MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

I would...

turn exclusive immediately
10 (15.9%)
think about it for a short time, but probably turn exclusive
2 (3.2%)
make a lot of calculations and then decide
6 (9.5%)
stay independent
45 (71.4%)
do a happy dance and die
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 51

Author Topic: If shutterstock offered exclusivity with these benefits...  (Read 13116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2011, 07:38 »
0
^^^ 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.


« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2011, 08:07 »
0
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...
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 08:18 by borg »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2011, 08:26 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2011, 08:51 »
0
Micro will probably always be there,  question is: how profitable?

« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2011, 08:53 »
0
I would be exclusive if they pay like 2$ per sale :)

helix7

« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2011, 08:54 »
0
^^^ 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.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2011, 09:10 »
0
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?

« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2011, 10:41 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2011, 10:50 »
0
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?

helix7

« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2011, 11:40 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2011, 12:16 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2011, 12:35 »
0
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.   

lagereek

« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2011, 13:25 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2011, 14:13 »
0

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. 

Slovenian

« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2011, 14:37 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2011, 08:46 »
0
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.

helix7

« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2011, 11:04 »
0
...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.


« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2011, 12:14 »
0
...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.

Slovenian

« Reply #43 on: August 10, 2011, 13:19 »
0
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 :-[

« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2011, 08:31 »
0
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.)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
6976 Views
Last post June 21, 2011, 13:11
by cathyslife
27 Replies
7233 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 05:00
by RacePhoto
21 Replies
8787 Views
Last post April 07, 2013, 20:19
by dingles
73 Replies
16105 Views
Last post July 06, 2014, 00:36
by gbalex
5 Replies
3191 Views
Last post May 26, 2020, 02:45
by panicAttack

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle