thanks for the replies. I remember they said it wouldn't happen. but they have gone back on other promises and statements--so logically I'm just not going to put a lot of stock in statements and promises anymore. as was already said, I feel like the opportunity to go all--exclusive has come and gone. but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they did that. despite being exclusive, I think it would be a huge mistake. and I agree Lisa, that it would simply shift the divide across exclusive lines instead of the obvious line between exclusivity and independence.

I really wish iStock would go the way of image exclusivity like other agents rather than artist exclusivity. it used to seem that exclusivity would maintain demand for files not available elsewhere. but now that they're slinging our wares haphazardly across multiple sites and markets, and seeing some of the Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity--it's like there's a big piece of sand under my crown. the more I rub it, the worse it feels. it really bothers me that some artists have flexible exclusivity. makes me wonder where we're headed. seems they want to bring everything exclusively under the Getty umbrella. they don't seem to realize the umbrella's inside out right now.

I agree.  Customers may want "exclusive imagery" but do they put any value on "exclusive artists" ?  Other than maybe a handful of artists with very unique, specialized and distinctive imagery I doubt it very much.  Are my pictures of professionals in business settings more desirable to a customer if they know that I don't have animal photos for sale at another website? 

But any kind of exclusivity, image or artist, at 20% royalties is of no interest to me. And that's where Getty's going. So I'd go independent rather than deal with that.

Quote from: lisafx on January 11, 2011, 15:19

...and the value of artist exclusivity seems to be rapidly declining. 

I disagree, IS still seems to be propping up their exclusive program with a number of perks that might be interesting opportunities to independents. Higher priced files, Vetta, Getty, etc. Even Fotolia has perks for exclusives with their exclusives allowed to adjust prices. I wouldn't mind being able to use all those features.

I admit sales are there and continue to grow, albeit more slowly. but otherwise, what perks? they've whittled away all the perks. exclusivity doesn't feel special at all anymore

Quote from: lisafx on January 11, 2011, 15:19

...and the value of artist exclusivity seems to be rapidly declining. 

I disagree, IS still seems to be propping up their exclusive program with a number of perks that might be interesting opportunities to independents. Higher priced files, Vetta, Getty, etc. Even Fotolia has perks for exclusives with their exclusives allowed to adjust prices. I wouldn't mind being able to use all those features.

Yes, but are customers going to prop up IS to allow them to continue to prop up their exclusive artists?  I hope their exclusive perks are not coming at the expense of confusing and annoying customers.

What I mean is, does the quality, uniqueness, searchability, size, format, price, packaging, etc. of the various flavors of "exclusive images" actually correspond to what customers think is good value for their money?  If IS focus too much on making their agency attractive to their top contributors and not enough on making it attractive to customers then the perks won't be worthwhile.

I'm not saying that they have definitely blundered because I really don't know.  But to me, there are some signs that they may have blundered.  For example the term "agency collection" is meaningless because IS is already an agency.  How can an agency offer a collection of certain content called "agency collection" and offer another collection of content which is "NOT agency collection".  They're both collections of content at an agency, therefore they're both agency collections.  Do they really think that customers will know or care about the history which brought in this content through the back door, as it were, and not through normal uploading by individual contributors?

Likewise the term "Vetta" is a made-up term which means nothing, except it is hinting that the content it contains is "vetted".  Do customers need someone to vet ("to examine, investigate, or evaluate in a thorough or expert way") imagery or would they rather have a decent search engine to help them do it themselves?  Even if customers prefer to search only within vetted imagery, there was an indication that some artists are hedging their bets by putting SOME images in a series into the high-priced collection but leaving other, nearly identical images in the regular-priced ordinary collection.  It is understandable for an artist to want to do this, not wanting to take a chance on killing their sales to the low-priced market, but to a customer it is completely silly to have practically identical content for sale at the same web site for vastly different prices.

Companies always need to have some people working on employee recruiting and retention, but by far the largest focus has to be on customers ... otherwise their won't be enough ca$h to recruit and retain anybody.

Quote from: cthoman on January 11, 2011, 15:30

Quote from: lisafx on January 11, 2011, 15:19

...and the value of artist exclusivity seems to be rapidly declining.  

I disagree, IS still seems to be propping up their exclusive program with a number of perks that might be interesting opportunities to independents. Higher priced files, Vetta, Getty, etc.

It used to be that every exclusive contributor had a chance to make it to the top royalty levels.  Some did it faster and some slower, but if you hung in there you would eventually make it.  That's not true anymore.  The RC targets mean that most istock exclusives will NEVER make it to the higher royalty levels.  

There is an elite club of very successful, very talented people who manage to gain enough access to Vetta, Agency, etc. and can therefore have the full benefits of exclusivity.  Unfortunately, for the rank-and-file Istock exclusive contributor, who doesn't produce Vetta or Agency-style images, who is now stuck forever at 25-30%, the benefits of exclusivity are all but gone.  

(your comment in red) is bang on. really succinct. and the new system ensures a steady income for Getty/iStock without consideration for motivating exclusives. They've made it very clear that it doesn't matter who the income comes from, as long as it comes. that's really disappointing.

I'm kind of happy now that I don't have much Vetta or Agency, because they're pushing it so much on Getty that 20% is going to be more and more the royalty for non-exclusives. In fact, I'm considering opting out entirely from Vetta/Agency as I have for the Partner Program. that gives me regular collection and E+ to work with and my 35% on iStock (though that's indefinite, depending on what happens next year with RC targets).

It's alive!!!!

But what images comprise that 80%? Is it stuff that sells? Or a lot of non-selling junk?

I love ya Paulie, but I think it would be suicide too.  The top selling independent collection images at SS, DT, FT are very strong images.  Removing all of it from IS would send quite a few buyers packing by necessity.  IS would also be eliminating the image factories, which arguably create the most popular collections in all of microstock.  

Honestly I hope it happens.  It would be an epic fail to be certain, and I would just as soon have buyers purchasing my images where I make 30-50% rather than 16-17%.

Quote from: SNP on January 11, 2011, 15:53

I admit sales are there and continue to grow, albeit more slowly. but otherwise, what perks? they've whittled away all the perks. exclusivity doesn't feel special at all anymore

There's always independence. You can make your own flag and have a holiday with fireworks and everything.   

There's always room for one more SNP.  I'll cook the hot dogs!   

My god! FcukUp in the new F5!

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 11, 2011, 14:03

But what images comprise that 80%? Is it stuff that sells? Or a lot of non-selling junk?

I love ya Paulie, but I think it would be suicide too.  The top selling independent collection images at SS, DT, FT are very strong images.  Removing all of it from IS would send quite a few buyers packing by necessity.  IS would also be eliminating the image factories, which arguably create the most popular collections in all of microstock.  

Honestly I hope it happens.  It would be an epic fail to be certain, and I would just as soon have buyers purchasing my images where I make 30-50% rather than 16-17%.

Haha. I love you, man!

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Just doing some what-if's.

What-if they came up with some massive exclusive incentives for the image factories, and other high performing non-exclusive contributors, that they couldn't resist?

Istock would be the only exclusive site with a smaller collection of mostly excellent content. A micro version of Getty images with pricing in-between micro and macro. Non-exclusives and low value images would get moved to the new Getty true micro site, Photos.com. The other dozen micros would have most of the same images and would be competing only on price along with Photos.com.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2011, 07:37

Haha. I love you, man!
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Just doing some what-if's.
What-if they came up with some massive exclusive incentives for the image factories, and other high performing non-exclusive contributors, that they couldn't resist?
Istock would be the only exclusive site with a smaller collection of mostly excellent content. A micro version of Getty images with pricing in-between micro and macro. Non-exclusives and low value images would get moved to the new Getty true micro site, Photos.com. The other dozen micros would have most of the same images and would be competing only on price along with Photos.com.

Photos.com pays 30-50% commission? I was under the impression Getty's mission was to get EVERYBODY at 20% or less. If Photos.com pays 20%, then "low value images and non-exclusives" would still get a better deal somewhere else. In other words, dumping Getty altogether. Photos.com might be competing on price with the other sites, but Getty would still be losing a lot of non-exclusives. Not that they care, except for the biggies.

And I am certain the back-room deals are going to continue with the big indies. It wouldn't surprise me if your what-if is actually a soon-to-be. 

Sure, the new sites and low sales volume sites will always offer higher commission.

But what do you think is going to eventually happen with the other top sites now that they've seen Istock massively drop commissions with little repercussion other than a lot of threats to leave and complaining? So far contributors' only threat/tool is to stop submitting or leave. If over the next couple of years the top 5 sites all cut commissions to 20% where will everybody go?

The execs at the other sites already have dollar signs rolling in their eyes after this move by istock. Many of you keep praising the other sites but they are all businesses acting in their own best interests. Change is coming.

Back in September, when Istock first announced these royalty cuts, I was worried the other sites might want to follow suit at some point.  Now, after months of Istock falling deeper and deeper into the quicksand of their own greed and hubris, I think they serve more as a cautionary tale to the other sites, of what can happen if you lose sight of the importance of your contributors and buyers.  I doubt any of the other sites are looking at this mess at Istock, and saying "Hey, lets try that!"  

I'd agree 100% (and so does my data). Istock appear to be on course to prove how an eye-wateringly profitable business can be rapidly driven onto the rocks by unbelievable greed and short-term thinking. Things will never, ever be the same again for Istockphoto. They f*cked it up and they'll go into the history books of 'how not to do it'.

Sales are already falling, which is why the RC targets were 'revised', and it's going to get really embarrassing for them when they announce the 2011 RC if they make any attempt to be realistic about them. They won't of course. They'll probably announce 'no change' when they do and then revise them downwards again towards the end of the year or earlier if enough exclusives start to kick up a fuss.

Sales are already falling, which is why the RC targets were 'revised', and it's going to get really embarrassing for them when they announce the 2011 RC if they make any attempt to be realistic about them. They won't of course. They'll probably announce 'no change' when they do and then revise them downwards again towards the end of the year or earlier if enough exclusives start to kick up a fuss.

I guess it depends exactly which exclusives and what kind of a fuss. Anyone lower than Diamond is easily dispensible. If the Diamonds (and BDs) drop exclusivity but keep uploading, iStock stands mostly to gain, beyond any value of 'exclusive images', and other sites have their own 'exclusive images'. If a lot of Diamonds and BDs pulled their ports altogether, it would make a difference. But it would take a lot of nerve/chutzpah for a BD or high Diamond exclusive to do that.