MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Oringer Blog: Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.  (Read 15791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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
8662 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
17597 Views
Last post October 28, 2013, 15:14
by scooty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results