MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone cancel exclusive contract yet?  (Read 61307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2011, 00:23 »
0
my husband has just dropped his exclusivity. he doesn't have a big portfolio, so to iStock it won't make any difference. but it was a decision we made together and if/when it's appropriate we'll decide what's best for my work. for now that's exclusivity still, as unpopular as that is it's an equal part of the discussion here. but to be honest, I wouldn't talk anyone into becoming exclusive today.

the website issues are such a harbinger of bad things to come, especially sales numbers. but, for the purpose of discussion, what happens when (if!) the site is fixed and sales improve, perhaps by a lot? it's a possibility, albeit very remote from how things look now. if that were to happen it is only 90 days to reinstate the crown + 3 additional months if we contribute to one of the 6 mth contract agencies like DT.

I question the wisdom of dumping exclusivity when many others are doing the same. seems like a panicked sell off on the stock market. most of you indies commenting here don't seem concerned about the influx of competitors' images. I'd be worried about that.


« Reply #76 on: March 11, 2011, 00:31 »
0
my husband has just dropped his exclusivity. he doesn't have a big portfolio, so to iStock it won't make any difference. but it was a decision we made together and if/when it's appropriate we'll decide what's best for my work. for now that's exclusivity still, as unpopular as that is it's an equal part of the discussion here. but to be honest, I wouldn't talk anyone into becoming exclusive today.

the website issues are such a harbinger of bad things to come, especially sales numbers. but, for the purpose of discussion, what happens when (if!) the site is fixed and sales improve, perhaps by a lot? it's a possibility, albeit very remote from how things look now. if that were to happen it is only 90 days to reinstate the crown + 3 additional months if we contribute to one of the 6 mth contract agencies like Dreamstime.

I question the wisdom of dumping exclusivity when many others are doing the same. seems like a panicked sell off on the stock market. most of you indies commenting here don't seem concerned about the influx of competitors' images. I'd be worried about that.

 Doesn't change the fact that they have shown their ugly greedy side uncaringly upon everyone who made them what they are today.. If the exclusives leave and images are elsewehere, people will buy elsewhere. I'd love to see buyers move to SS and DT, exclusive's will bring buyers with them I imagine..

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #77 on: March 11, 2011, 00:34 »
0
my husband has just dropped his exclusivity. he doesn't have a big portfolio, so to iStock it won't make any difference. but it was a decision we made together and if/when it's appropriate we'll decide what's best for my work. for now that's exclusivity still, as unpopular as that is it's an equal part of the discussion here. but to be honest, I wouldn't talk anyone into becoming exclusive today.

the website issues are such a harbinger of bad things to come, especially sales numbers. but, for the purpose of discussion, what happens when (if!) the site is fixed and sales improve, perhaps by a lot? it's a possibility, albeit very remote from how things look now. if that were to happen it is only 90 days to reinstate the crown + 3 additional months if we contribute to one of the 6 mth contract agencies like Dreamstime.

I question the wisdom of dumping exclusivity when many others are doing the same. seems like a panicked sell off on the stock market. most of you indies commenting here don't seem concerned about the influx of competitors' images. I'd be worried about that.

 Doesn't change the fact that they have shown their ugly greedy side uncaringly upon everyone who made them what they are today.. If the exclusives leave and images are elsewehere, people will buy elsewhere. I'd love to see buyers move to Shutterstock and Dreamstime, exclusive's will bring buyers with them I imagine..

and if that were to happen, what would stop SS and DT from becoming greedy? they're not in business to be altruistic.  they want to make money too and leaving one agency angrily leaves you somewhat vulnerable in your relationship--if we can even call it that--with the agencies you go to.

« Reply #78 on: March 11, 2011, 00:45 »
0
my husband has just dropped his exclusivity. he doesn't have a big portfolio, so to iStock it won't make any difference. but it was a decision we made together and if/when it's appropriate we'll decide what's best for my work. for now that's exclusivity still, as unpopular as that is it's an equal part of the discussion here. but to be honest, I wouldn't talk anyone into becoming exclusive today.

the website issues are such a harbinger of bad things to come, especially sales numbers. but, for the purpose of discussion, what happens when (if!) the site is fixed and sales improve, perhaps by a lot? it's a possibility, albeit very remote from how things look now. if that were to happen it is only 90 days to reinstate the crown + 3 additional months if we contribute to one of the 6 mth contract agencies like Dreamstime.

I question the wisdom of dumping exclusivity when many others are doing the same. seems like a panicked sell off on the stock market. most of you indies commenting here don't seem concerned about the influx of competitors' images. I'd be worried about that.

 Doesn't change the fact that they have shown their ugly greedy side uncaringly upon everyone who made them what they are today.. If the exclusives leave and images are elsewehere, people will buy elsewhere. I'd love to see buyers move to Shutterstock and Dreamstime, exclusive's will bring buyers with them I imagine..

and if that were to happen, what would stop Shutterstock and Dreamstime from becoming greedy? they're not in business to be altruistic.  they want to make money too and leaving one agency angrily leaves you somewhat vulnerable in your relationship--if we can even call it that--with the agencies you go to.

 Sure it's a possibility with any agency, but you can't see the future so you work with the now in the hopes of the future.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2011, 01:55 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

« Reply #80 on: March 11, 2011, 09:26 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

 Agreed.. The only way to affect that is through collective negotiations although unfortunately I don't see most microstock people commiting to that. I think there are too many people that don't care enough to make the effort and are willing to take whatever is offered to them, so it leaves any professionals in a much harder position to bargain as the companies know there is a bunch of wannabe's sitting at the door waiting to fill a slot. Tougher standards are closing that gap some, but it's not there yet.

lisafx

« Reply #81 on: March 11, 2011, 12:08 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

I agree.  There is definitely a worry about exclusive contributors flocking to other sites and diluting sales there.  Unfortunately, there is nothing we contributors can do about it. 

We can't make Istock get it's sh*t together, and we can't prevent other sites from getting ideas.  We have no crystal balls (maybe brass ones? ;) ) to predict the future. All we can do is react to the situations as they are, not as we would like them to be.

« Reply #82 on: March 11, 2011, 12:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 13:29 by retrorocket »

« Reply #83 on: March 11, 2011, 13:02 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

I agree.  There is definitely a worry about exclusive contributors flocking to other sites and diluting sales there.  Unfortunately, there is nothing we contributors can do about it. 

We can't make Istock get it's sh*t together, and we can't prevent other sites from getting ideas.  We have no crystal balls (maybe brass ones? ;) ) to predict the future. All we can do is react to the situations as they are, not as we would like them to be.

I can see all contributors boycotting istock as a way to affect positive change, but that isn't going to happen. Too many say they are going to do something, but second thoughts keep them from actually doing it. Too many people keep saying "the next time something like this happens, I'm gone" but those next times have been coming for months, and yet the same people keep saying the same thing.

Making a change isn't always done as some sort of punishment to istock. Sometimes people make a change because it feels right to them personally. If throwing in the crown feels to some people like they are making a change, then good for them.

istock made a big push to get people to be exclusive...there must have been a financial reason for doing so. Exclusives dumping the crown MUST have some impact on them, or they would not have made that big push.

« Reply #84 on: March 11, 2011, 14:41 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

In FT's case that would definitely be a concern. Much less so with SS/BigStock especially and not so much with DT either (IMHO).

Agencies that have a track record of systematically squeezing contributors are those that are not looking long-term and have their exit strategies clearly in mind. H&F's ownership of Istock is an obvious and extreme demonstration. I reckon FT are now operating mainly for profit rather than growth too.

In sharp contrast SS have actually invested further into the industry in buying BigStock. My income from SS+BigStock together is now about 37% of my total (against 30% for IS) which makes them for me the biggest player in microstock by some margin. I can only see them growing further but that does not worry me. Oringer has been playing the tortoise to IS's hare but, by not attempting to screw his customers or his contributors, he is slowly, slowly winning the race.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #85 on: March 11, 2011, 15:16 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

In Fotolia's case that would definitely be a concern. Much less so with Shutterstock/BigStock especially and not so much with Dreamstime either (IMHO).

Agencies that have a track record of systematically squeezing contributors are those that are not looking long-term and have their exit strategies clearly in mind. H&F's ownership of Istock is an obvious and extreme demonstration. I reckon Fotolia are now operating mainly for profit rather than growth too.

In sharp contrast Shutterstock have actually invested further into the industry in buying BigStock. My income from Shutterstock+BigStock together is now about 37% of my total (against 30% for IS) which makes them for me the biggest player in microstock by some margin. I can only see them growing further but that does not worry me. Oringer has been playing the tortoise to IS's hare but, by not attempting to screw his customers or his contributors, he is slowly, slowly winning the race.

interesting numbers. yeah, it's hard not to look at Oringer as the pioneer these days. he's stuck it out and continues to nurture his baby. instead of giving it up for adoption to abusive parents.

« Reply #86 on: March 11, 2011, 15:41 »
0
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.

In Fotolia's case that would definitely be a concern. Much less so with Shutterstock/BigStock especially and not so much with Dreamstime either (IMHO).

Agencies that have a track record of systematically squeezing contributors are those that are not looking long-term and have their exit strategies clearly in mind. H&F's ownership of Istock is an obvious and extreme demonstration. I reckon Fotolia are now operating mainly for profit rather than growth too.

In sharp contrast Shutterstock have actually invested further into the industry in buying BigStock. My income from Shutterstock+BigStock together is now about 37% of my total (against 30% for IS) which makes them for me the biggest player in microstock by some margin. I can only see them growing further but that does not worry me. Oringer has been playing the tortoise to IS's hare but, by not attempting to screw his customers or his contributors, he is slowly, slowly winning the race.

interesting numbers. yeah, it's hard not to look at Oringer as the pioneer these days. he's stuck it out and continues to nurture his baby. instead of giving it up for adoption to abusive parents.

 Pretty good analogy I must admit.. The thing is that if you look at history, and watch what has happened to companies over the years (all companies) if they re-invest in their industry, treat their suppliers and clients with respect, and practice good business they usually will be the long term winners and become a staple of the industry they are in.. Companies that come in squeeze every last drop they can out of something and piss everyone off doing it will make a quick profit maybe, but will soon become a thing of the past.. I am pretty sure Istock is headed in that direction unless they have some things hidden we don't know about or are able to turn things around.. the road they are traveling at the moment is a short dead end IMO.

I had this long shot conspiracy theory in my head that maybe somehow they are trying to dump the microstock industry to try to get better macro market sales (but I have no idea how or why) it was just a thought that crossed my way when I was trying to understand what the logic could be behind their current crazyness..

« Reply #87 on: March 11, 2011, 17:56 »
0

« Reply #88 on: March 11, 2011, 18:40 »
0
 I know I dropped my crown late last year, but it's still so sad to see posts like Lugo's towards the bottom of the page (don't know how to link to individual post sorry)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53

« Reply #89 on: March 22, 2011, 06:00 »
0
Hi, just to know for sure, does anybody know do I stay on exclusive royalties those 30 days I had to wait to cancel my exclusivity on Istock?

« Reply #90 on: March 22, 2011, 06:11 »
0
You keep receiving your exclusive royalties for the 30 days until your crown disappears, when the crown goes so do the higher royalties

« Reply #91 on: March 22, 2011, 07:01 »
0
Don't be surprised if it takes a little more than 30 days for the crown to vanish though. Mine took about 40 or so days.

« Reply #92 on: March 22, 2011, 08:04 »
0
You keep receiving your exclusive royalties for the 30 days until your crown disappears, when the crown goes so do the higher royalties

If they want to keep paying you your exclusive rate after the thirty days, even though you've given notice and the time is up, that's yours to enjoy, while uploading elsewhere.

« Reply #93 on: March 22, 2011, 14:05 »
0
You keep receiving your exclusive royalties for the 30 days until your crown disappears, when the crown goes so do the higher royalties

If they want to keep paying you your exclusive rate after the thirty days, even though you've given notice and the time is up, that's yours to enjoy, while uploading elsewhere.

exactly. someone has already had that happen.

« Reply #94 on: March 23, 2011, 09:39 »
0
You keep receiving your exclusive royalties for the 30 days until your crown disappears, when the crown goes so do the higher royalties

If they want to keep paying you your exclusive rate after the thirty days, even though you've given notice and the time is up, that's yours to enjoy, while uploading elsewhere.

exactly. someone has already had that happen.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they clawed back anything you made extra after the thirty days were up, even if it was their fault they were late.

« Reply #95 on: March 23, 2011, 11:11 »
0
You keep receiving your exclusive royalties for the 30 days until your crown disappears, when the crown goes so do the higher royalties


If they want to keep paying you your exclusive rate after the thirty days, even though you've given notice and the time is up, that's yours to enjoy, while uploading elsewhere.


exactly. someone has already had that happen.


Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they clawed back anything you made extra after the thirty days were up, even if it was their fault they were late.


actually they (istock) already replied to someone in this situation that if the exclusive royalties remained after 30days, they keep it but their 30day obligation is up and can begin uploading to other sites. 

see:
http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html

« Reply #96 on: March 23, 2011, 11:22 »
0
actually they (istock) already replied to someone in this situation that if the exclusive royalties remained after 30days, they keep it but their 30day obligation is up and can begin uploading to other sites. 

see:
http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html


That's surprising. Tho just because they said that doesn't make it true.

« Reply #97 on: March 23, 2011, 11:31 »
0
actually they (istock) already replied to someone in this situation that if the exclusive royalties remained after 30days, they keep it but their 30day obligation is up and can begin uploading to other sites. 

see:
http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html


That's surprising. Tho just because they said that doesn't make it true.


Yuppers!

« Reply #98 on: March 23, 2011, 12:54 »
0
Well, it was at least true for a while. I was in the same situation and have cashed out. Of course, I guess in these times-o-the-negative-balance, nothing is forever.  But at least I've had the money for a little bit!

« Reply #99 on: March 23, 2011, 13:00 »
0
I m an illustrator, so I think itmight be even harder.

I think it will actually be easier. Illustrations are in good demand and your portfolio looks nice.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
7843 Views
Last post April 02, 2007, 16:51
by ErickN
1 Replies
3450 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 12:34
by velocicarpo
14 Replies
5757 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 21:28
by Reef
10 Replies
5590 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 13:35
by Zoom Lens
2 Replies
2012 Views
Last post March 01, 2017, 02:46
by alno

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors