Author Topic: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock (Read 13413 times)

SNP · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2012, 12:00 »

Quote from: scottdunlap on January 12, 2012, 11:53

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 11:27
Quote from: Karimala on January 11, 2012, 16:01
Quote from: SNP on January 11, 2012, 15:47
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income.

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.

exactly.

Karimala · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2012, 12:49 »

Quote from: SNP on January 12, 2012, 12:00

Quote from: scottdunlap on January 12, 2012, 11:53
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 11:27
Quote from: Karimala on January 11, 2012, 16:01
Quote from: SNP on January 11, 2012, 15:47
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income.

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.

exactly.

That's understandable. Hopefully pulling my portfolio helps you guys out.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #27 on:** January 12, 2012, 13:14 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 12, 2012, 12:49

Quote from: SNP on January 12, 2012, 12:00
Quote from: scottdunlap on January 12, 2012, 11:53
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 11:27
Quote from: Karimala on January 11, 2012, 16:01
Quote from: SNP on January 11, 2012, 15:47
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive

Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.

Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income.

Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.

exactly.

That's understandable. Hopefully pulling my portfolio helps you guys out.

Haaa. Yes, thanks, sounds like a great idea. I hope more people follow your lead.

stockpuppet · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2012, 13:49 »

Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2012, 13:53 »

Quote from: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 13:49

Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.

It does look that way, other than the current best match.

cthoman · « **Reply #30 on:** January 12, 2012, 14:04 »

Quote from: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 13:49

Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.

I thought they made more off of exclusives because the increase in prices is higher than the royalty increase for the same file.

Karimala · « **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2012, 14:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 12, 2012, 13:53

Quote from: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 13:49
Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.
It does look that way, other than the current best match.

Not only pay them less, but also provide less services for contributors. Indies don't have the benefit of IS acting as an agent to pursue copyright infringements, etc.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2012, 14:38 »

Quote from: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 13:49

Maybe they want most of the exclusives to go independent. That way they get to pay them less. It might explain them seemingly doing nothing to rebuild confidence or address legitimate concerns.

This would seem to contradict the direction they've been headed with pricing.

If there were no more exclusives then wouldn't most of the Vetta and Agency prices drop back to micro level? All that would be left of the higher priced stuff is the the Getty content.

Plus, if there were no more exclusives most of the files would be on every other site. What other unique benefit could they tout to justify higher prices?

If they dumped exclusives the only way I'm seeing it would make sense would be for them to drop micro prices to compete with other micros then and dump a ton of Getty content on IS at higher prices to try and tap buyer's wallets.

stockpuppet · « **Reply #33 on:** January 12, 2012, 15:17 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 14:38

This would seem to contradict the direction they've been headed with pricing.

If there were no more exclusives then wouldn't most of the Vetta and Agency prices drop back to micro level? All that would be left of the higher priced stuff is the the Getty content.

Plus, if there were no more exclusives most of the files would be on every other site. What other unique benefit could they tout to justify higher prices?

If they dumped exclusives the only way I'm seeing it would make sense would be for them to drop micro prices to compete with other micros then and dump a ton of Getty content on IS at higher prices to try and tap buyer's wallets.

Yes.

Most exclusives do not have many Agency or Vetta files. The option also exists for them to introduce an exclusive content option. Maybe with the site update.

jamirae · « **Reply #34 on:** January 12, 2012, 16:23 »

Quote from: stockpuppet on January 12, 2012, 15:17

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2012, 14:38
This would seem to contradict the direction they've been headed with pricing.

If there were no more exclusives then wouldn't most of the Vetta and Agency prices drop back to micro level? All that would be left of the higher priced stuff is the the Getty content.

Plus, if there were no more exclusives most of the files would be on every other site. What other unique benefit could they tout to justify higher prices?

If they dumped exclusives the only way I'm seeing it would make sense would be for them to drop micro prices to compete with other micros then and dump a ton of Getty content on IS at higher prices to try and tap buyer's wallets.

Yes.

Most exclusives do not have many Agency or Vetta files. The option also exists for them to introduce an exclusive content option. Maybe with the site update.

it would be nice to have an exclusive content option (i.e. exclusive by the image not by the artist) as I could then make more off the minilypse event photos that I can only sell through iStock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: officially non-exclusive completely at iStock (Read 13413 times)

SNP

Karimala

PaulieWalnuts

stockpuppet

ShadySue

cthoman

Karimala

PaulieWalnuts

stockpuppet

jamirae

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors