Author Topic: A Fable for those considering exclusivity (Read 18912 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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: A Fable for those considering exclusivity (Read 18912 times)

Allsa

SNP

sharpshot

sharply_done

SNP

loop

cthoman

tdoes

Allsa

click_click

lisafx

click_click

jamesbenet

Sylvie

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

cdwheatley

SNP

sharpshot

TimAck

loop

lisafx

loop

gbalex

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors