MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: 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?
-
Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.
-
Yep, it's a no-brainer for me as well. Stay independent.
I wouldn't touch exclusivity with a hundred-foot pole, ever, anywhere.
-
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? ???
-
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.
-
Don't mess with a good thing.
-
It's kinda like tying yourself up and leaving your care to the person you think you trust.
-
Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.
good joke ;-)
-
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.
-
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
-
Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.
Yeah and then go bust!
-
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…
:)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well if lagereek turned out to be correct, and exclusivity was the only option, then Shutterstock would win hands-down for me.
-
Well if lagereek turned out to be correct, and exclusivity was the only option, then Shutterstock would win hands-down for me.
Yep! anytime.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
^^^ 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).
-
^^^ 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^^^ 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).
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.
Point well taken (regarding Loss leaders), I stand corrected. The rest of what I have said still stands.
-
I am in microstock for a three years...
Whole the time most of people here predict negative future for microstock, but I see quite opposite...
Microstock is part of multimedia business, multimedia is part of marketing business,so I think that microstock in natural solution in multimedia, through time due to technology progress...
So microstock will continue to evolve....
Also, I haven't noticed yet that sites with less prices sell more than three years before or migration of customers to cheaper sites, even with bigger and bigger prices for customers on main stock sites...
-
I am in microstock for a three years...
Whole the time most of people here predict negative future for microstock, but I see quite opposite...
Completely agree. During four years in microstock I've seen a lot of changes, agencies going up and down but in general business as usual, the end is not near.
-
Micro will probably always be there, question is: how profitable?
-
I would be exclusive if they pay like 2$ per sale :)
-
^^^ 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).
The market leader (SS) has neither of those added value attributes, and they're far from the cheapest. How would you explain that?
All the more reason they'll never offer exclusivity, also. Why ruin a good thing. That and the fact that their current business model wouldn't support exclusivity and varying price points within subscription.
-
Micro will probably always be there, question is: how profitable?
Less profitable = minor contributors leaving = serious contributors earning more again = self balancing
Am I too optimistic?
-
Helix: For starters I am not sure SS are the market leaders. I am pretty sure they are not actually.
Secondly TS does have different compensation rates for exclusive and non exclusive contributors so exclusivity and subscriptions can live together.
-
Helix: For starters I am not sure Shutterstock are the market leaders. I am pretty sure they are not actually.
Secondly TS does have different compensation rates for exclusive and non exclusive contributors so exclusivity and subscriptions can live together.
Yup! together SS/BS, are the leaders, not by much but still.
Sounds as if you think IS could be?? sorry, they were but blew it. maybe youre backing the wrong horse?
-
Helix: For starters I am not sure Shutterstock are the market leaders. I am pretty sure they are not actually.
Secondly TS does have different compensation rates for exclusive and non exclusive contributors so exclusivity and subscriptions can live together.
SS is the market leader. Maybe not the most popular site, but as far as I'm concerned they lead the market, particularly in a number of areas that istock struggles in. They're the best value for buyers, either with subscriptions or PPD. They are profitable and sustainable, something that istock can't seem to figure out. Their pricing is simple, the site works well and is mostly bug-free, search is simple and works well, they offer EPS10 vector files which allow them to offer types of images that istock won't, and from a contributor's perspective they're by far the most profitable company to work with (at least in my opinion). My SS earnings so far this month are almost 4x my istock earnings, with almost the same portfolio at both sites.
Not sure what your definition of market leader is, other than probably "most popular", but I think SS leads the way ahead of any other company in the microstock market today.
-
Youre right they are! the only thing that would worry me a bit are these "new" reviewers, that cant seam to make their minds up if a pic is in focus or not. I mean it was a long time ago we left the so called "focus should be on the nearest subject" that went out with old Ansel.
-
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 Shutterstock would lose customers.
No serious professional independant would even consider going exclusive at Shutterstock because they'd lose money.
^^ Yes, exactly! Excluding Istock exclusives, I don't think the top independent sellers have any interest in going exclusive. Even if they did, many of them may be tied up in distribution deals that would prevent it.
In this constantly changing climate, ARTIST exclusivity is too risky for most people that do this for a living. And, correct me if I'm wrong, it was always IMAGE exclusivity in the good old days, wasn't it? Image exclusivity is the only way that any of the micros are likely to secure an exclusive collection. Dreamstime has already implemented this very effectively IMO, and some others offer it as well.
-
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 Shutterstock would lose customers.
No serious professional independant would even consider going exclusive at Shutterstock because they'd lose money.
^^ Yes, exactly! Excluding Istock exclusives, I don't think the top independent sellers have any interest in going exclusive. Even if they did, many of them may be tied up in distribution deals that would prevent it.
In this constantly changing climate, ARTIST exclusivity is too risky for most people that do this for a living. And, correct me if I'm wrong, it was always IMAGE exclusivity in the good old days, wasn't it? Image exclusivity is the only way that any of the micros are likely to secure an exclusive collection. Dreamstime has already implemented this very effectively IMO, and some others offer it as well.
Agreeing with you!
At the old trads such as Image-Bank, Stones, Pictor. no, they actually insisted on exclusivity, although, in them days it was easy to keep a track on your shots and many of us supplied plenty of agencies under various pseudos and nobody really cared anyway, no harm was done.
This new manic paranoia about exclusivity is strictly a Getty/IS thing.
-
At the old trads such as Image-Bank, Stones, Pictor. no, they actually insisted on exclusivity, although, in them days it was easy to keep a track on your shots and many of us supplied plenty of agencies under various pseudos and nobody really cared anyway, no harm was done.
This new manic paranoia about exclusivity is strictly a Getty/IS thing.
Not surprising ;)
Thanks for the clarification. I had gotten that impression - about image vs. artist exclusivity. Nice to have it confirmed.
-
Well if lagereek turned out to be correct, and exclusivity was the only option, then Shutterstock would win hands-down for me.
Yep! anytime.
I'd go exclusive with them in a split of a heartbeat as well. I really don't trust IS anymore and even if it would bring me a bit more money (say 10-20%) I'd go with SS.
-
Or another option: stay exclusive with IS.
+1
I know IS exclusivity is currently unpopular around here, but I think its still the best option at the moment. When I was non-exclusive, SS never earned more than 40% of my microstock income in one month ( usually closer to 30%) even though they had over twice as many images from me as IS. To be exclusive it would have needed to be a 3-4 times increase from there to make exclusivity worthwhile. That's the sort of boost that IS exclusivity gives but I just don't think that works with the SS model.
-
...I know IS exclusivity is currently unpopular around here, but I think its still the best option at the moment...
Best option for you. Some people do well with exclusivity. But it's a very personal thing, and it's different for everyone. I'm not a fan of exclusivity, but I can't deny that it works well for some, and so it's their best option. But that doesn't apply across the board. I wish it did because then it would be easy for everyone to assess whether or not they should be exclusive. :)
As far as SS goes, though, I'd agree with you that exclusivity wouldn't work with their model.
-
...I know IS exclusivity is currently unpopular around here, but I think its still the best option at the moment...
Best option for you. Some people do well with exclusivity. But it's a very personal thing, and it's different for everyone. I'm not a fan of exclusivity, but I can't deny that it works well for some, and so it's their best option. But that doesn't apply across the board. I wish it did because then it would be easy for everyone to assess whether or not they should be exclusive. :)
As far as Shutterstock goes, though, I'd agree with you that exclusivity wouldn't work with their model.
I totally agree. Exclusivity, especially at IS, would never work for me personally.
-
After the long lasting debacle with mass rejections I've changed my mind and would never go exclusive with them or any other, no matter how great and promising agency. Although the sales are still great, they ain't gonna last without fresh blood :-[
-
I wouldn't because I still make more with IS. I like Veer. DT and 123 are doing ok. (FT seems to be a waste of my time though.)