MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock offering split exclusivity deal to vector artists.  (Read 8973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vlad_the_imp

« on: September 29, 2010, 13:08 »
0

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&messageid=4881781%20#post4881781%20

Quote
The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer.


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2010, 13:23 »
0
That's certainly good news.

traveler1116

« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2010, 13:29 »
0
Good news?  Doesn't it mean that many files that were exclusive on IS will now be nonexclusive?

« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2010, 13:40 »
0
That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers.  Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.

bittersweet

« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2010, 13:41 »
0
Good news?  Doesn't it mean that many files that were exclusive on IS will now be nonexclusive?
For split portfolios, I'd say that is probably a very good certainty. It doesn't address the fact that those with heavily vector ports are still getting screwed because of the unfair requirements.

That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers.  Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.
^ Yep. What she said. :)

« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2010, 13:42 »
0
I guess that is their solution to the split discipline people's redeemed credits. I assume raster illustrations are still considered photos.

bittersweet

« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2010, 13:44 »
0
I guess that is their solution to the split discipline people's redeemed credits. I assume raster illustrations are still considered photos.

I'm sure they are. This will be interesting. It will give those with split ports who were definitely going to lose money an opportunity to dip their toes into non-exclusivity and try the other sites while keeping their photo ports at istock. This could yield some interesting and unexpected results.

« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2010, 13:46 »
0
That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers.  Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.

I was thinking about this the other day. By their logic of vectors selling for more so they have higher targets, shouldn't exclusives have higher targets too because of higher prices.  ;D Uh, oh. Maybe, I shouldn't have said anything.

« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2010, 14:26 »
0
That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers.  Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.

I was thinking about this the other day. By their logic of vectors selling for more so they have higher targets, shouldn't exclusives have higher targets too because of higher prices.  ;D Uh, oh. Maybe, I shouldn't have said anything.


I'm sure there's no squeeze-the-contributor scheme they haven't at least considered. And I wouldn't be surprised to see this (same targets as independents) touted as a "benefit" to exclusives at some point when we complain about eroding privileges!

I asked a couple of questions in the IS thread on this topic and surprisingly got a quick answer from Andrew. He thinks (but will check) that existing exclusives will get to stay that way even if they have so few illustrations they wouldn't typically qualify for illustration exclusivity. He said this will be effective in January 2011 with the royalty changes. Logos are unaffected as those are image exclusive anyway.

bittersweet

« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2010, 14:33 »
0

I'm sure there's no squeeze-the-contributor scheme they haven't at least considered. And I wouldn't be surprised to see this (same targets as independents) touted as a "benefit" to exclusives at some point when we complain about eroding privileges!

I asked a couple of questions in the IS thread on this topic and surprisingly got a quick answer from Andrew. He thinks (but will check) that existing exclusives will get to stay that way even if they have so few illustrations they wouldn't typically qualify for illustration exclusivity. He said this will be effective in January 2011 with the royalty changes. Logos are unaffected as those are image exclusive anyway.

Hmm, it never even crossed my mind that they would force any split portfolios to NOT stay exclusive, I just suspected there would be maybe more willing to give it a try since it wouldn't mean having to risk reduced royalties on their whole portfolio.

Cheryl just made a very good point in that thread:
Quote
But who's to stop someone from rasterizing their vector files and uploading them elsewhere?

The years of deaf ears to non-vector illustrators begging to be recognized in the illustration search may come back to bite them in the butt.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 14:47 by whatalife »

« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2010, 14:44 »
0
So basically, iStock found a way to "throw a bone" to contributors without actually giving away anything.

« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2010, 14:57 »
0
I would prefer image exclusivity than portfolio exclusivity...

« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2010, 15:01 »
0
So basically, iStock found a way to "throw a bone" to contributors without actually giving away anything.

Can I get a Woo-Yay? No?

« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2010, 15:26 »
0
I'm just waiting for them to introduce another subcategory: renders/raster illustrations which will further split your RC and which will result in even more profit for them.

« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2010, 15:38 »
0
That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers.  Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.

I was thinking about this the other day. By their logic of vectors selling for more so they have higher targets, shouldn't exclusives have higher targets too because of higher prices.  ;D Uh, oh. Maybe, I shouldn't have said anything.
Try posting that on IS forums.

« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2010, 16:11 »
0
Try posting that on IS forums.

I already said they should dump exclusives and pay everybody over 20%, so I'm sure my ideas are real popular over there.  ;)

« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2010, 16:28 »
0
Try posting that on IS forums.

I already said they should dump exclusives and pay everybody over 20%, so I'm sure my ideas are real popular over there.  ;)


I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.

« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2010, 16:49 »
0
I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.

Oh, my solution was to price better selling content at the exclusive prices and keep image exclusivity for Vetta. It was a little rant, but I think it got buried in the monster thread.

« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2010, 17:09 »
0

Exclusivity isn't the only way that IS can compete, other than on price. Each of the other sites has its own variation on selling stock, price is not the only variable. IS has the advantages of having been first (that edge worked pretty well for eBay and Amazon), IS has deeper pockets than any other site, except potentially Veer. And it has a community with a much greater identity and range of social offerings than any other site, if it hasn't completly destroyed that. And more.

I always hated exclusivity, and the unequal playing field which it creates. The culture of favoritsm, with its little party favor badges and 'cannisters'. It smacks more of grade school than of business, and not the nice part of grade school either, the snotty cliquey part. I doubt that IS will ever abandon it but I think they would have a better business in the long run if they did. It is apparently exclusivity, and its ever increasing percentage of royalties, which is behind IS's claim that its business model is untenable in the long run. If that is truly so, they should abandon exclusivity, instead of making an ever-worsening and incomprehensible mess of their royalty structure.
Try posting that on IS forums.

I already said they should dump exclusives and pay everybody over 20%, so I'm sure my ideas are real popular over there.  ;)


I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.

« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2010, 17:24 »
0
Try posting that on IS forums.

I already said they should dump exclusives and pay everybody over 20%, so I'm sure my ideas are real popular over there.  ;)
Yeah sure, very popular idea among exclusives!   >:(

« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2010, 17:32 »
0
Again "favoristim", when everybody can be or not be exclusive, at his own will. You make it sound as if were hand-picked. I'm sorry, what it makes me smile.

« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2010, 17:55 »
0
Again "favoristim", when everybody can be or not be exclusive, at his own will. You make it sound as if were hand-picked. I'm sorry, what it makes me smile.

There is a cult of sorts - but not in who can be exclusive or not. There has been a ton of complaining in the Vetta forum - including by major contributors with massive sales - that there is a clique that gets near automatic Vetta acceptance and the select few who get to self inspect. No one will make the process known or transparent. There's no appeal or discussion. Rule by executive fiat.

If it were just about badges and such who would care? But there's a lot of money tied up with the improved search results position and higher prices these things bring with them.

« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2010, 18:00 »
0
Yeah sure, very popular idea among exclusives!   >:(

Yeah, probably not.  ;D I think it was more of postulating an alternative, and not a serious plan. I just have a hard time believing that they sat in a room, and this new scheme is the best that they could come up with. I don't have anything against exclusives. I also don't really care that they are lowering the royalty rates by 5% or more. Nor do I care that the tiers for photographers and illustrators are unfair and different. I'm solely focused on the part about getting paid below a 20% royalty rate. It was like a switch went off in my head. Clearly, they don't respect my work enough to give me a measly 20%. Why should I have a company represent me that doesn't even respect me?

« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2010, 18:44 »
0
I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.

Oh, my solution was to price better selling content at the exclusive prices and keep image exclusivity for Vetta. It was a little rant, but I think it got buried in the monster thread.

I think just image exclusivity will eventually happen. Most contributors will start to struggle for sales as prices go up and the elite contributors will just submit to the high end collections anyway.

 
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 18:46 by retrorocket »

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2010, 22:15 »
0
It was suggested by a contributor in the IS thread that the word "illustrations" was used rather than the word vector intentionally.  They were suggesting that the split could be putting rastor and vector illustrations in one catagory.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=18

No one official has yet denied that conclusion (mind you that post was only a few hours ago).

What a total calamity that would be, IMO!

ETA: the link lost a post - so I had to change the page #
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 23:38 by Pixel-Pizzazz »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
8856 Views
Last post June 14, 2009, 14:12
by MisterElements
1 Replies
3066 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 21:28
by helix7
14 Replies
4186 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 21:07
by Susan S.
20 Replies
5945 Views
Last post January 05, 2012, 16:19
by rinderart
9 Replies
3062 Views
Last post September 04, 2014, 10:51
by pixsol

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results