If you've read anything I've ever said in forums about istock exclusivity, you probably wouldn't think that I really want anything to do with it. What you may not know, however, is that really I wish I could go exclusive with istock. No joke, it's not April Fools Day, nothing like that. I really wish that istock could offer an exclusive contract that was not just enticing, but monetarily feasible for me. I'm also realistic enough to know that this will likely never happen, since the distance between me and exclusivity is just too great. Still, I think there are some things that istock could change that would at least bring me and exclusivity into the same dimension of reality, and certainly push some people who are on the fence in the direction of exclusivity.

Money
Let's be real here. The royalty structure at istock is pretty terrible. Sure a lot of people make good money there, exclusive or not. I'm one of them, earning a decent wage through istock each month despite just getting my 20%. The problem is that other companies offer much more competitive rates, and even if I were to go exclusive at the Diamond level, it would mean a pretty hefty reduction in my overall earnings. We're talking something in the range of 40% less each month. Despite being my top earner most months, istock doesn't even represent half of my total earnings across the 9 sites I contribute to.

The solution is more reasonable royalties. The top-tier rate for Black Diamond contributors should be 55%, and the rates drop by the usual 5% from there. 50% should be the minimum for Diamond-level and above, and really this would only put a few hundred contributors at the 50+ percent pay rate. Everyone else would be below 50%, which quite frankly would still be lower than what some other microstock sites offer non-exclusive contributors.

But where would this extra money come from, you ask? Surely istock can't just hand out higher royalties like that without cutting something. How about:

Cut the junk
In place of higher royalties, istock currently justifies their exclusive program by offering little extras that make the deal a bit sweeter for some of the on-the-fence contributors. Sure some of these things are nice, but they really aren't necessary, and they don't even come close to making up for lost earnings that many people would face if they opted to go exclusive. And while they don't offer me much in the way of sweetening the pot, they do require added expenses and resources from istock that could be diverted into the increased royalties. They wouldn't make up the whole difference, but it would help. I'll gladly pass on the $20 business cards for exclusives if it means that istock doesn't need to have human and financial resources attending to that exclusive perk and can divert some of those reclaimed funds into higher royalties.

Give it to me straight
That list of exclusive benefits may appeal to the people who only discovered microstock last week, but for those who have been at this for more than a few months and actually have tried selling images elsewhere, the list is pretty vague and unconvincing. You offer "Higher Sales" to exclusives. How much higher? I'm not betting my paychecks on the arbitrary claim of higher earnings without some substance behind it. Give me a ballpark idea of what I can expect.

istock can also keep their flimsy claims of increased marketing and promotions to "bring your portfolio attention." Is any of that marketing really doing anything extra for exclusives? Promoting istock is good for everyone, and it does not favor any one particular portfolio. Unless we're talking about the actual images and credits that appear in print ads, but even then how much of a difference does that make in your earnings? And how many exclusive contributors will ever actually see their image in an ad? The percentage of contributors that do has to be extremely low given the overall number of exclusive contributors out there, and I wouldn't bet my earnings on a slim possibility of seeing my images in an ad.

Let's stop pretending that these little bonuses actually amount to anything. Give it to us straight. What does exclusivity mean for my earnings, and what can I realistically expect? If you wan to claim higher sales, back it up. Just typing "Higher Sales" on a web page isn't going to make me jump at the idea. Save the cheesy perks and pitches and just give it to us straight.

No more "All or Nothing"
Aside from the money issue, the biggest deterrent to exclusivity has always been the extreme commitment required. There is the clause about not selling any RF, anywhere, ever, something that is unique to istockphoto as far as I know. Just to even apply, you need to remove all of your images from other RF sites. This may seem like a small thing to ask, but for many sellers the idea of removing all images from any site is daunting. Not to mention the waiting periods required.

Someone would have to seriously plan ahead to even attempt exclusivity if they were already involved with other RF sites, and they would have to take a hit in earnings while they are unable to upload or sell images at other sites pending the approval of the istock exclusivity application. Assuming the application will even get approved, and since it is an "application" I have to assume there is no guarantee of acceptance.

The application should be accepted and approved before requiring images at other sites be removed, putting an istock account into a pending exclusive status on the condition that images will be removed from other RF sites prior to the granting of full exclusive status. Give people the chance to see if they can even get approved before you make them put it all on the line just for a possible chance at becoming an exclusive contributor.

So...
Sure all of this is really amounts to little more than my opinion, and my ideas of an exclusive program that would actually have some weight behind it are probably far from anything that istock would ever implement. I just want to throw this out there for discussion and see what others think. Maybe putting any of these ideas into practice is a far-fetched notion, but I think istock could do well to consider even one or two of them to make their exclusive contact more appealing to contributors who are giving any real consideration to going exclusive.

I don't want you to be exclusive 

I agree with you here, I am actually in the same position as you. I would be more happy to represent my images through one agency than through several agencies if it would make financial sense.

I would like to see an exclusive try out for 1 month in addition to your suggestion of a pending exclusivity status. Where you images will have the same ranking as exclusive images and where you get the royalty as an exclusive. It is not so much to loose for iStock but maybe a lot to win, if their deal is really so good and your sales will increase because of the search engine. Of course each photographer could try that out only once.

thanks for the post helix7.. well written.

I wish istock has image exclusivity..

...I agree with Helix and appreciate the time put into compiling that list of suggestions...

It's just something that's been on my mind. Can you tell that I have thought about this just a little?

I got the impression from the new ads on istock trying to get more people to go exclusive that they are really looking to increase the exclusive contributor count. That prompted me even more to really get it out there about why I can't become an exclusive contributor myself and some of the things it would take for me to even consider it. I'm not saying that my list of needs should match anyone else's, and people who are already exclusive at istock had their own reasons for doing it. I just have to imagine that there are a lot more people out there who are in similar situations as me, frustrated with the multiple-site process but unable to accept istock's exclusivity deal.

In addition to all the good points above, I'd like to add one more factor to consider - for those who create vectors as well as images. That is the pricing at iStock for more complex vectors.

Most of the other sites' vector pricing models are really weighted towards simple vectors - the 3 trillion flower/grunge/swirly backgrounds. SS earns you 30 cents, and at the other sites there's (a) a very modest premium over a large image and (b) no or minimal account for complexity of the vector.

I've been working on adding vectors to my porfolio and they're the more complex type - 15 credit (one 10) at iStock. So far no 25 credit ones. For the other sites I've just uploaded JPEGs - at StockXpert, for example, I can get 15 credits for an XXL JPEG from the vector so why should I part with the scalable original for 10?

I got a bit of a wake-up call about the power of vector sales where every transaction is at one (higher) price. A recent vector has sold 11 times at iStock which has earned me - as an independent - $38.43 (and an embarrassingly high place in my earnings table ). An image with very close to the same earnings has sold 87 times to make that money (because lots of the sales are XS and S).

How this plays into exclusivity is that I can multiply those vector earnings quite a bit (35% versus 20% royalty) and I don't think the illustration JPEGs elsewhere will ever sell at the volume that the vector version will. I don't see the other sites changing their vector situation. IS, SS and FT are my current big three earners. FT is a vector non-starter (pricing model and wanting an oddball format) as is SS (pricing model and rampant vector theft).

I'm sure that being very weary of all the crap (rules changes, site hiccups, useless or non-existent communication) from multiple sites has something to do with even considering this. I don't think iStock is ideal, but the other sites aren't shining beacons of business excellence either. And I could go back to building the RM stuff at Alamy and PhotoShelter - something I dabbled with last fall, but haven't really pursued vigorously.

The only way I could ever consider going exclusive at IS is if they let you re-submit elsewhere those images which IS rejects as "not suitable for stock".

If those images are really unsuitable for stock, then why would IS care if I submit them elsewhere?

...I don't think iStock is ideal, but the other sites aren't shining beacons of business excellence either...

Very good point. For vectors, istock certainly is head and shoulders above many other sites. Not perfect, but quite good. If some of the points I mentioned above were addressed in the exclusivity contracts, istock could become the ideal place of business for vector artists.

There is the clause about not selling any RF, anywhere, ever, something that is unique to istockphoto as far as I know.

Someone would have to seriously plan ahead to even attempt exclusivity if they were already involved with other RF sites, and they would have to take a hit in earnings while they are unable to upload or sell images at other sites pending the approval of the istock exclusivity application. Assuming the application will even get approved, and since it is an "application" I have to assume there is no guarantee of acceptance.

1) That's a misstatement. You're required to sell RP stock at IS exclusively only while you're exclusive (hence the term exclusive photographer), its not forever. Also, it's not unique. It's only unique in microstock.

2) The exclusive application takes 24-48 hours for approval. Not exactly the long wait you're making it out to be, and I've never heard of a single application that was denied except where the person hadn't deleted all their photos on other sites.

The rest are valid points that each person has to consider for themselves if it's in their best interest.

I too would like to see SS and IS offer exclusive images.  If they did that I would gladly participate in both.  The thought of overall exclusivity just seems a bit too much for me.  Of course I'm no where near being able to go exclusive at IS so I really don't have a dog in this fight.  But when my puppy grows up I'm still going to let him roam the neighborhood rather than keep him locked up in a pen.   

Most of you have been in microstock a lot longer than I.  So I will approach it from an investor's perspective, of which I have a few decades worth of experience.

Given how young this industry is, and how much flux is currently taking place, I see little benefit in going exclusive anywhere.  What I see is a completely new selling plan about to be implemented at iStock.  None of us know if this will increase or decrease earnings.  I admire IS leadership and creativity, but it creates tremendous earnings uncertainty going forward.

At the same time, Shutterstock is preparing to announce a raise which has been anticipated for several months.  If it is significant (and it better be), not only will it greatly increase SS earnings for contributors, but it will change the subscription landscape arguably more than the IS plan.  All of those 25c or 30c subscription commissions at various microstock sites might start to look awfully cheap and silly in a hurry.  A 40c to 50c commission combined with the amazing SS volume will produce a lot of earnings.

In the last year, I have seen many contributors go from claiming IS as their far-and-away #1 earner, to barely #1, or in many cases #2 or #3.  Many large contributors are singing the praises of Fotolia (which by the way offers per-image exclusivity), or claiming Shutterstock as their #1 earner.  Maybe not for every contributor, but it seems to me the trend of earnings dominance at IS is down, not up.  And that probably has less to do with them, and more to do with the increased strength of their competition.

At the very least, I would want to see how the next 6 months shakes out before putting my eggs in one basket.

The problem is that the final monthly payout is what counts so portfolio size is very important and istock earnings suffer.

I think you are right on with this theory. The comparisons referenced above are often between portfolio sizes double or even tripled that which is live on istock. The very low upload limits for non-exclusives makes it even harder to compare "apples to apples" and by that I mean two identical portfolios on two different sites. It makes sense that they are much more likely to gain exclusives from the pool of fairly new contributors who have only uploaded to one site than they are from those who have established sizable portfolios across several sites. On the occasion when one of those types of contributors declares that they are moving toward being exclusive with istock, despite the uncertainty, it is a very significant event. I've seen two such declarations here recently.

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.