Thanks for nothing.....

Gold Cannister here still dropping from 20% to a ridiculous 16% and yes I will be working harder this year but I can assure you it will not be at IS to much nonsense going on there

 

LOL

I would submit it, no text on it of course..

Absolutely hilarious!!  But I'm with Cthoman - still getting the big screw!

hahahaah.. that's classic! 

yeah, I am still getting the big screw, too. 

Quote from: traveler1116 on January 08, 2011, 04:14

They should because they want to keep me as an exclusive...obviously they don't have to. 

How do you know they want to keep you as exclusive? They show no sign of giving a  about the dropped crowns.

I'm tending to agree with this these days...sadly. I think of istock as a gallery/storefront. I pay for space on the walls and for marketing, and they take a chunk of my income. these days I feel like the chunk they get is being shoved into a dirty hole in the floorboards before I know what's happening, and there's two marketing departments--one for those of who don't matter much, and the real marketing department for the superstars.

so any chance of istock ever going exclusive only? I can't see that would ever work, but I'm curious what responses are to the question.

hahahaah.. that's classic! 

yeah, I am still getting the big screw, too. 

Independent at 15% for life, I could have it tattooed on my sorry WhooYay where the screw is sticking out.

very funny cartoon, chico, and right on the money (or lack of, I should say) 

I, too, still get the big screw.

Was made by "artpuppy" Istock vector artist. Great job.

At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites. 

I don't see it as a realistic possibility for IS to insist on exclusivity. For starters they risk losing up to 80% of their library.

The only time they had a realistic opportunity of making IS an 'exclusive only' agency  was when they first introduced exclusivity itself. Had they been a little more generous at the time then exclusivity would have been a no-brainer for most of us anyway. Such was their domination back then they could probably have prevented realistic competition from taking off. That horse has well and truly bolted now.

Quote from: lisafx on January 11, 2011, 12:32

At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites. 

I don't see it as a realistic possibility for IS to insist on exclusivity. For starters they risk losing up to 80% of their library.

I hope you're right.  Just seems like lately Istock has been shooting themselves in the foot so much that nothing would surprise me anymore. 

At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites.  

The problem, for exclusives, with the site going all-exclusive, is that there would still need to be haves and have-nots.  That just seems to be the way Istock operates.  Once independents are gone, that leaves the lower selling exclusives as the have-nots.   To some extent, we can already see that happening.  

I totally agree. Now, the exclusives (and really, still the non-exclusives) "who didn't work hard enough" last year are the have-nots. In time, I think most all contributors will end up being have-nots at IS. Only the top echelon of producers will remain. IMHO.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 11, 2011, 13:07

What if that 80% only counts for a small percentage of their revenue? What if they kept only the small percentage of contributors that make up 80-90%+ of their revenue? They would have a much smaller, but exclusive, library.

Even if that's true, it changes the equation in ways that would hurt iStock even more than their failures are doing now.  That nonexclusive content allows them to be a one stop shop for image buyers; chances are good that a buyer will find something they want in iStock's collection.  Take away all those images and iStock becomes a niche player, albeit a profitable one.  Buyers will have to find other sources for a lot of their needs.  And once they've discovered those other (cheaper, easier, friendlier, less incompetent) markets, how likely are they to return to iStock?

Buyer inertia is one of iStock's advantages.  Take it away and what do they have?

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

Buyers want convenience. If keeping a small percentage of images represented a good high value collection minus the junk, even better.

Now if Istock could have that exclusive collection and fix all the bugs...

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 really wish iStock would go the way of image exclusivity like other agents rather than artist exclusivity.

There aren't many agencies that have complete image exclusivity anymore, some like Getty and Corbis still insist on image exclusivity from individual contributors but their collection as a whole hasn't been exclusive for a long time, therefore I can't see iStock ever doing it, up until last year I would have submitted images to iStock on an exclusive basis but obviously I wouldn't consider that now.