MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: WHEN They Drop Exclusivity  (Read 4031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 10, 2015, 21:25 »
0
WHEN...and it's gotta be inevitable...WHEN they eventually drop exclusivity, will exclusives be bound to the 30-day limbo where they can't approach/upload to other agencies?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2015, 21:51 »
+3
Presumably, unless they were to stop paying at exclusive rate inside their notice. Though if you deactivated all your files would it be worth their while pursuing you?
My guess is they'd likely give the required notice, announcing how excited they are at this new opportunity. But who knows?
I've given up second-guessing them. The reality is always worse than my fevered imagination.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 07:02 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2015, 01:16 »
+3
Thirty days isn't long.  And they can upload to some sites like SS and just have the port go live when they are free. 

« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2015, 04:29 »
+1
WHEN...and it's gotta be inevitable...WHEN they eventually drop exclusivity, will exclusives be bound to the 30-day limbo where they can't approach/upload to other agencies?

Why is this inevitable? If I were them, I might decide to stop accepting new exclusives, and I might slowly worsen the exclusivity program to the point where people may leave on their own, but what reason would they have to phase it out entirely? What would they win?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2015, 04:31 »
+5
Reducing cost of paying exclusive royalty rates. They could cut their cost by 25% (drop from 45% to 20%)

« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2015, 04:34 »
+2
It's also worth noting that anyone who gives up exclusivity will find that their current files will all stay at the 3 credit price point, not drop down to 1 credit, as I assumed would happen. Files uploaded after giving up exclusivity will sell at 1 credit, but not existing files.

« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2015, 06:07 »
+5
It's also worth noting that anyone who gives up exclusivity will find that their current files will all stay at the 3 credit price point, not drop down to 1 credit, as I assumed would happen. Files uploaded after giving up exclusivity will sell at 1 credit, but not existing files.

So you can have your cake and eat it. At least for the moment (I expect they will fix this bug before the end of the century). But I wonder what will happen when the realise what they've done and demand the overpayments back?

JKB

« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2015, 06:16 »
+1
Dunno, either my math is seriously flawed or there are some misconceptions about the royalty percentages. Exclusivity seems to be a good earner for iStock according to my calculations:

iStock takes 0.80-0.85 credits per sold non-exclusive file (80-85% of 1 credit) - contributor gets 0.15-0.20 credits (15-20%);
iStock takes 1.65-2.40 credits per sold exclusive file (55-80% of 3 credits) -  contributor gets 0.60-1.35 credits (20-45%).

Looking at credit sales only, iStock actually makes 2-2.8 times more money on the sale of an exclusive file - despite the higher royalty rates. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2015, 06:23 »
+1
Dunno, either my math is seriously flawed or there are some misconceptions about the royalty percentages. Exclusivity seems to be a good earner for iStock according to my calculations:

iStock takes 0.80-0.85 credits per sold non-exclusive file (80-85% of 1 credit) - contributor gets 0.15-0.20 credits (15-20%);
iStock takes 1.65-2.40 credits per sold exclusive file (55-80% of 3 credits) -  contributor gets 0.60-1.35 credits (20-45%).

Looking at credit sales only, iStock actually makes 2-2.8 times more money on the sale of an exclusive file - despite the higher royalty rates. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Several people have kindly explained to me that it's the difference between profit, which is what you and I see, and 'profitability', which is what they want. My brain, sadly, can't get to grips with it.

« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2015, 06:28 »
+1
Dunno, either my math is seriously flawed or there are some misconceptions about the royalty percentages. Exclusivity seems to be a good earner for iStock according to my calculations:

iStock takes 0.80-0.85 credits per sold non-exclusive file (80-85% of 1 credit) - contributor gets 0.15-0.20 credits (15-20%);
iStock takes 1.65-2.40 credits per sold exclusive file (55-80% of 3 credits) -  contributor gets 0.60-1.35 credits (20-45%).

Looking at credit sales only, iStock actually makes 2-2.8 times more money on the sale of an exclusive file - despite the higher royalty rates. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
But of course against that you have lower sales at the higher price. Or at least presumably so.
So it's anybody's guess which is actually better, outside those who actually have access to the figures that is.
 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2015, 07:04 »
+2
Reducing cost of paying exclusive royalty rates. They could cut their cost by 25% (drop from 45% to 20%)
Probably very few are on the 45% rate, and most of them are probably the pseudo-exclusives on some sort of guaranteed rate, at least for a period.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 04:26 by ShadySue »

« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2015, 09:15 »
0
It's also worth noting that anyone who gives up exclusivity will find that their current files will all stay at the 3 credit price point, not drop down to 1 credit, as I assumed would happen. Files uploaded after giving up exclusivity will sell at 1 credit, but not existing files.

So you can have your cake and eat it. At least for the moment (I expect they will fix this bug before the end of the century). But I wonder what will happen when the realise what they've done and demand the overpayments back?

No, it's planned this way, I asked Contributor Relations.
Only files uploaded after giving up exclusivity will be 1 credit, old ones remain at 3.

« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2015, 09:21 »
+3
That makes no sense.  That's just their inability to correct the software or some such thing.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2015, 09:33 »
0

« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2015, 09:37 »
0
I'm only repeating what they told me. I was thinking that a benefit of giving up exclusivity, should such a time come, would be having cheaper files.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2015, 09:48 »
+2
I'm only repeating what they told me. I was thinking that a benefit of giving up exclusivity, should such a time come, would be having cheaper files.
Whereas you're stuck in the double whammy of being possibly undercut, unless most of your work is niche, and getting less money from each sale.
So - do you even get indie rates on subs they're selling at exclusive prices?
So there's a crucial calculation about how much more you'll get elsewhere making up.

But credit sales are shrinking so fast for most people on iS that it could very soon be totally moot.

« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2015, 09:50 »
+3
First I don't think it makes sense for them. Their library size can't match Shutterstock, they lose that comparison, so the exclusive content is still a big plus in selling their offer to customers. Also, Getty always required exclusivity for the content submitted by contributors, though only for the images/series for house contributors but it shows that exclusivity is something Getty always valued.

Secondly, should they ever make any changes to that, they would have to change their ASA which also takes 30 days advance notice. That's valid for both sides.

Thirdly, most iStock exclusives have their files keyworded for the iStock/Getty system. Hardly any of them would be able to prepare themselves to go non-exclusive in much less than 30 days. Imagine you'd need to re-keywording 10,000 files - I mean either imagine or ask Sean. ;)

« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2015, 10:08 »
+1
I'm only repeating what they told me. I was thinking that a benefit of giving up exclusivity, should such a time come, would be having cheaper files.
Whereas you're stuck in the double whammy of being possibly undercut, unless most of your work is niche, and getting less money from each sale.
So - do you even get indie rates on subs they're selling at exclusive prices?
So there's a crucial calculation about how much more you'll get elsewhere making up.

But credit sales are shrinking so fast for most people on iS that it could very soon be totally moot.

I see the problems affecting IS to a greater or lesser degree everywhere in micro stock. Too many files, too many of them accepted for no reason other than to say 'we have x million files' , regardless of their quality or use. I'm putting all my effort back into freelancing with IS income as useful additional income, not the other way round as it was a few years back.

« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2015, 10:19 »
+1
As Liz say. It'll all be moot soon if this continues.


I have uploaded there to sell my images.


Simple idea. I upload. They try their best to sell.


I became exclusive to make more money for those sales, and to make things simpler dealing with one agency.


This is no longer happening for me there.








 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3258 Views
Last post January 18, 2009, 17:01
by NYTumbleweeds
3 Replies
2126 Views
Last post February 01, 2010, 03:55
by qwerty
28 Replies
8809 Views
Last post October 27, 2010, 14:33
by MarkHayes
4 Replies
1628 Views
Last post May 18, 2016, 13:28
by LouisPhotos
14 Replies
4461 Views
Last post August 30, 2019, 09:41
by gnirtS

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle