pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Oringer Blog: Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.  (Read 15787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 13, 2013, 11:25 »
+4
Interesting blog by Jon Oringer;

http://jonoringer.com/2013/01/13/why-going-exclusive-as-a-microstock-photographer-doesnt-work/

Good insight in this extract why SS appear to be winning the 'data war' over other microstock agencies;

"No longer is content the only competitive advantage, data is also a large component. To some this may not seem intuitive. We sell creative assets and at first glance one would think that having exclusive assets would be an advantage. We add over 10,000 images each day to our library of over 20 million images. Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years. We have an incredible amount of data on these downloads. We know what search leads to what image, and at this point we can practically read the users mind in 14 different languages. Shutterstock is the volume leader, and therefore we are the data leader. In several languages we use the data we have to display the best search results for any given query. We obsess over search success and if we can reduce the time it takes to get from search to download by a tenth of a second, we win that day. We iterate over and over and use whatever data we have to continuously find the best image for the customer. The best image for a given search isnt one that another agency doesnt have, its the one that will get chosen and downloaded. Out of over 20 million images, with 10,000 more each day, were likely to have the image you need. We believe that if we can get the right product to the buyer the buyer the quickest, we win in the end. Having exclusive royalty free content is of no advantage when a buyer is going to choose where to buy a photo its getting a relevant photo the quickest. To see the user of this data in action, go ahead and try a search on Shutterstock and compare it the same search on our competitors sites."


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2013, 11:32 »
+4
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.

I see this as a shot across Jon's bow in that long term, users won't pay for content they can get for free. Up until this Google deal a lot of the free images were demonstrably bad. Google Docs/Drive are being pitched to businesses - the same place Getty is strong and where Jon in the IPO materials noted he wanted Shutterstock to penetrate better. If Getty can halt Shutterstock's erosion of Getty's stronghold by making images free to end users and businesses, they perhaps hope they can vanquish Shutterstock when they couldn't by the first idea they thought of - Thinkstock

I'd like to get this threat (as I see it) on Jon's radar - I'll try commenting on his blog. The post is awating moderation, but here's what I wrote:

"Im already sold on Shutterstocks long term view. Im contributor 249 and am back as an independent contributor after a stint as an exclusive.

I see the recent deal between Getty and Google to put nearly 6,000 free stock images including many on Shutterstock and other agencies as a massively damaging move, not only to contributors but also to other agencies.

The images were stripped of copyright and any future earning power virtually gutted thats the damage to the copyright holders.

I see this move as a shot across Shutterstocks bow long term, users wont pay for content they can get for free. Google Docs/Drive are being pitched to businesses, apparently successfully, not just school kids putting together a report. Theres always been free content thats not very good, but this is best selling stuff from stock agencies. Now its only 6,000 images but Getty says theyre going to do more.

I want Shutterstock to continue to grow, as do a lot of other contributors who make very good money courtesy of your business idea and how youve nurtured it. I see this Getty Google deal as bad news for much more than just their remaining exclusive contributors"
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 19:48 by jsnover »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2013, 11:49 »
+1
He makes some good points. And the more GI/IS destroys the relationship with its contributor base the more people will agree and change their business model to independence. And more new contributors will avoid exclusivity.

Seeing that exclusive content seems to be GI/IS's key feature I wonder what content they plan on use to replace what they're losing.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2013, 11:56 »
+2
He makes some good points. And the more GI/IS destroys the relationship with its contributor base the more people will agree and change their business model to independence. And more new contributors will avoid exclusivity.

Seeing that exclusive content seems to be GI/IS's key feature I wonder what content they plan on use to replace what they're losing.

I think the Exclusive vs. Non issue has been put to bed by this Google deal.  I tend to agree with JoAnn that this move will destroy the market for stock photos. Whether IS exclusives stay exclusive or go indie doesn't really matter.  Any of us that have images on Istock are vulnerable, and even those who don't will be affected. 

« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2013, 12:00 »
0
There are very good reasons to be exclusive or to have images exclusive to certain agencies. I posted the following in the obvious Facebook group:


exclusivity has one very large advantage (both imnage and artist exclusivity). it is much better to protect your IP if you know the file could have only been bought at agency xyz. I know I cant police the whole internet, but there is a certain amount of protection if you know that an image can only be licensed to registered buyers from a certain agency. which makes the current disaster so painful. the true usp to go istock exclusive, seems to have disappeared if the agency does not protect my ip, gives my files away for free, does not even inform me themselves if there is a problem and so far refuses to even tell me which of my files has been set free on the internet.

---

I firmly believe there are good arguments for agencies who have exclusive content and they can build a good following of customers who appreciate this.

« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2013, 12:00 »
0
Very nicely put Jo Ann. It'll be interesting to see what Jon's response might be once he becomes aware of the potential threat to his own business.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2013, 12:05 »
0
He makes some good points. And the more GI/IS destroys the relationship with its contributor base the more people will agree and change their business model to independence. And more new contributors will avoid exclusivity.

Seeing that exclusive content seems to be GI/IS's key feature I wonder what content they plan on use to replace what they're losing.

I think the Exclusive vs. Non issue has been put to bed by this Google deal.  I tend to agree with JoAnn that this move will destroy the market for stock photos. Whether IS exclusives stay exclusive or go indie doesn't really matter.  Any of us that have images on Istock are vulnerable, and even those who don't will be affected.

And that's why I'm evaluating other opportunities for earning money with photography. The future of stock and earnings model doesn't really seem to be headed in the right direction for contributors.

But for stock agencies, Google, and other businesses it's probably still a fantastic opportunity with plenty of room to make a fortune.

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2013, 12:06 »
+1
@ cobalt ~
You must have had better luck with iStock protecting your IP than I've had. Like I said elsewhere on this forum, I've still got two misused images that I've told them about multiple times still live on the web - one editorial file being used commercially, and one watermarked editorial file on an eBay seller's page.

The only slight consolation is that CR told me I'd have no personal liability for these misuses, but that might change if the owner of the content of the files ever sued. There's probably a clause in the ASA which they can interpret to mean I'd be on my own.

True, sometimes I've written to them and about two months later, the image is taken down. But when I've contacted people directly (which oddly they don't want us to do), they take it down immediately. The score for people legitimately buying a previously-misused file is 0 to me, 0 to CR.

« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2013, 12:12 »
0
I firmly believe there are good arguments for agencies who have exclusive content and they can build a good following of customers who appreciate this.

I believe that only helps the agency in the long run, not contributors (indies or exclusives), when we are talking about an open market with many successful agencies and fair as Jon said its a much better deal to all of us, iStock is the perfect example to see how exclusivity is a failure even if some still do well, best match and different pricing over tons of collections are just few examples I can remember now, sure buyers want very good content but I don't think they want exclusives files because even exclusives files aren't exclusive because they are purchased by many buyers

« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2013, 12:21 »
+1
@sue,

istock promptly had two files removed when somebody uploaded them as their own content on different agencies as sellable stock. They were gone in less than 24hours.

And last year I found content from istock and getty being presented as personal content on flickr and available in large sizes and they got taken down very fast as well.

So yes, I have had very positive experiences with istock support for CE.

I really am a big fan of exclusivity, to me the offset in profits can easily be balanced by less legal costs.

Obviously this was before MS received my "promotional images" and spread them to UNREGISTERED buyers around the globe over 1.3 million times. I mean, did I even mention this before...and I am prepared to mention this over a million times until istock finally gives me a full list of files they have in the Microsoft deal.

It is completely unprofessional that it was contributors that alerted me to the free distribution and not my agent distributor. And it is totally unacceptable that they havent provided the affected artist with a full list of their files IMMEDIATLY when asked for. They should have told us years ago, when the deal went wrong and they realized they couldnt stop what happened.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 14:54 by jsnover »

« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2013, 12:51 »
-10
Total BS! its worked perfect for 30 years, most people here have only micro to compare with, thats all theyve done, thinking its the only photography there is.
The reason it doesnt work is because micro-agencies ABUSE! the exclusivity asd on both sides of the fence Esclusives and Indies.

You have to be a bit longer in the tooth, takes more then 7 years in micro to be able to compare or make a judgement and btw, how old is Oringer? has he been around in the REAL world of stock-agencies, not micro.

« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2013, 12:52 »
+1
Here is one Jo Ann, a Schmid Christophe image of the swimmer Image ID: 38217505

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=38217505

Google
file: 93177937.jpg
copyright: n/a
photographer: Christophe Schmid

« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 12:57 by cmannphoto »

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2013, 12:55 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 13:52 by alexmk »

« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2013, 13:02 »
+6
Total BS! its worked perfect for 30 years, most people here have only micro to compare with, thats all theyve done, thinking its the only photography there is.
The reason it doesnt work is because micro-agencies ABUSE! the exclusivity asd on both sides of the fence Esclusives and Indies.

You have to be a bit longer in the tooth, takes more then 7 years in micro to be able to compare or make a judgement and btw, how old is Oringer? has he been around in the REAL world of stock-agencies, not micro.

now Oringer means nothing? you need to stop complaining, really man! why don't you quit all micro agencies and leave us talking about micro? we are in a microstock forum ;D

« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2013, 13:05 »
+1
OK, Shutterstock is the volume leader, but they play only in the lower end of the market.
There is much more money to be made in stock photography. If they want stay a leader in the long term, they must play in all segments of the market as Getty does. There are buyers with projects that require photos with a higher production value and they are ready to pay for this.
I don't understand why they don't start a macro agency or buy an existing one.
Shutterstock has a very large customer base and among these buyers certainly there are some who also have projects requiring photos that are not available all over the internet.

Shutterstock could have a separate macro site with a different brand name. The search results from the macro site could be displayed on the main Shutterstock site e.g in a sidebar. The subscriber should have the option to deactivate the macro sidebar, so there is no confusion like on iStock and no need for filters.

There are many disappointed Getty contributors, so now would be a good time to step in. I don't understand why they are so complacent or play with some strange sites like the tutorials site, when they probably have the resources to challenge Getty in all segments.

Also, they need a fine-art site to compete with (Getty-owned?) art.com and allposters.com.
There is much more money in photography than selling low-cost tomatoes and handshakes.

« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2013, 13:15 »
-5
Total BS! its worked perfect for 30 years, most people here have only micro to compare with, thats all theyve done, thinking its the only photography there is.
The reason it doesnt work is because micro-agencies ABUSE! the exclusivity asd on both sides of the fence Esclusives and Indies.

You have to be a bit longer in the tooth, takes more then 7 years in micro to be able to compare or make a judgement and btw, how old is Oringer? has he been around in the REAL world of stock-agencies, not micro.

now Oringer means nothing? you need to stop complaining, really man! why don't you quit all micro agencies and leave us talking about micro? we are in a microstock forum ;D

Come on Luis. I know its micro but that doesnt mean conversations have to be lowered to kindergarden levels. Tho Op has only done micro but many here have experienced the good and great side of stock-photography and ofcourse we dont walk around with blindfolders.
Its all such dogmatic thinking and quite laughable actually.

best. Chris.


« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2013, 13:37 »
+3
Total BS! its worked perfect for 30 years, most people here have only micro to compare with, thats all theyve done, thinking its the only photography there is.
The reason it doesnt work is because micro-agencies ABUSE! the exclusivity asd on both sides of the fence Esclusives and Indies.

You have to be a bit longer in the tooth, takes more then 7 years in micro to be able to compare or make a judgement and btw, how old is Oringer? has he been around in the REAL world of stock-agencies, not micro.

now Oringer means nothing? you need to stop complaining, really man! why don't you quit all micro agencies and leave us talking about micro? we are in a microstock forum ;D

Come on Luis. I know its micro but that doesnt mean conversations have to be lowered to kindergarden levels. Tho Op has only done micro but many here have experienced the good and great side of stock-photography and ofcourse we dont walk around with blindfolders.
Its all such dogmatic thinking and quite laughable actually.

best. Chris.

the discussion here was never if we ever did RM or RF or RFF or RAA or RTC or RTZ, its about agencies offering exclusivity or not

« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2013, 13:58 »
-1
Total BS! its worked perfect for 30 years, most people here have only micro to compare with, thats all theyve done, thinking its the only photography there is.
The reason it doesnt work is because micro-agencies ABUSE! the exclusivity asd on both sides of the fence Esclusives and Indies.

You have to be a bit longer in the tooth, takes more then 7 years in micro to be able to compare or make a judgement and btw, how old is Oringer? has he been around in the REAL world of stock-agencies, not micro.

now Oringer means nothing? you need to stop complaining, really man! why don't you quit all micro agencies and leave us talking about micro? we are in a microstock forum ;D

Come on Luis. I know its micro but that doesnt mean conversations have to be lowered to kindergarden levels. Tho Op has only done micro but many here have experienced the good and great side of stock-photography and ofcourse we dont walk around with blindfolders.
Its all such dogmatic thinking and quite laughable actually.

best. Chris.

the discussion here was never if we ever did RM or RF or RFF or RAA or RTC or RTZ, its about agencies offering exclusivity or not

The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"  my point is, it does work and would work if it wasnt for certain agencies abusing it.
I mean thanks to IS, I would think just the very word Exclusivity would make most here go to the bathroom. The concept of exclusivity, the way it should be, should be a guarantee for its members to earn money. Thats what it used to be and still is within certain agencies.

Never mind. Its a waste to try and explain it but still.  :)

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2013, 14:20 »
+1
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"  my point is, it does work and would work if it wasnt for certain agencies abusing it.
I mean thanks to IS, I would think just the very word Exclusivity would make most here go to the bathroom. The concept of exclusivity, the way it should be, should be a guarantee for its members to earn money. Thats what it used to be and still is within certain agencies.

Never mind. Its a waste to try and explain it but still.  :)

You should practice what you preach. For many of us it has been the belief that by staying exclusive we were securing our work and the industry. It has always been disheartening to see established artists, like yourself, upload to multiple subscription agencies. Now IS appears to be fighting back by offering our work for next to nothing. Its a fight to the bottom and no one knows what will be left at the end.


« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2013, 14:38 »
0
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"  my point is, it does work and would work if it wasnt for certain agencies abusing it.
I mean thanks to IS, I would think just the very word Exclusivity would make most here go to the bathroom. The concept of exclusivity, the way it should be, should be a guarantee for its members to earn money. Thats what it used to be and still is within certain agencies.

Never mind. Its a waste to try and explain it but still.  :)

You should practice what you preach. For many of us it has been the belief that by staying exclusive we were securing our work and the industry. It has always been disheartening to see established artists, like yourself, upload to multiple subscription agencies. Now IS appears to be fighting back by offering our work for next to nothing. Its a fight to the bottom and no one knows what will be left at the end.

I have been exclusive in the RM- Getty-house-collection, stones, image-bank, since 1993. I know what it means and its working perfectly.
Micro is a differant story. Difficult being exclusive in micro when every single Admin is thinking short-term profits, constantly changing sort-orders, killing off portfolios, etc.
How can you possibly secure your work in micro when at least 60% of tens of thousands do nothing but copy others work and the editors/reviewers seem to just love it, accepting it.
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

aspp

« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2013, 14:45 »
+1
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?

Poncke

« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2013, 14:55 »
0
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.


The link is broken


Poncke

« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2013, 15:05 »
0
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?
ROFLMAO !!! Never seen someone  contradict himself that fast in the same thread.

« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2013, 15:06 »
0
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.


The link is broken


http://digitalbristles.com/temp/Oringer-twitter.jpg


« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2013, 15:14 »
0
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?
ROFLMAO !!! Never seen someone  contradict himself that fast in the same thread.

Well you havent seen much then. I was just taking exclusivity a bit further and on a broader scale then just micro. Thats all. Ofcourse I forgot. Its strictly a micro forum. Appoligies for that.

ShadySue

« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2013, 15:24 »
+2
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"
Exclusivity does work but not on a micro platform.

The blog post is entitled "Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

So you agree with him. Which bit is BS ?
ROFLMAO !!! Never seen someone  contradict himself that fast in the same thread.

Well you havent seen much then. I was just taking exclusivity a bit further and on a broader scale then just micro. Thats all. Ofcourse I forgot. Its strictly a micro forum. Appoligies for that.

The clue is in the name of the forum.
Another clue was in the name of the post by JO.

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2013, 15:28 »
0
And FWIW, I don't agree with JO's ideas.
The reason it doesn't work is that when you're exclusive, it's easier for an agency to shaft you.
If you have your images over ten agencies, it's easier to drop one of them.

The disadvantage of independence is that if all the images are on all the agencies, the only difference can be price (leading to a race to the bottom) or search.

Search is partly the responsibility of the contributor, but spam and ignorance are rife on all sites.  SS has some very good search results, often muich better than iStock's since iS ditched BM2, but in other searches they're just as spam/ignorance ridden.

« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2013, 16:05 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2013, 16:07 »
0
.

« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2013, 16:12 »
+1
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

Pretty much most of us could provide that link ... but it surely it should be ClaridgeJ himself who owns up, I mean delights us with such an experience.

« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2013, 16:13 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

Heck! Im not the only one, youve got experienced ports like Lisa, Joann, Luis, gostwyck, Pauls, there is a whole string of them. For whatever its worth. go to SS and search,  chris56, pseudo for lagereek  btw.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 16:16 by ClaridgeJ »

« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2013, 16:17 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.

Heck! Im not the only one, youve got experienced ports like Lisa, Joann, Luis, gostwyck, Pauls, there is a whole string of them. For whatever its worth. go to SS and search,  chris56, pseudo for lagereek  btw.

take me out of there, not that I wouldn't want too but nah ;D

Poncke

« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2013, 16:21 »
+1
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.
You might be surprised in what you are going to find out, but its some quality stuff for sure.

« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2013, 16:32 »
0
got it. thx
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 16:43 by dreamstock »


« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2013, 16:43 »
+5
did he not make a statement that he was leaving ms?

'Tis a rare week that he does not declare so!

« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2013, 18:03 »
0
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.
You might be surprised in what you are going to find out, but its some quality stuff for sure.

It is indeed.

« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2013, 19:50 »
0
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.


The link is broken


Should now be OK - sorry.

Ed

« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2013, 20:25 »
+1
Nonsense.

Quote
Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years.

They haven't sold a darn thing.  They've licensed (rented) the use of other people's assets.  They are in the business of licensing OUR intellectual property.

« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2013, 20:35 »
-1
:
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 04:08 by gostwyck »

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2013, 20:38 »
0
To be exact, they sell licences to use stock files.

Ed

« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2013, 21:30 »
0
Nonsense.

Quote
Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years.

They haven't sold a darn thing.  They've licensed (rented) the use of other people's assets.  They are in the business of licensing OUR intellectual property.

Nonsense? You idiot. You don't generate sales of $160M per annum without having "sold a darn thing".

I challenge you to create the same steadily rising income for thousands of photographers with or without "selling a darn thing".

Let me be clear - SHUTTERSTOCK DOES NOT SELL ASSETS.

I know it's hard for the groundlings to grasp.  Shutterstock licenses intellectual property.  Synonyms for license => RENT or LEASE.  If they're SELLING your intellectual property, then it isn't yours after you sell it.

Get it through your head - YOUR intellectual property that YOU create is YOURS and nobody else's.  Unless you are creating that property on someone else's behalf in the form of an employee relationship, YOU will own that property until at least 70 years after YOUR death unless you specifically agree to sell it.

Unless I'm missing something, Shutterstock has not modified their contributor agreement to state that they are selling YOUR copyrights.  If you think otherwise, then YOU'RE the idiot. 

EmberMike

« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2013, 21:44 »
0
...exclusivity has one very large advantage (both imnage and artist exclusivity). it is much better to protect your IP if you know the file could have only been bought at agency xyz...

Right, they have that one advantage. But that one thing isn't enough to help me pay the mortgage with warm and fuzzy feelings about being with a single agency who can better react to infringements. Like most people, I pay my bills with money, and I make a heck of a lot more money by working with multiple agencies. I would not be doing this full-time if I were exclusive. It would be impossible to survive.

If IP protection is sealing the deal on exclusivity for anyone, I think those people need to seriously reassess their priorities.

« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2013, 23:54 »
+1
Which is exactly what everyone is doing...very sadly so...

Poncke

« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2013, 13:05 »
0
Nonsense.

Quote
Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years.

They haven't sold a darn thing.  They've licensed (rented) the use of other people's assets.  They are in the business of licensing OUR intellectual property.

Nonsense? You idiot. You don't generate sales of $160M per annum without having "sold a darn thing".

I challenge you to create the same steadily rising income for thousands of photographers with or without "selling a darn thing".

Let me be clear - SHUTTERSTOCK DOES NOT SELL ASSETS.

I know it's hard for the groundlings to grasp.  Shutterstock licenses intellectual property.  Synonyms for license => RENT or LEASE.  If they're SELLING your intellectual property, then it isn't yours after you sell it.

Get it through your head - YOUR intellectual property that YOU create is YOURS and nobody else's.  Unless you are creating that property on someone else's behalf in the form of an employee relationship, YOU will own that property until at least 70 years after YOUR death unless you specifically agree to sell it.

Unless I'm missing something, Shutterstock has not modified their contributor agreement to state that they are selling YOUR copyrights.  If you think otherwise, then YOU'RE the idiot.
What about selling the licence? Thats a sale. So they sold stuff. They didnt sell the file, but they did sell the licence to use it.


« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2013, 14:54 »
0
SS sells a service, not a product.   I have a little problem with calling a service an "asset".   In a strictly grammatical sense, one could say they sell assets in the same sense that Ticketmaster sells tickets. 

Oringer's claim to be selling "assets" strikes me as just another sign that these agencies are gradually starting to think they somehow own the content on their servers and can sell it any way they see fit, as Getty is now doing with images on IS. 



« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 15:03 by stockastic »

Poncke

« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2013, 15:05 »
0
SS sells a service, not a product.   I have a little problem with calling a service an "asset".   In a strictly grammatical sense, one could say they sell assets in the same sense that Ticketmaster sells tickets. 

Oringer's claim to be selling "assets" strikes me as just another sign that these agencies are gradually starting to think they somehow own the content on their servers and can sell it any way they see fit, as Getty is now doing with images on IS.
In financial terms asset is used correctly I think

Quote
In financial accounting, assets are economic resources. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).[1]
The balance sheet of a firm records the monetary[2] value of the assets owned by the firm. It is money and other valuables belonging to an individual or business.[1] Two major asset classes are tangible assets and intangible assets. Tangible assets contain various subclasses, including current assets and fixed assets.[3] Current assets include inventory, while fixed assets include such items as buildings and equipment.[4]
Intangible assets are nonphysical resources and rights that have a value to the firm because they give the firm some kind of advantage in the market place. Examples of intangible assets are goodwill, copyrights, trademarks, patents and computer programs,[4] and financial assets, including such items as accounts receivable, bonds and stocks.

« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2013, 15:51 »
0
In financial terms asset is used correctly I think

Quote
In financial accounting, assets are economic resources. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).[1]
The balance sheet of a firm records the monetary[2] value of the assets owned by the firm. It is money and other valuables belonging to an individual or business.[1] Two major asset classes are tangible assets and intangible assets. Tangible assets contain various subclasses, including current assets and fixed assets.[3] Current assets include inventory, while fixed assets include such items as buildings and equipment.[4]
Intangible assets are nonphysical resources and rights that have a value to the firm because they give the firm some kind of advantage in the market place. Examples of intangible assets are goodwill, copyrights, trademarks, patents and computer programs,[4] and financial assets, including such items as accounts receivable, bonds and stocks.

I'm not a lawyer or an  accountant but I'd say SS negotiated an agreement on behalf of an owner of IP, granting limited rights to use that IP.   I wouldn't see that as an 'intangible asset' because it's not something that can be re-sold (although in some sense it would transfer along with other business assets in the event the business is sold).   

I could be wrong in some narrow legal sense, but to me Oringer's use of "asset" seems pretentious and disingenuous.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 15:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2013, 03:55 »
0
I think the main reason why SS don't have an exclusive images option is because they would have to pay us more commission.  I'd love them to have image exclusivity, not contributor exclusivity.  Now I've virtually left istock, the vast majority of my RF earnings are from SS.  It's a shame that I can't get a higher commission from them.

I would feel more comfortable if there was a way to boost commissions with SS.  It looks like they'll be dominating the microstock market in years to come and they will be free to cut commissions, if they want to.  So I'm forced to look at making more money elsewhere, as I don't want to rely on my non exclusive earnings with SS.

« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2013, 04:29 »
+2
I think the main reason why SS don't have an exclusive images option is because they would have to pay us more commission.  I'd love them to have image exclusivity, not contributor exclusivity.  Now I've virtually left istock, the vast majority of my RF earnings are from SS.  It's a shame that I can't get a higher commission from them.

I would feel more comfortable if there was a way to boost commissions with SS.  It looks like they'll be dominating the microstock market in years to come and they will be free to cut commissions, if they want to.  So I'm forced to look at making more money elsewhere, as I don't want to rely on my non exclusive earnings with SS.

Did you even read Oringer's blog? They won't pay extra for exclusive images/contributors because there is no 'added value' in it, either to SS or to their customers. What does add value is the speed and accuracy of search results. SS are in business to provide a better service than their competitors, not exclusive products. That's one of the many strategic areas where IS got it wrong and SS got it right.

There would be no point either in SS making the same mistake as other agencies, in cutting commissions once they got to the top. If they want to continue to dominate the industry then they are best sticking to the business plan that got them there in the first place. You can be very quickly knocked off the top perch, as Istock have recently demonstrated. If the other agencies had any sense they would be following SS's lead __ not the other way around.

« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2013, 06:07 »
+6
Yes I did read the blog but I think exclusive images with istock do have added value, as buyers have been willing to pay more money for them.  If istock had been managed properly and not in the shambolic way they have been in the past few years, they might be the dominant site by now.  I think it's not been a fair fight between istock and SS in recent years because the istock owners don't seem to care or are incapable of running the site properly.  If anything, they have done all they can to destroy istock, like sending buyers to Thinkstock.  SS has been run well and has taken full advantage of isock's downfall.

SS don't need exclusive images now because all they have to do is not screw up and they will get more and more buyers.  They could end up dominating the market and it would be like being exclusive for us but without the extra commission.

« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2013, 06:10 »
+1
Yes I did read the blog but I think exclusive images with istock do have added value, as buyers have been willing to pay more money for them.  If istock had been managed properly and not in the shambolic way they have been in the past few years, they might be the dominant site by now.  I think it's not been a fair fight between istock and SS in recent years because the istock owners don't seem to care or are incapable of running the site properly.  If anything, they have done all they can to destroy istock, like sending buyers to Thinkstock.  SS has been run well and has taken full advantage of isock's downfall.

SS don't need exclusive images now because all they have to do is not screw up and they will get more and more buyers.  They could end up dominating the market and it would be like being exclusive for us but without the extra commission.

Good post and its all true. :)

rubyroo

« Reply #54 on: January 15, 2013, 06:10 »
+2
SS don't need exclusive images now because all they have to do is not screw up and they will get more and more buyers.

Yes - that's exactly what I've been thinking.  Must be comforting to know that you don't have to do anything.  Just wait for your major competitor to make yet another predictable f*** up.

« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2013, 06:53 »
+3
Yes I did read the blog but I think exclusive images with istock do have added value, as buyers have been willing to pay more money for them.  If istock had been managed properly and not in the shambolic way they have been in the past few years, they might be the dominant site by now.  I think it's not been a fair fight between istock and SS in recent years because the istock owners don't seem to care or are incapable of running the site properly.  If anything, they have done all they can to destroy istock, like sending buyers to Thinkstock.  SS has been run well and has taken full advantage of isock's downfall.

SS don't need exclusive images now because all they have to do is not screw up and they will get more and more buyers.  They could end up dominating the market and it would be like being exclusive for us but without the extra commission.

SS and IS are effectively in different businesses. SS is selling a service, so it's important for the products that are supplied with that service be valued the same. Istock, on the other hand, was genuinely trying to sell pictures and they thought that different pictures could be priced differently dependent on either their quality and/or their rarity.

I think IS actually had the better business model, in terms it's potential for generating profits for both themselves and their suppliers. Unfortunately they just stretched it way too far on the price differential, the price increases and were also too mean to share the profits with their suppliers. If indie images had been priced at say X, exclusive at 2X and Vetta at 3X (and they had left the canister-based royalty system alone) then I'm sure they would be in robust health and continuing to dominate the industry.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #56 on: January 15, 2013, 07:31 »
0
Yes I did read the blog but I think exclusive images with istock do have added value, as buyers have been willing to pay more money for them.  If istock had been managed properly and not in the shambolic way they have been in the past few years, they might be the dominant site by now.  I think it's not been a fair fight between istock and SS in recent years because the istock owners don't seem to care or are incapable of running the site properly.  If anything, they have done all they can to destroy istock, like sending buyers to Thinkstock.  SS has been run well and has taken full advantage of isock's downfall.

SS don't need exclusive images now because all they have to do is not screw up and they will get more and more buyers.  They could end up dominating the market and it would be like being exclusive for us but without the extra commission.

SS and IS are effectively in different businesses. SS is selling a service, so it's important for the products that are supplied with that service be valued the same. Istock, on the other hand, was genuinely trying to sell pictures and they thought that different pictures could be priced differently dependent on either their quality and/or their rarity.

I think IS actually had the better business model, in terms it's potential for generating profits for both themselves and their suppliers. Unfortunately they just stretched it way too far on the price differential, the price increases and were also too mean to share the profits with their suppliers. If indie images had been priced at say X, exclusive at 2X and Vetta at 3X (and they had left the canister-based royalty system alone) then I'm sure they would be in robust health and continuing to dominate the industry.

First you agree with Stacey. Then you say IS had a better business model.

You may want to call the utility company to check for a gas leak at your residence.


« Reply #57 on: January 15, 2013, 07:46 »
+1
Exclusive content is only meaningfull if the exclusive content is better than the non exclusive.

and since exclusiveness is founded on an artificial competitive advantage it also bears the means of its own quality degradation over time.

So the more exclusive content for longer time, the less quality, and such renders exclusiveness meaningless.

Plus talking about exclusiveness in a RF environment is quite absurd.

« Reply #58 on: January 15, 2013, 07:47 »
+2
First you agree with Stacey. Then you say IS had a better business model.

You may want to call the utility company to check for a gas leak at your residence.

That's a cheap shot.

Why? IS still make far more money than SS, they just over-cooked it and now their sales are falling. My point was that IS's business model had far more potential to generate profits. The fact that they blew that potential with impatience and greed does not mean that the model itself was flawed.

I don't disagree with Stacey ... just because she's Stacey. That thread was full of hysterical and fuming individuals (understandly so) and Stacey had some rational points to make. I was concerned that some folk were under the misapprehension that deleting some images, or even their entire portfolio, from Istock was likely to make Getty sit up and take notice of us. It won't. There's a lot more going on behind that Getty/Google deal that we don't know about. There has to be.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #59 on: January 15, 2013, 07:58 »
0
First you agree with Stacey. Then you say IS had a better business model.

You may want to call the utility company to check for a gas leak at your residence.

That's a cheap shot.

Why? IS still make far more money than SS, they just over-cooked it and now their sales are falling. My point was that IS's business model had far more potential to generate profits. The fact that they blew that potential with impatience and greed does not mean that the model itself was flawed.

I don't disagree with Stacey ... just because she's Stacey. That thread was full of hysterical and fuming individuals (understandly so) and Stacey had some rational points to make. I was concerned that some folk were under the misapprehension that deleting some images, or even their entire portfolio, from Istock was likely to make Getty sit up and take notice of us. It won't. There's a lot more going on behind that Getty/Google deal that we don't know about. There has to be.

Was intended to be funny. I'll leave it at that and not drag this thread any further off topic.

« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2013, 08:25 »
+1
End product is exactly what Sharpshot and Paulie says. SS has had an easy ride to the top. Not taking anything away from them, they have played it beautyfully. Without the total mismanagement ( forced upon the admin by Getty ). IS would still be the market leader and by a long shot and in a sense I feel sorry for them. It cant be easy to run a company of that size with big brother constantly breathing down your neck, not asking but telling you what to do.

Paulie!  gas leaks? where?  oh yeah over there, been leaking for years now, how about putting a match to it? ;D ;D ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2013, 08:27 »
0
End product is exactly what Sharpshot and Paulie says. SS has had an easy ride to the top. Not taking anything away from them, they have played it beautyfully. Without the total mismanagement ( forced upon the admin by Getty ). IS would still be the market leader and by a long shot and in a sense I feel sorry for them. It cant be easy to run a company of that size with big brother constantly breathing down your neck, not asking but telling you what to do.
Totally agree. Another 'sky falling in' moment!

RacePhoto

« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2013, 15:21 »
+2
End product is exactly what Sharpshot and Paulie says. SS has had an easy ride to the top. Not taking anything away from them, they have played it beautyfully. Without the total mismanagement ( forced upon the admin by Getty ). IS would still be the market leader and by a long shot and in a sense I feel sorry for them. It cant be easy to run a company of that size with big brother constantly breathing down your neck, not asking but telling you what to do.
Totally agree. Another 'sky falling in' moment!

Double! Because both gostwyck and chris are right on with the analysis and they also agree. (and I agree with both of them bottom line)

People tried to warn us about that Mayan Calendar thing, Now we can see it's true.  ;D

« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2013, 15:37 »
+1
Power corrupts.


If SS does end up with a dominant position, they'll exploit it until they break things.  Competition is coming; I just get the feeling that the new competition will be worse than the old.

« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2013, 15:39 »
0
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work"  my point is, it does work and would work if it wasnt for certain agencies abusing it.
I mean thanks to IS, I would think just the very word Exclusivity would make most here go to the bathroom. The concept of exclusivity, the way it should be, should be a guarantee for its members to earn money. Thats what it used to be and still is within certain agencies.

Never mind. Its a waste to try and explain it but still.  :)

I tend to agree. There's nothing wrong with the concept of exclusivity. That said, it's never going to work with most micro agencies. They don't have enough loyalty, devotion or even money for their contributors to make it work. Their model really isn't set up that way. Really all John is doing is pointing out the inherent flaws in his model by basically saying that he can never guarantee you that you will be able to maintain a steady income or even earn an income at all.

« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2013, 15:45 »
0
End product is exactly what Sharpshot and Paulie says. SS has had an easy ride to the top. Not taking anything away from them, they have played it beautyfully. Without the total mismanagement ( forced upon the admin by Getty ). IS would still be the market leader and by a long shot and in a sense I feel sorry for them. It cant be easy to run a company of that size with big brother constantly breathing down your neck, not asking but telling you what to do.
Totally agree. Another 'sky falling in' moment!

Double! Because both gostwyck and chris are right on with the analysis and they also agree. (and I agree with both of them bottom line)

People tried to warn us about that Mayan Calendar thing, Now we can see it's true.  ;D


Well me old mates. Calls for a toast, we all agree on something. If there was a way to mail you a Scotch each, I would. Sadly computer technology havent come that far.............. yet.

Oh well. cheers!  all the best. Chris. :)

« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2013, 15:55 »
+2
There's one simple, compelling reason why no one should be exclusive anywhere:  these agencies are unstable businesses, in an an evolving (verging on chaotic) market, with business plans, prices, commissions, and contributor terms subject to change on any given day, without notice.   That's not  even an opinion - it's an observation.

You can't count on anything remaining the same long enough to justify the decision to be exclusive.   It could sound great today, and 3 months from today look like the biggest mistake you could have made.


« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2013, 16:40 »
0
There's one simple, compelling reason why no one should be exclusive anywhere:  these agencies are unstable businesses, in an an evolving (verging on chaotic) market, with business plans, prices, commissions, and contributor terms subject to change on any given day, without notice.   That's not  even an opinion - it's an observation.

You can't count on anything remaining the same long enough to justify the decision to be exclusive.   It could sound great today, and 3 months from today look like the biggest mistake you could have made.

Very true indeed! and we have all seen that happen a number of times. Although I have to say all this nonsense, ups and downs, chnging this, changing that,  well thats pretty much a micro-agency thingy.
Never experienced this with the old trads

« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2013, 12:55 »
0
Not even when you painted the Aston Martin you inherited?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4437 Views
Last post August 01, 2008, 09:31
by Dreamframer
6 Replies
3040 Views
Last post June 24, 2009, 20:00
by PaulieWalnuts
15 Replies
8660 Views
Last post September 04, 2011, 16:25
by velocicarpo
5 Replies
2376 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 10:43
by RacePhoto
80 Replies
17580 Views
Last post October 28, 2013, 15:14
by scooty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results