Author Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers (Read 38927 times)

leaf · « **Reply #100 on:** April 29, 2010, 02:20 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 29, 2010, 02:09

Perhaps now they have E+ and Vetta, they will look at ways for non-exclusives to charge more for their images? Perhaps exclusive image uploads will be next? Not going to hold my breath on this one but if they really want to increase their profits and pull away from the other sites, it would make sense.

Yeah I am sure they would greatly increase their exclusive content if they allowed exclusive uploads from non-exclusive photographers. Perhaps they would allow 20 non-exclusive uploads/week and 20 exclusive uploads/week

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #101 on:** April 29, 2010, 05:40 »

And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way.

sharpshot · « **Reply #102 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2010, 05:40

And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way.

Obviously there would need to be some strict rules to stop this happening. So how do Getty do it? They have exclusive images and let their contributors use other sites. Surely if they can do it, so can istock. Aren't they connected in some way nowadays

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #103 on:** April 29, 2010, 07:04 »

Getty is not dealing with 50,000 contributors though.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #104 on:** April 29, 2010, 08:24 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 29, 2010, 06:12

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2010, 05:40
And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way.
Obviously there would need to be some strict rules to stop this happening. So how do Getty do it? They have exclusive images and let their contributors use other sites. Surely if they can do it, so can istock. Aren't they connected in some way nowadays

I'd guess that for most Getty contributors Getty represents a significant portion of their income. If they tried skirting the rules and got blacklisted they'd be screwing themselves royally. Even if Getty is a quarter or third of their income could you imagine losing that much?

For most micro people they probably make enough to buy dinner out a couple times a month so they have less to risk by gaming the policy and submitting an exclusive image at one place and another slightly different one from the same series elsehwere.

lisafx · « **Reply #105 on:** April 29, 2010, 09:16 »

I would love to be proven wrong, but it seems to me that allowing "image exclusivity" would completely destroy the collection of "artist exclusive" images at istock.

Their collection of exclusive artists is the only thing differentiating Istock from the other sites IMO. It's the only leverage they have to keep raising prices like they do.

Don't they stand to lose a lot more than they gain if they allow image exclusivity?

Current exclusive artists would be able to cherry pick their top sellers to remain exclusive and upload all the rest to the other sites, effectively destroying istock's competitive edge.

lagereek · « **Reply #106 on:** April 29, 2010, 10:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2010, 05:40

And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way.

'
Hi mate!

well actually its not far from what we have got at the moment. Just take a look at business-man or business-woman.

lagereek · « **Reply #107 on:** April 29, 2010, 10:34 »

Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school.
They are missing out a lot, lots and lots insisting on person exclusivity but time will however tell that.

michealo · « **Reply #108 on:** April 29, 2010, 11:06 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 29, 2010, 10:34

Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school.
They are missing out a lot, lots and lots insisting on person exclusivity but time will however tell that.

They have the images in the collection anyway so how are they missing out?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #109 on:** April 29, 2010, 11:49 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 29, 2010, 10:34

Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school....

Meaning the "real" talent's all elsewhere and the micros are all just amateurs earning pocket money from their snapshots for the fun of it??

If not that, what exactly does "look like a photo-school" mean?

lagereek · « **Reply #110 on:** April 29, 2010, 13:07 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 29, 2010, 11:49

Quote from: lagereek on April 29, 2010, 10:34
Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school....

Meaning the "real" talent's all elsewhere and the micros are all just amateurs earning pocket money from their snapshots for the fun of it??

If not that, what exactly does "look like a photo-school" mean?

Nah, jokes apart! ofcourse not, theres some great talent within IS but you know theres a whole heap of dayrate photographers out there in fashion, Advertising, industry, etc, etc,
and quite frankly, many of them are extremly good.
Issue here though is Image-exclusivity, I can understand why its frightening for many because it would open a giant door with much stiffer competition then already.

Might interest you to know that within the Getty-RM where its supposed to be rock-hard exclusivity, the majority of members including myself supply to others. Nobody mind as long as pics never clash and they havent done that in the past 16 years.

best.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #111 on:** April 29, 2010, 14:02 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 29, 2010, 10:34

Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school.
They are missing out a lot, lots and lots insisting on person exclusivity but time will however tell that.

Another good argument for artist exclusivity.

Less competition from the "pros".

alias · « **Reply #112 on:** April 29, 2010, 14:09 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 29, 2010, 13:07

Nah, jokes apart! ofcourse not, theres some great talent within IS but you know theres a whole heap of dayrate photographers out there in fashion, Advertising, industry, etc, etc,
and quite frankly, many of them are extremly good.
Issue here though is Image-exclusivity, I can understand why its frightening for many because it would open a giant door with much stiffer competition then already.

Might interest you to know that within the Getty-RM where its supposed to be rock-hard exclusivity, the majority of members including myself supply to others. Nobody mind as long as pics never clash and they havent done that in the past 16 years.

"Image exclusivity" isn't stopping anyone from joining IS or any of the few remaining IS copycats. There isn't a great wave of photographers out there waiting to come on board. IMHO.

There is a new generation of stock photographers who began with IS and the IS copycats. Many of them are producing work which is both technically and conceptually hugely more significant than anything which was available as stock 10 or 15 years ago. Oh and many of them are already also working as significant "dayrate" photographers.

So called "image exclusivity" is utterly a non issue IMO. The IS exclusivity arrangement is still much more about building loyalty and community than anything else. Out of loyalty and community comes a better crowd sourced business model. Crowd sourcing depends on community and it is community and crowd sourcing which makes the model economically viable. And IS remains in the first instance a business built on a crowd sourced model. If they had to pay for even a fraction of what community gives them for free the model would not work.

lagereek · « **Reply #113 on:** April 30, 2010, 00:09 »

alias !

This is business, not a friendly social game where you rub shoulders all day long.

lagereek · « **Reply #114 on:** April 30, 2010, 00:15 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 30, 2010, 00:09

alias !

This is business, not a friendly social game where you rubb shoulders all day long.

lagereek · « **Reply #115 on:** April 30, 2010, 00:44 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 30, 2010, 00:15

Quote from: lagereek on April 30, 2010, 00:09
alias !

This is business, not a friendly social game where you rubb shoulders all day long. Its the old misconception yet again. Exclusivity is not there for youre benefit or kindness, exclusivity fill one function only: its to stop members supplying other agencies or outfits, thats all. Its a business concept originating from the old Magnum days that a photographer can-not and will-not supply any of the competition, only in them days it was often news and war-photography on spot documentaries, etc, not commercial-stock as it is today.
So we are applying a 1940s idea to todays digital world with billions of images floating around almost everywhere, where you can take just about any given shot and manipulate it beyond recognition and then put a copy-stamp on it. Pretty dodgy, if you ask me.

lisafx · « **Reply #116 on:** April 30, 2010, 18:20 »

Quote from: alias on April 29, 2010, 14:09

The IS exclusivity arrangement is still much more about building loyalty and community than anything else. Out of loyalty and community comes a better crowd sourced business model. Crowd sourcing depends on community and it is community and crowd sourcing which makes the model economically viable.

^^ If this is true, then Istock has lost a LOT of ground over the past couple of years thanks to Getty's disregard for the "community". At least that is what I gather from a number of recent marathon threads.

The partner program and Thinkstock have just about put the last coffin nail in the "community spirit" over there. At least if the many disgruntled postings from most of Istock's former biggest cheerleaders are to be believed.

crazychristina · « **Reply #117 on:** April 30, 2010, 21:00 »

Community is still alive and well on istock. I'm a member of the Push for Gold group, that started as Push for Bronze a couple of years ago, morphed into Push for Silver, and is now Push for gold. About 70 contributors trying to achieve milestones. Nearly everyone in that group (a few full time professional photographers now dabbling in stock, a few former amateurs now full time microstockers, and mostly 'amateurs' with another life) has mentioned how important the race thread is for maintaining motivation, setting goals and giving advice. Two member have just reached silver, and their two-person race to that milestone generated about three pages of posts in the thread in the past 24 hours. We keep track of stats through Google charts. The maintainer estimates that as a group we have generated nearly a million dollars for istock. A few members will without a doubt be high-flyers in the not-too-distant future. Most are exclusive but a few are not.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #118 on:** April 30, 2010, 21:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 30, 2010, 18:20

Quote from: alias on April 29, 2010, 14:09

The IS exclusivity arrangement is still much more about building loyalty and community than anything else. Out of loyalty and community comes a better crowd sourced business model. Crowd sourcing depends on community and it is community and crowd sourcing which makes the model economically viable.

^^ If this is true, then Istock has lost a LOT of ground over the past couple of years thanks to Getty's disregard for the "community". At least that is what I gather from a number of recent marathon threads.

The partner program and Thinkstock have just about put the last coffin nail in the "community spirit" over there. At least if the many disgruntled postings from most of Istock's former biggest cheerleaders are to be believed.

To be honest, I'm not sure "community" matters that much anymore, at least as far as successful production goes. The forums are like my watercooler, and it's a good place to vent, but you could get that on any forum. The part that matters is the interaction with the staff, so at least you feel like you might have some idea what's going on, or who to contact if weird things happen. This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.

crazychristina · « **Reply #119 on:** April 30, 2010, 21:46 »

Apart from the forums istock organises events such as the recent 'lypse in Cannes. Once again, more experienced members helping less experienced. Perhaps you (Sean) don't see any value in these, as it's not in the spirit of competition and business, unless the organisers are being paid a huge amount to run them.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #120 on:** May 01, 2010, 06:10 »

Quote from: averil on April 30, 2010, 21:46

Apart from the forums istock organises events such as the recent 'lypse in Cannes. Once again, more experienced members helping less experienced. Perhaps you (Sean) don't see any value in these, as it's not in the spirit of competition and business, unless the organisers are being paid a huge amount to run them.

iStock lypses are organized to get them big influxes of imagery and to jazz and train up the new members. I've never figured out why people waste their best shooting ideas on self-organized lypses, aside from being able to just get together with a bunch of people to have fun. Well, I guess that's community, but it's not like it's sensible from a business end of things.

Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.

crazychristina · « **Reply #121 on:** May 01, 2010, 15:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 01, 2010, 06:10

Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.

Well stated, and as my shrink tells me this is the fundamental quandary of the human condition - our needs are individual but our means of attaining them are social. Without an adequate number of competent competitors there would be no istock.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #123 on:** May 01, 2010, 17:14 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 30, 2010, 21:33

This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.

I think people who don't really depend on money from microstock mostly see it as a big friendly game, and those who depend on it mostly see it as a worldwide competition.

ShadySue · « **Reply #124 on:** May 01, 2010, 18:10 »

Quote from: Whitechild on May 01, 2010, 17:14

Quote from: sjlocke on April 30, 2010, 21:33
This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.

I think people who don't really depend on money from microstock mostly see it as a big friendly game, and those who depend on it mostly see it as a worldwide competition.

Yup, I'm sure that's the bottom line.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers (Read 38927 times)

leaf

Sean Locke Photography

sharpshot

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

lisafx

lagereek

lagereek

michealo

Jo Ann Snover

lagereek

Sean Locke Photography

alias

lagereek

lagereek

lagereek

lisafx

crazychristina

Sean Locke Photography

crazychristina

Sean Locke Photography

crazychristina

MatHayward

Dreamframer

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors