After being exclusive with Istock I wouldn't go exclusive with what the OP is proposing. I now want total control over my images to do what I want. An agency would need to offer me a boatload of guaranteed money over a long time for me to go exclusive again.

Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you � our exclusive artists � with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation � superior content.  This is the very core of our customers� needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies � creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe�s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe�s true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe�s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Well, either you got a job at Getty or this is copy/paste.

Either way, the same argument can be applied to Istock which as of the last price changes believes a photo is worth no more than $30-ish dollars which I absolutely disagree. And from my royalty statements Getty seems to also think that images that sell for $600 for one client also should be sold for $1 to another which I absolutely disagree. Getty also thinks that .001 cents through partner deals should appeal to contributors which it doesn't. Getty also thinks free image imbeds are a good idea for contributors and I disagree. 

Istock recently lost me as an exclusive partner. I suggest you start looking at providing more value to your exclusive partners rather than trying to show you're the better of two suboptimal business relationships.

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on June 25, 2015, 00:39

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on June 25, 2015, 00:11

Quote from: cobalt on June 24, 2015, 23:44

I fully agree if what you have is the right thing for customers with large budgets, you can charge more, but wouldn't it be better to keep it at pond5 with a 500 dollar price tag or more?
300 was too cheap for professional production costs, so for 200 you should proably pull it and move it elsewhere.

I would guess they need better growth numbers to impress the Wall Street.

I tend to match my prices at SS and P5. I'm afraid not many customers would want to spurge $500 on a clip if they can get it for $199. At the moment Shutterstock is my best earner and I can't afford to quit it. But this move sure made my think about diversifying my revenue base.

This is the battle for buyers that SS will most likely win.
Sadly, P5 was a great idea but didn't react fast/smart enough to shake SS more and grab some big fishes.
There is NO logic to price $500 clips anywhere when they can be found for $199 on SS.

AND P5 does not have extended licenses!
Why they like to keep that amateurish attitude, I will never get! 

Based on my experience many buyers will happily pay $500 for a micro style image so why wouldn't they happily pay $500 for a 4k clip?

This has been my experience too when selling direct. Things are getting way too cheap but it's because it's being offered to the buyers so why wouldn't they want it?

The only reason cheap, and now cheaper, options exist is because we contributors gladly continue to support it. If nobody contributed to SS the company and others wouldn't exist. Instead SS has become insanely successful from continual contributor and image growth. 

If it were me I wouldn't do it a Sell the Rights unless it was a ridiculous amount but that's me and I want full control over my work. I'd ask for at least the amount the image is expected to earn during its lifetime. Otherwise why bother doing it? How much is it earning per month now? As an example if it's earning $10 per month I'd say five years minimum and maybe up to ten years so $600 to $1200.If it's $5 per month than $300 to $600. If they balk at your price, oh well, you're not losing anything by just letting it continue to earn as it is. And I'd tell them nicely but firmly exactly that. That you would earn more not doing an SEL so it doesn't make sense to do it for less than whatever price you come up with.

I always go higher with price. I just had a designer contact me and tell me their budget was no more than $40 for a couple of images because they could get similars as RF on micro. I thanked them for their interest and said they would be $200 as single-use RM. They bought. But it probably depends on the image. Unique images usually command higher prices. Good luck.

Back in the old days of 2007 I was an optimistic newcomer too. I'm still optimistic about photography but not microstock. Give it a year or so and we may see you here crying on avatar shoulders. Or like many maybe you'll give up and won't be back. Best of fortune to you.

Congratulations! And now I'm going to grab popcorn and a chair for the other responses.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 11, 2015, 11:01

What I did to test the waters was to create new unique images and sell them as RM elsewhere. Istock allows this in their exclusive contract. Over the past year and a half I promoted the RM to see how it did. If it did well I could transition out of exclusivity. If not I'd stay. Seems to be a safer approach then risking your income with a perceived loophole.

So what are your results after 1.5 years of RM?  Was it worth it?   You gonna keep with RM or spend your time working on Istock?

Yes RM and direct sales have been absolutely worth it. It hasn't been easy but with the right strategy, effort, and time the potential is there. My focus moving forward is RM direct sales and other image sales outside of stock. I haven't submitted a new batch of images to Getty or Istock in over a year. I appreciate the opportunity I've had with them but I need to spend my time on things that meet my business and financial needs.

I think what's interesting is what images can be worth when represented by the right person or company. Nothing special images selling for $90,000. He should be an agent representing people's work instead of pushing the legal and ethical boundaries of theft.

Yep, agree. I think buyers are already noticing stuff is getting stale but they're willing to put up with it because of price. That's why all of these websites are posting "needs lists" to try and get fresh stuff. It's ridiculous when you look at some of the requests. "Model released group of seniors playing shuffleboard at a luxury hotel". A few years ago I could see that being a good investment. Not today.

I stopped submitting new content over a year ago and have started to remove quite a bit of images. Regular download volume is down, prices are down, and my income is down. The only thing that's up is subscription downloads. No thanks. I just had a designer call and ask about one of my files missing from Istock. I said I'm no longer selling my work for peanuts. On top of that, he was planning to buy a regular license to use for his client to resell prints. You read that right, not an extended license. So I get a few dollars while this company uses the wrong license to make a bunch of money with my work. All done. I'm transitioning to taking back control of my work and selling direct. I may leave some stuff in micro but it will be the old stuff that didn't cost much to produce.

A few years ago files were sold at lower prices but there was high download volume and growth. Now we have low download volume, low prices, and stagnation.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 13, 2015, 15:48

This wasn't a charity. It was a big business non-profit. ...

Thanks for that.
Every time this topic comes up, I'm left wondering if 'non-profit' is what the US calls a charity (they're different here/UK). Comments in threads seem to use the terms interchangeably.
Clearly they are also different in the US.

In the US we tend to blur the lines between nonprofit and charity but they clearly have different purposes. Charities who have approached me normally identify themselves as a charitable organization who are contacting me for a specific fund-raising activity such as an auction to raise money for pediatric cancer care. I usually will send something to them as a donation. Non-profits have only contacted me to ask for something free and tout the "oh-woah-is-me we're a non-profit" like that automatically means "we don't make any money and can't pay you so give us free stuff" which isn't the case. I've worked with non-profits in other business dealings and they normally have plenty of budget if you don't let them take advantage of you.

I recently had a non-profit company contact me for free usage. The email was very entitled like "love your work (always starts that way), we're a non-profit, internal use, need high-res image immediately", etc. I sent them a polite response with just a link to istock for the measly few dollars. They responded back offended in big text "Sorry, I think you misunderstood, this link is to make a purchase???". I looked the company up and checked out the financial report. A half billion dollars in revenue. And they won't pay a few dollars for an image. After going back and forth a couple times they offered credit, exposure, and potential work in the future. No thanks. Not my kind of client. So I guess they get all of their office furniture, corporate office lease, computers, business supplies, internet service, and everything else for free. And they must not pay their employees. The person that called me must spend 40 hours per week working for free.

I also love the entitled "personal use" people. "No wait, it's not commercial use, just personal use so why would I pay for that? I just want to [use it to make a print, have it as computer wallpaper, use it make wedding invitations, etc]". Oh I see, it's for personal use. Why didn't you say so? I can go to Apple or Amazon when I need to download a song and just tell them it's for personal use and I get it for free right? Gas stations give free gas if it's for personal use. Camera companies don't charge for equipment if it's for personal use. Here I'll tell you what. I'll do the same thing Amazon and Apple do when they let you listen to a station for free. I will let you see the image for free. Just go to my website and you can look at it as long as you want. In fact , you can look at all of the images as often as you want. No charge.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 11, 2015, 06:43

"iStock started as a file sharing site and found a need in the market for cheap, user-generated content and kind of exploded from there. So we as a business at Getty Images have the premium imagery on Getty and iStock is the crowd, it�s the community."

Ummm... sorry but the community has left in 2010.

On top of that her statement doesn't even make sense. What would you call all of the EyeEm, Moment and other stuff on Getty that seems to be also dominating search placement? That's not user generated community crowd content?