18 months time. Put this date in your diary __ 22nd March 2012. Will Sharply still be wearing his crown? I doubt it. Any takers for my money?

I will bet you $1,000 he will.
Put your money where your mouth is dude.

gostwyck · « **Reply #47 on:** September 22, 2010, 17:07 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on September 22, 2010, 16:58

I will bet you $1,000 he will.
Put your money where your mouth is dude.

I have done. If the money's too big then it will influence the decision __ $1000 would be several months of Sharp's earnings

cdwheatley · « **Reply #48 on:** September 22, 2010, 17:13 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2010, 17:07

Quote from: cdwheatley on September 22, 2010, 16:58
I will bet you $1,000 he will.
Put your money where your mouth is dude.

I have done. If the money's too big then it will influence the decision __ $1000 would be several months of Sharp's earnings

Fine, make it $500.00 then? I'm serious.
I'll even sweeten the deal by throwing myself into the mix, 18 months is long time.

sharply_done · « **Reply #49 on:** September 22, 2010, 17:28 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2010, 16:50

Ten of my dollars says Sharply will not be exclusive with Istockphoto in 18 months time. Put this date in your diary __ 22nd March 2012. Will Sharply still be wearing his crown? I doubt it. Any takers for my money?

Hah - I'll take it alright ... I'll even go for more if you're up to it!

Before we proceed, and for fair warning, you should know that cdwheatley is very much 'in the know' about things with me and iStock - it's a good guess that if he's willing to pony up $1000, there just might be more going on than you expect.

nruboc · « **Reply #50 on:** September 22, 2010, 17:55 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 17:28

Quote from: gostwyck on September 22, 2010, 16:50
Ten of my dollars says Sharply will not be exclusive with Istockphoto in 18 months time. Put this date in your diary __ 22nd March 2012. Will Sharply still be wearing his crown? I doubt it. Any takers for my money?

Hah - I'll take it alright ... I'll even go for more if you're up to it!

Before we proceed, and for fair warning, you should know that cdwheatley is very much 'in the know' about things with me and iStock - it's a good guess that if he's willing to pony up $1000, there just might be more going on than you expect.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/msg161663/#msg161663

djpadavona · « **Reply #51 on:** September 22, 2010, 18:05 »

Since some of us are sharing experiences, I will say that I took a 20% pay cut by going exclusive with iStock. Which I was more than happy with. Making 80% of my previous income with far less work was fantastic.

Honestly I would have stayed exclusive for a long, long time had they not dropped the double bombshells of TS and the royalty cut/agency collection addition. And I would have reconsidered my decision to cancel exclusivity if they had shown the least bit of willingness to bargain with their contributors. I can't say I have ill will toward iStock/Getty. I just don't care anymore. They went their way, and I'm going mine.

In a little less than a month, I'll start rebuilding across the board, and I guarantee I'll never consider exclusivity with another company.

sharply_done · « **Reply #52 on:** September 22, 2010, 18:13 »

Quote from: nruboc on September 22, 2010, 17:55

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/msg161663/#msg161663

Does this mean you think I'm on some sort of magic list? How I wish that was true.
I'm sorry if what I wrote inferred anything like that - I merely wanted to say that my experience at iStock is not what gostwyck thinks it is.

nruboc · « **Reply #53 on:** September 22, 2010, 18:31 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 18:13

Quote from: nruboc on September 22, 2010, 17:55
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/msg161663/#msg161663

Does this mean you think I'm some sort of magic list? How I wish that was true.
I'm sorry if what I wrote inferred anything like that - I merely wanted to say that my experience at iStock is not what gostwyck thinks it is.

Well.... I posted that to let people make their own decisions. But since you are denying it, I will expand later when I have the time. But I think you just opened a can of worms.

sharply_done · « **Reply #54 on:** September 22, 2010, 18:36 »

Quote from: nruboc on September 22, 2010, 18:31

...
Well.... I posted that to let people make their own decisions. But since you are denying it, I will expand later when I have the time. But I think you just opened a can of worms.

Can of worms? There's nothing below-the-table or sinister going on - you're looking for and/or seeing something that just isn't there. Not with me, anyway.

helix7 · « **Reply #55 on:** September 22, 2010, 19:09 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 17:28

Before we proceed, and for fair warning, you should know that cdwheatley is very much 'in the know' about things with me and iStock - it's a good guess that if he's willing to pony up $1000, there just might be more going on than you expect.

Think I'd steer clear of that bet, gostwyck.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** September 23, 2010, 12:37 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 22, 2010, 17:28

Hah - I'll take it alright ... I'll even go for more if you're up to it!

Before we proceed, and for fair warning, you should know that cdwheatley is very much 'in the know' about things with me and iStock - it's a good guess that if he's willing to pony up $1000, there just might be more going on than you expect.

Good stuff __ we're on! I'll PM you. (apologies for the delay __ just got back from the golf course)

I guess I should give you 'fair warning' too that I'm expecting Istockphoto to deliver at least one more 'crowdshafting' initiative in the next 18 months, their share of the market might fall, Stockfresh will be helping the independents' cause and Istockphoto themselves may be under new ownership by then.

sharply_done · « **Reply #57 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:17 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 12:37

Good stuff __ we're on! I'll PM you. (apologies for the delay __ just got back from the golf course)

I guess I should give you 'fair warning' too that I'm expecting Istockphoto to deliver at least one more 'crowdshafting' initiative in the next 18 months, their share of the market might fall, Stockfresh will be helping the independents' cause and Istockphoto themselves may be under new ownership by then.

Right. $10 goes to you if I become independent in the next 18 months.

As far as your fair warning goes, that's nothing but speculation. I can equally speculate that iStock's market share might rise, but it's just as meaningless a guess. What matters is that I have planned things so that I can be as secure as possible for any sort of change that the marketplace undergoes - that's the smart play. I suppose you can make the claim that being independent fundamentally guarantees security, but the things I am doing (I think) are much more efficient/effective than that strategy can ever be.

Best of luck ... you're going to need it!

gostwyck · « **Reply #58 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:29 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 14:17

What matters is that I have planned things so that I can be as secure as possible for any sort of change that the marketplace undergoes - that's the smart play.

Hmmm. But did you 'plan' on a massive cut in your commissions for next year? I think Istockphoto's inherent greed will stretch the loyalty of even their most ardent supporter (although I am staggered to find that they still have any at all!). Time will tell!

sharply_done · « **Reply #59 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:36 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 14:29

Hmmm. But did you 'plan' on a massive cut in your commissions for next year? I think Istockphoto's inherent greed will stretch the loyalty of even their most ardent supporter (although I am staggered to find that they still have any at all!). Time will tell!

Why do you think I'm getting a massive cut in my commissions next year?

cthoman · « **Reply #60 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:06 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 14:36

Why do you think I'm getting a massive cut in my commissions next year?

Sabotage?

Seriously though, it sounds like an interesting bet. It basically sound like you two are betting on the future of IS in the next 18 months.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #61 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:14 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 14:36

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 14:29
Hmmm. But did you 'plan' on a massive cut in your commissions for next year? I think Istockphoto's inherent greed will stretch the loyalty of even their most ardent supporter (although I am staggered to find that they still have any at all!). Time will tell!

Why do you think I'm getting a massive cut in my commissions next year?

How else would he argue it? Just because some can't hit the targets means that all can't in some minds.

sharply_done · « **Reply #62 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:18 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 23, 2010, 15:06

...
Seriously though, it sounds like an interesting bet. It basically sound like you two are betting on the future of IS in the next 18 months.

The way I see it, I'm not betting on iStock's future at all - I'm betting on my own. I'm not in a position to judge how the marketplace might change - I don't think anybody here is. But I am in the best possible position to judge how my fortunes might change, and wagering against me when the only knowledge you have might be gleaned from a glance at my iStock portfolio isn't exactly prudent.

Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.

cthoman · « **Reply #63 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:40 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 15:18

The way I see it, I'm not betting on iStock's future at all - I'm betting on my own. I'm not in a position to judge how the marketplace might change - I don't think anybody here is.

Definitely true. I suppose most of us are just guessing based on how we processed the change and assume most others will come to the same conclusions as we did (which they probably won't). In my case, I assume that contributors won't like being paid less than 20% and will start deleting their portfolios in January. But, it's just a guess based on what I will probably do.

Since, I'm guessing... If I was to guess who will win the bet, I'd have to go with Sharply. I think people will leave IS in the new year and things will probably get worse there, but it won't be bad enough for long time contributor to leave. I'll put my magic eight ball away now.

gostwyck · « **Reply #64 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:46 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 15:18

Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.

Exactly. It's just a bit of jousting.

Understand what you mean about the 'commission cut'. I forget that exclusives have such a high RC rate per sale compared to independents. Remaining at 40% isn't arduous as it appears from my own figures. Yet.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #65 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 15:46

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 15:18
Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.

Exactly. It's just a bit of jousting.

Understand what you mean about the 'commission cut'. I forget that exclusives have such a high RC rate per sale compared to independents. Remaining at 40% isn't arduous as it appears from my own figures. Yet.

For now, 40% is reasonable. We'll what the future holds.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #66 on:** September 23, 2010, 16:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 15:46

Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 15:18
Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.

Exactly. It's just a bit of jousting.

Understand what you mean about the 'commission cut'. I forget that exclusives have such a high RC rate per sale compared to independents. Remaining at 40% isn't arduous as it appears from my own figures. Yet.

Does anyone know how the new 6 month lock-in for E+ and other lock-ins, if any, will affect you if you decide to give up exclusivity? Will that end when your exclusivity ends in 30 days or will you be forced to remain exclusive until those commiments expire or will you be allowed to go non-exclusive as per normal but have to leave those images as E+ for whatever time remains of their 6 month commitment?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #67 on:** September 23, 2010, 16:49 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on September 23, 2010, 16:25

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 15:46
Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 15:18
Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.

Exactly. It's just a bit of jousting.

Understand what you mean about the 'commission cut'. I forget that exclusives have such a high RC rate per sale compared to independents. Remaining at 40% isn't arduous as it appears from my own figures. Yet.

Does anyone know how the new 6 month lock-in for E+ and other lock-ins, if any, will affect you if you decide to give up exclusivity? Will that end when your exclusivity ends in 30 days or will you be forced to remain exclusive until those commiments expire or will you be allowed to go non-exclusive as per normal but have to leave those images as E+ for whatever time remains of their 6 month commitment?

There's nothing to stop you from deactivating an E+ image at any time, so logic would suggest that if you become independent, all your Vetta or E+ files would just move to the main collection. Nothing about the 30 day wait was changed in the supplier agreement, and it would have to be if you were required to wait longer than 30 days.

As always, Contributor Relations can give the best answer. You probably have to complete an obstacle course and pay Getty 1/3 of your next 5 years earnings from all sources and you'll be all set

sharply_done · « **Reply #68 on:** September 23, 2010, 17:17 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 23, 2010, 15:40

...
Since, I'm guessing... If I was to guess who will win the bet, I'd have to go with Sharply. I think people will leave IS in the new year and things will probably get worse there, but it won't be bad enough for long time contributor to leave. I'll put my magic eight ball away now.

If there's one thing I've learned the hard way, it's this: There's no such thing as a sure thing.
It may very well turn out that my best course of action is return to being independent. I can't see things changing so much that it'll happen, but you never know.

lisafx · « **Reply #69 on:** September 23, 2010, 17:58 »

redundant of other posts...

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #70 on:** September 23, 2010, 18:15 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 23, 2010, 16:49

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on September 23, 2010, 16:25
Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 15:46
Quote from: sharply_done on September 23, 2010, 15:18
Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.

Exactly. It's just a bit of jousting.

Understand what you mean about the 'commission cut'. I forget that exclusives have such a high RC rate per sale compared to independents. Remaining at 40% isn't arduous as it appears from my own figures. Yet.
Does anyone know how the new 6 month lock-in for E+ and other lock-ins, if any, will affect you if you decide to give up exclusivity? Will that end when your exclusivity ends in 30 days or will you be forced to remain exclusive until those commiments expire or will you be allowed to go non-exclusive as per normal but have to leave those images as E+ for whatever time remains of their 6 month commitment?

There's nothing to stop you from deactivating an E+ image at any time, so logic would suggest that if you become independent, all your Vetta or E+ files would just move to the main collection. Nothing about the 30 day wait was changed in the supplier agreement, and it would have to be if you were required to wait longer than 30 days.

As always, Contributor Relations can give the best answer. You probably have to complete an obstacle course and pay Getty 1/3 of your next 5 years earnings from all sources and you'll be all set

LOL - I don't have any there - it was just a niggling question that I wondered about. I didn't realize you could just deactivate them before the 6 mths was up - thanks for the info - it satisfied my curiostiy.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: A Fable for those considering exclusivity (Read 16337 times)

lisafx

lisafx

Microbius

Microbius

helix7

helix7

lisafx

microstockphoto.co.uk

nruboc

nruboc

helix7

Pixel-Pizzazz

lisafx

Pixel-Pizzazz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors