Author Topic: If shutterstock offered exclusivity with these benefits... (Read 17324 times)

spike · « **on:** May 17, 2011, 15:59 »

Let's pretend shutterstock offers contributors exclusivity with these benefits:

- 25% more royalty (for example, 0.25$ contributors would now earn 0.31$, 0.33$ would earn 0.41$ and so on)
- better search placement leading to 25% more views of your photos (in total)

What would you do?

I'd go exclusive. The hassle with lower tier agencies isn't worth it, iStock is sinking, Dreamstime/Fotolia/123rf income would be covered by the search placement boost and higher royalty. So it would be a no-brainer to me. What about you?

aeonf · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2011, 16:22 »

Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.

helix7 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2011, 16:24 »

Yep, it's a no-brainer for me as well. Stay independent.

I wouldn't touch exclusivity with a hundred-foot pole, ever, anywhere.

cthoman · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2011, 16:37 »

I'm not sure why people have a rallying cry for SS exclusivity. Why would you want to implement a class system similar to IS that is rotting the site from the inside out?

sc · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2011, 16:49 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 17, 2011, 16:37

I'm not sure why people have a rallying cry for Shutterstock exclusivity. Why would you want to implement a class system similar to IS that is rotting the site from the inside out?

Exactly!!

And they have said many times over they have no interest in coming up with an exclusivity program. Why would they want to pay you more than a non-exclusive? Their whole business is not selling images - they make money selling subscriptions and knowing full well you aren't going to use the whole allotment. So why would the want to push higher priced images in front of the customer. Exclusivity in a subscription based model doesn't make sense for the site owner nor the artist.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2011, 20:32 »

Don't mess with a good thing.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2011, 20:42 »

It's kinda like tying yourself up and leaving your care to the person you think you trust.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2011, 20:48 »

Quote from: aeonf on May 17, 2011, 16:22

Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.

good joke ;-)

lagereek · « **Reply #8 on:** May 17, 2011, 23:53 »

Exclusivity DOES work!! you know, if its being done right, correct from the start that is. Up until Micro, the only way you could be with one of the leading agencies was to be exclusive and it worked well for 30 years!

Then along comes a certain agency and abuse! the whole system, turns it into a shamble whereby inferior shots gets advantages only because some little contributor is exclusive. Look where that agency is today: catastrophy.

I think we have to start facing the facts here, in a few years I dont think we have any other option but to "belong" somewhere, the copy breeches and lawsuits are getting more common by the hour, agencies are beginning to fear there is too much skull-duggery going on and it can be very costly. Dont think they have any other option but to enforce a certain style of exclusivity. We must start to look beyond ourselves. To be independant is great but it has its price and if abused its no better then exclusive.

Besides for how long can you support smaller agencies that really isnt allowed any progress? The Shutterstock/BS, partneship is the market leader by far and I cant see anybody topple that, certainly not the Getty/IS, they had their chances and blew it skyhigh.

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity and newbies should know this, its worked well. It does bring strength and quality to contributors and agency but its a great pitty, its become an uggly word and we all know why.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2011, 00:33 »

Independent forever.

1. Shutterstock works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it; luckily, this seems to be their own position as well;

2. With little more effort, we can earn more as independents - using FTP, IPTC, Lightburner... it's not so difficult;

3. Shutterstock is the best agency now. As much as I'd like, this is no guarantee that it will always be like that;

4. Each agency has its own criteria and style. Photos which are rejected for a number of legitimate but subjective decisions are selling well elsewhere. Why should I throw them away?

5. Competition is healthy for us and them. Now that Shutterstock's main competitor is in a downward spiral, there's no need to repeat the same error and help someone concentrate more power in their hands. Much more interesting to support smaller sites as well as Shutterstock;

6. Being "single" and free is a way of life;

... and counting

lagereek · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2011, 00:38 »

Quote from: aeonf on May 17, 2011, 16:22

Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.

Yeah and then go bust!

Stock_Fox · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2011, 01:31 »

Shutterstock makes about 40 % of my microstock-income. To make me go exclusive with Shutterstock they have to increase my income by an amount that closes the gap of the missing 60 %.
In addition I see a certain risk in going exclusive. They also have to compensate that risk.

Conclusion: my Shutterstock income has to rise by 200 % or something like that to attract me as an exclusive photographer…

Microbius · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:04 »

You'd have be nuts to go exclusive with SS given their happy go lucky attitude to suspending long time contributors portfolios.
I certainly wouldn't recommend it if you have a mortgage or rent to pay!

sharpshot · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:26 »

I really don't like contributor exclusivity, like istock have. It would be a lot of work to remove all my images that are on lots of sites. I also wouldn't want all my microstock income coming from one site. Just imagine if Getty made SS an offer they couldn't refuse. Having to cancel exclusivity and re-upload would be a nightmare. I also want to be able to sell RF at higher prices with alamy and other sites.

I would be interested in having individual images exclusivity in a premium priced collection. It's a shambles the way istock have done it but one simple exclusive collection at higher prices might work. Istock is such a mess because the higher priced collections are mixed in the main collection and given preference in the search. I liked the way Lucky Oliver used to do it, with higher priced images in a sidebar.

lagereek · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:33 »

In two year time, I can only see 3 camps left and each one will insist on exclusivity. The independant way might be closing fast, unless one wants to supply the low-tiers.

rubyroo · « **Reply #15 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:36 »

Well if lagereek turned out to be correct, and exclusivity was the only option, then Shutterstock would win hands-down for me.

lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:51 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 18, 2011, 02:36

Well if lagereek turned out to be correct, and exclusivity was the only option, then Shutterstock would win hands-down for me.

Yep! anytime.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:58 »

Forced exclusivity won't happen. It would mean sites dumping most of their best suppliers.
Complete image exclusivity is essential for full rights management, it's irrelevant for RF. All RF exclusivity was designed to be was a way of trying to kill the opposition by starving it of content. Starving yourself of content for the very marginal benefit of claiming your collection is unique makes no sense.
There's certainly no benefit for suppliers from every site being entirely exclusive. They could all drop their commission levels then and there would be nowhere for suppliers to go.

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** May 18, 2011, 03:05 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 18, 2011, 02:33

In two year time, I can only see 3 camps left and each one will insist on exclusivity. The independant way might be closing fast, unless one wants to supply the low-tiers.

I'm sure I remember someone predicting that a few years ago. I just can't see it happening. Will many of the traditional agency contributors delete all their old RF portfolios to go exclusive with a microstock site. Individual image exclusivity is the best option but SS don't seem to have any interest in that. The other sites are too small to have a realistic chance of making lots of contributors go exclusive. So I think the chances of 3 sites that insist on exclusivity are very slim.

RT · « **Reply #19 on:** May 18, 2011, 03:35 »

They'd be mad to offer an exclusive deal because the vast number of people that would go exclusive are not the ones that get the sales, any subsequent search ranking promotion for exclusive images would then see all the crud rising to the top and SS would lose customers.

No serious professional independant would even consider going exclusive at SS because they'd lose money.

borg · « **Reply #20 on:** May 18, 2011, 04:51 »

I think that many of us here don't understand quite this business...

Exclusivity isn't excellent thing for agencies... Only in marketing sense, but not in earnings... Exclusive images or portfolios is only good for commercial things with slogan "here and nowhere else" but true and bonus earnings for agencies is on non-exclusive content...

There is a big difference, if the agency paid me 16% of sale money, or 40% ...

Buyer probably (in microstock) is not looking for a unique image that no one has,or is this image in portfolio of another agency.. If it is important to find and have unique image, then buyer probably will search in macro collections...

P.S.
Also, another buyer can buy same exclusive picture, so isn't soo so much good for agency to promote their exclusive content to customers, because from customers point of view isn't matter if another buyer have same image from this agency or from another... Agency want money!

aeonf · « **Reply #21 on:** May 18, 2011, 05:34 »

^^^ I am affraid it is you who doesn't understand the business.
Stock essentially is a "lose leeder" product. all sites sell the same crap, and the one with the lowest price will get the customer, UNLESS you can differentiate your selve from others by some other added value, like EXCLUSIVE CONTENT and/or higher quality images (in perception at least).

Microbius · « **Reply #22 on:** May 18, 2011, 05:41 »

Quote from: aeonf on May 18, 2011, 05:34

^^^ I am affraid it is you who doesn't understand the business.
Stock essentially is a "lose leeder" product. all sites sell the same crap, and the one with the lowest price will get the customer, UNLESS you can differnite your selve from others by some other added value, like EXCLUSIVE CONTENT and/or higher quality images (in perception at least).

I'm finding it very hard to understand what you are saying here.
Is it something to do with the economic concept of loss leaders. That's the closest I can get to from your "lose leeder" but that doesn't bear much in common with the text that follows (?)

Loss leaders are usually sold without a profit to draw customers into buying other products.

Phil · « **Reply #23 on:** May 18, 2011, 05:57 »

I wouldn't go exclusive anywhere, financially it would need to be a lot more than that, not to mention all the eggs in one basket just like IS. I like SS, but I'm also aware that they own BigStock which has quietly crept into offering one of the lowest commissions of a major / middle site.

lagereek · « **Reply #24 on:** May 18, 2011, 06:04 »

I dont think it will be a matter of wanting or not! we have no say! many have just been forced by Getty to sign or get . out! you cant have years of work just destroyed by getting out, can you. So everyone sign ofcourse.

In a few years, same situation, sign or get out!

No one here will have any say in the matter. I mean just think of how much say we had with IS decisions? Nada.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

I would...

Author Topic: If shutterstock offered exclusivity with these benefits... (Read 17324 times)

spike

aeonf

helix7

cthoman

sc

Beach Bum

PeterChigmaroff

velocicarpo

lagereek

microstockphoto.co.uk

lagereek

Stock_Fox

Microbius

sharpshot

lagereek

rubyroo

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

RT

borg

aeonf

Microbius

Phil

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors