MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: wut on May 26, 2012, 13:59
-
I'm just thinking what would exclusive rates be if SS indeed offered exclusivity after the IPO and under the new ownership. If the rates/royalty % would increase at a similar rate as it does at IS, we'd be getting something like:
Non Excl Excl
subs 25-38c 44-63c
ODs 20-30% 35-50%
EL 28$ 50$
And so on for SODs, sensitive licences, special SODs etc. This just reminds me of everyone saying SS is so successful because they keep it simple. Do all the new licences SODs, special SODs, sensitive licences still sound simple to you? They don't yet SS is still up, also up for most contributors. They've tested the waters with a bunch of new licences, there were no trouble because of them, in fact all contributors (I haven't read a negative opinion on them so far) embraced them with both arms and it seems the buyers are starting to dig them too. So after the successful launch of new products, they could introduce exclusivity and higher priced collection. Subs could be priced like:
regular (non-exclusive): 1 "cr" (as in 1 DL deducted from a 25/day package)
exclusive: 2
Top sheat collection: 5
And the same ratio would be applied to all the other ways of licencing except ELs (ODs, SODs etc)
That being said, I'd jump into exclusivity in a heartbeat.
-
we keep on hearing that IS exclusives get at least 3x indies, that said you are only making SS exclusivity 1.65x looking at subs, 1.69x at OD and 1.78x at EL
the rest would come from more exposure?
p.s: sub counting as 2 sales, would be 12.5 downloads... so double what I am saying..
-
we keep on hearing that IS exclusives get at least 3x indies, that said you are only making SS exclusivity 1.65x looking at subs, 1.69x at OD and 1.78x at EL
the rest would come from more exposure?
p.s: sub counting as 2 sales, would be 12.5 downloads... so double what I am saying..
I don't know how you're doing your math, but it's 15-20% vs 25-45% at IS. They also make more from more exposure as you said, actually were asking. So that's where i was coming from, as well as adding a higher priced collection. And I don't think it really matters if you can't get a round number of sales buying only exclusive content; it's just the same way with cr packs at IS.
-
we keep on hearing that IS exclusives get at least 3x indies, that said you are only making SS exclusivity 1.65x looking at subs, 1.69x at OD and 1.78x at EL
the rest would come from more exposure?
p.s: sub counting as 2 sales, would be 12.5 downloads... so double what I am saying..
I don't know how you're doing your math, but it's 15-20% vs 25-45% at IS. They also make more from more exposure as you said, actually were asking. So that's where i was coming from, as well as adding a higher priced collection. And I don't think it really matters if you can't get a round number of sales buying only exclusive content; it's just the same way with cr packs at IS.
yep, basically my maths were: 63 cents / 38 cents, 4.75$ / 2.85$ and 50$ / 28$
exclusive would be 126 cents (2x)
for sure there would be an increase in price all around and perhaps a cut in all "indies" and exclusives
-
Have you ever thought of how many images would the competition loose due to the announcement of SS's exclusivity? Millions. They'd really hurt competition, especially IS, who'd loose a great portion (most?) of their non-exclusive content. And by that a lot of price aware buyers. Does anyone know what's the ratio between exclusive and non exclusive content (not contributors)? And they'd kill most of the annoying little race to the bottom agencies. Consequently prices would go up also because of that. And we'd all be earning more. Those being exclusive, wouldn't have to bother with finding a way to "please" so many agencies (it really is tiresome for me, at times)
-
I wouldn't go exclusive with SS. They normally account for 25% of my monthly earnings. I doubt that I would earn 4 times as much with any exclusivity deal.
Not to mention the all the eggs in one basket problem.
I don't trust anybody in this game enough to go exclusive.
-
I can understand what you're saying. However they bring me 50% on average. So in the sorst case scenario, I'd make the same (only doubling my earnings there), but I' only have to deal with 1 agency, 1 set of standards.
-
SS has always been my highest earnings site but total exclusivity for RF doesn't appeal to me. It would have to be an amazing deal to get my interest. It would take a lot of time to remove my portfolio from all the sites I use. Then there's the risk that SS could be sold, like istock was.
Aren't they going to do the sensible thing and have image exclusivity instead of contributor exclusivity? If they go for contributor exclusivity, it could end up a choice between SS and istock. I like selling with several different sites and don't want to be given that limited choice. I would be so shocked if they went for total exclusivity, it just doesn't make sense now.
-
What's the big difference? You wouldn't be putting just 10% of your images up for exclusivity, now would you. So it doesn' t really matter whether is image or contributor exclusivity, you'll basically have the same amount of work to do. Same goes for all eggs in one basket. And no it's not just about you sharpshot, but so many of you cheering for image exclusivity. And there's really no difference since most would put 80%+ of their stuff in anyway.
-
SS has always been my highest earnings site but total exclusivity for RF doesn't appeal to me. It would have to be an amazing deal to get my interest. It would take a lot of time to remove my portfolio from all the sites I use. Then there's the risk that SS could be sold, like istock was.
Aren't they going to do the sensible thing and have image exclusivity instead of contributor exclusivity? If they go for contributor exclusivity, it could end up a choice between SS and istock. I like selling with several different sites and don't want to be given that limited choice. I would be so shocked if they went for total exclusivity, it just doesn't make sense now.
bigger portfolios are always hard to deal but in the end the return on agencies is more important, that said I wouldn´t go exclusive unless it is a really nice deal once I have "wasted" much time on many agencies some taking months to get payouts, it is all a question of numbers but being dependent on an agency doesn´t attract me..
-
What's the big difference? You wouldn't be putting just 10% of your images up for exclusivity, now would you. So it doesn' t really matter whether is image or contributor exclusivity, you'll basically have the same amount of work to do. Same goes for all eggs in one basket. And no it's not just about you sharpshot, but so many of you cheering for image exclusivity. And there's really no difference since most would put 80%+ of their stuff in anyway.
It's not just about you either. Until I see the deal, I have no idea what percentage of my portfolio would be going exclusive to SS. 10% might be too high. Don't forget, a lot of people do very well selling RF with the higher priced traditional sites. Lots of the bigger portfolios aren't going to be as interested in total exclusivity. Will Yuri dump his own site that he's just spent a fortune on to go totally exclusive with SS? It's easy for part timers with small portfolios only on a few sites but SS will know that they don't make most of their money. So I think they will do the sensible thing and have individual images exclusivity. Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
-
Cloudcuckooland.
-
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
Like FT. That would be best.
-
SS has always treated me well, and I earn over 45% of my returns from SS alone each month. However contributor relations may change significantly once the company has to answer to shareholders about growth every quarter. I would not consider exclusivity, if it was offered, until at least a year after the IPO to assess if there had been any changes with commission percentages, etc.
-
SS has always treated me well, and I earn over 45% of my returns from SS alone each month. However contributor relations may change significantly once the company has to answer to shareholders about growth every quarter. I would not consider exclusivity, if it was offered, until at least a year after the IPO to assess if there had been any changes with commission percentages, etc.
While I'd be earning a lot of extra dough and walk around with fat pockets because of cautious ppl. :P I think one has to take some risk in this business, in fact when it comes to business generally
-
SS has always treated me well, and I earn over 45% of my returns from SS alone each month. However contributor relations may change significantly once the company has to answer to shareholders about growth every quarter. I would not consider exclusivity, if it was offered, until at least a year after the IPO to assess if there had been any changes with commission percentages, etc.
While I'd be earning a lot of extra dough and walk around with fat pockets because of cautious ppl. :P I think one has to take some risk in this business, in fact when it comes to business generally
Yes, I took a similar risk at IS. Then September 2011 happened. :P
But I agree with you. Almost any worthwhile investment requires you to take a risk which others are not willing to take.
-
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
Like FT. That would be best.
Nothing could be worse than "like FT"
-
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
Like FT. That would be best.
Nothing could be worse than "like FT"
DT ;)
-
As most people are probably aware, iStockphoto is planning to move E+ files to the main Getty site. If that works as well as the Vetta transfer then it is likely to mean considerable extra income for many contributors. Perhaps they will do the same with Photo+ at some point. In which case I would guess that would be quite a thing for many contributors.
This SS exclusivity thing is pure speculation too. So my totally speculative guess is that if it were to happen it would be the work of a small number of top drawer factory style contributors effectively under contract for new work. That might genuinely represent a signature premium collection.
-
As most people are probably aware, iStockphoto is planning to move E+ files to the main Getty site. If that works as well as the Vetta transfer then it is likely to mean considerable extra income for many contributors. Perhaps they will do the same with Photo+ at some point. In which case I would guess that would be quite a thing for many contributors.
This SS exclusivity thing is pure speculation. So my totally speculative guess is that if it were to happens it would be the work of a small number of top drawer factory style contributors effectively under contract for new work. That might genuinely represent a signature premium collection.
Can you elaborate on that? Why wouldn't it be the same as on IS (with A/V)?
And yes, E+ selling on Getty sure sounds nice and lucrative
-
This is just a hallucination .. isn't it.?. ;D
Patrick.................................? am I Patrick...?............ ;D
-
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
Like FT. That would be best.
Nothing could be worse than "like FT"
DT ;)
Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.
-
I don't see any reason what can be benefit of exclusivity for mainly subscription site... Does it is mean more money to exclusive contributor, less in agency pocket...?
Also, from customer's point of you, there is no difference if image is from ex. or non-ex. ,in microstock world.
Every exclusivity is always threat for us non-ex. contributors...
Because every agency probably would prefer to reduce our part of earnings, not their, to reward the exclusivity .....
-
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
Like FT. That would be best.
Nothing could be worse than "like FT"
DT ;)
Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.
They've both cut commissions twice and I make more at DT. That being said, what I originally meant (as you know anyway) is that I like FT's approach to exclusivity, they give you a choice (contrary go every other agency)
-
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.
Like FT. That would be best.
Nothing could be worse than "like FT"
DT ;)
Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.
Contributors pay in part towards other contributors referral money. Something which apparently DT were supposed to have implemented a while back, but only got round to doing recently.
-
So it looks like no one would bite into exclusivity? My only reservation are the inconsistent inspections, but then again, we'd probably have our own inspectors, just like exclusives do at IS.
-
Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.
Doesn't DT automatically transfer nonselling files to it's free section (over 100,000 images now), they lock your images in for 6 months then change the rates they pay and you cannot take your images off if you think the new rates are unfair ("it's in the TOS"), they encourage using pinterest, they buy the copyright of artists images for $25 (probably naive contributors are to blame just as much for this one but it still seems wrong to me).
-
Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.
Doesn't DT automatically transfer nonselling files to it's free section (over 100,000 images now), they lock your images in for 6 months then change the rates they pay and you cannot take your images off if you think the new rates are unfair ("it's in the TOS"), they encourage using pinterest, they buy the copyright of artists images for $25 (probably naive contributors are to blame just as much for this one but it still seems wrong to me).
I've never heard about that (bold text)
That being said, 6 month lock in on top of poor sales and cuts is enough for me to not like them. I've stopped my ULs there, although I reached a BME last week. But it's still just 6% of what I made at SS this month and it's, at its current rate, not going to be a BME like it is at DT (it's going to be a 2nd BME)
-
And another really good thing would or at least could (I don't really see it not happening) come out of it and no one really thought of it; increase in royalties, at least exclusive ones. Yes you've heard it right! Let me explain. If SS were to announce exclusivity, I'm sure lots of ppl (non exclusives) would jump into it. Meaning they'd pull their ports off of all other sites. It would hurt IS, since it would loose a lot, if not most of their cheap content, cheap alternative. As we know, many buyers are buying non-exclusive content (almost) exclusively. IS would have to give a good counter offer (and SS's would have to be good in the first place to draw in enough ppl), I'd say better than the old canister system was. My guess is, if SS rates were at least as good as I was guessing in the OP, IS would have to offer at least 30-50% if not 40-60% for their exclusives. And since FT and DT would loose the majority of their content, they'd have to do it as well. Smaller agencies, just basing their business on super low prices would go bust. Great, 2 birds with 1 stone. Is it would be great for the all the contributors. Prices would also go up so they would compensate for the reduction of their cut and I would only say finally. It's not the same industry it was in 2004, when amateurs were selling their lousy P&S shots (and IQ is the smaller part in the low quality of the shots, it's more about concept, composition, lighting etc)
What do you think? Can someone think (a bit) out of the box? Instead of just talking about exclusivity and saying why you wouldn't go along with it, about cuts and all the negativity. Can I make you think? Just this once? Pls! :)
-
What do you think? Can someone think (a bit) out of the box? Instead of just talking about exclusivity and saying why you wouldn't go along with it, about cuts and all the negativity. Can I make you think? Just this once? Pls! :)
I wouldn't go exclusive there (the numbers never would add up), but I think it could be a positive thing by isolating some or a lot of my competition to exclusive on SS or IS. It probably would improve my numbers on other sites or allow for more leverage with those agencies.
-
What's the big difference? You wouldn't be putting just 10% of your images up for exclusivity, now would you.
Sure I would! Why not? This whole thing of contributor exclucsivity is to me like modern slavery. A totally disgusting Getty concept.
-
I wouldn't go exclusive there (the numbers never would add up), but I think it could be a positive thing by isolating some or a lot of my competition to exclusive on SS or IS. It probably would improve my numbers on other sites or allow for more leverage with those agencies.
See, yet one more positive thing would come out of it. Looks like a win-win situation ;)
-
See, yet one more positive thing would come out of it. Looks like a win-win situation ;)
The downside could be that it might hasten that tipping point that I think SS is on a collision course with. That point where there is so much content that nobody can sell enough volume to make enough money for it to be worth their effort. It's just a theory though.
-
The other thing is if SS starts rigging the search to promote either indy or exclusive content (it could go either way depending on what the bean counters think makes more sense for them). That would be the big game changer, it could kill or boost your sales overnight, and make any predictions completely invalid.
Personally I'd happily make a few of my images exclusive at SS - the ones that sell really well there and not so much at the other sites.
As I said earlier, I can't imagine they would make me an offer I can't refuse for overall exclusivity. It would cost them too much.
Although I disagree with some of the things that DT has done, I don't think they are in the same sleazy league that FT is king of.
-
They can rig it all the want, in fact the more the better, if I become exclusive. At least once, I'd benefit from search algorithm rigging :)
-
They can rig it all the want, in fact the more the better, if I become exclusive. At least once, I'd benefit from search algorithm rigging :)
If they have to pay you more because you are exclusive they might rig it so your images are buried.
-
They can rig it all the want, in fact the more the better, if I become exclusive. At least once, I'd benefit from search algorithm rigging :)
If they have to pay you more because you are exclusive they might rig it so your images are buried.
That makes no sense whatsoever, just look at IS, DT or FT ;)
-
No! actually, exclusivity is a fine thing! if done the right way, the correct way that is. Ive been exclusive with the Getty-RM since 93 and believe me, in the RM, its worked fine, no problem at all. However this is micro, totally differant ladder.
Most unfortunately, we have gone through a horror scenario of how exclusivity, should NOT be executed. Thats a great pitty since most people have come to simply hate the very word.
The fundamental rule of any agency regardless of size: pictures is their life-support, their life-blood, their entire existance depends on pictures. The big guy of today, will fall and the little guy of today will be the big guy of tomorrow. Also, many contributors are also buyers, so hurting the contributors/buyers, is not very clever.
Any agency that will respect these 3 very basic rules will be an outright winner, on all fronts.
-
No! actually, exclusivity is a fine thing! if done the right way, the correct way that is. Ive been exclusive with the Getty-RM since 93 and believe me, in the RM, its worked fine, no problem at all. However this is micro, totally differant ladder.
Most unfortunately, we have gone through a horror scenario of how exclusivity, should NOT be executed. Thats a great pitty since most people have come to simply hate the very word.
The fundamental rule of any agency regardless of size: pictures is their life-support, their life-blood, their entire existance depends on pictures. The big guy of today, will fall and the little guy of today will be the big guy of tomorrow. Also, many contributors are also buyers, so hurting the contributors/buyers, is not very clever.
Any agency that will respect these 3 very basic rules will be an outright winner, on all fronts.
What is so different? How do they approach it, what is better in their approach, what is the difference between the markets that affects exclusivity/makes it more suitable for RM?
I somehow don't think exclusivity can't be done in micro or even that it makes no sense (like so many other ppl said it it this and other threads).
I think the main point (for the agency) is to take as much life-blood as you put it, from the other agencies. Not having something others don't like we can hear all the time. It may sound as the same thing, but it's not. And SS could do it in a big way, if they'd put a great deal for contributors on the table. Shooting both barrels of a double barrel shotgun (image&total exclusivity), could hurt a lot of competitors and make up for the lost part in their cut. With higher priced collection and raising prices overall, they'd make an additional profit.
-
No! actually, exclusivity is a fine thing! if done the right way, the correct way that is. Ive been exclusive with the Getty-RM since 93 and believe me, in the RM, its worked fine, no problem at all. However this is micro, totally differant ladder.
Most unfortunately, we have gone through a horror scenario of how exclusivity, should NOT be executed. Thats a great pitty since most people have come to simply hate the very word.
The fundamental rule of any agency regardless of size: pictures is their life-support, their life-blood, their entire existance depends on pictures. The big guy of today, will fall and the little guy of today will be the big guy of tomorrow. Also, many contributors are also buyers, so hurting the contributors/buyers, is not very clever.
Any agency that will respect these 3 very basic rules will be an outright winner, on all fronts.
What is so different? How do they approach it, what is better in their approach, what is the difference between the markets that affects exclusivity/makes it more suitable for RM?
I somehow don't think exclusivity can't be done in micro or even that it makes no sense (like so many other ppl said it it this and other threads).
I think the main point (for the agency) is to take as much life-blood as you put it, from the other agencies. Not having something others don't like we can hear all the time. It may sound as the same thing, but it's not. And SS could do it in a big way, if they'd put a great deal for contributors on the table. Shooting both barrels of a double barrel shotgun (image&total exclusivity), could hurt a lot of competitors and make up for the lost part in their cut. With higher priced collection and raising prices overall, they'd make an additional profit.
Oh sure! but if you look after your own blood support, then others will slowly drain automatically, its an old adage in stock photography, since the days of Magnum. The big differance is, in micro, everyone and I mean everyone is replaceable. This is the entire problem.
The RM differance speaks for itself, much bigger productions are involved, bigger monies all over, copycats or ridiculous competition among photographers are stamped upon. Its a differant world. Im talking about the RM- house-collection you understand.
I agree, its extremely hard to make sense of exclusivity in the micro world. The micro concept simply isnt built nor constructed for exclusivity, IS, insisted and look what happend. Micro is also a short-term get rich business. I mean lets face it, none of these agency bosses plan to be around for too long, they make their millions and off they go.
-
hmmm.... considering that SS is earning around 60-70% of all my microstock income exclusivity with SS is a very appealing proposal.
if they pay between .38 and .44 at sub , 30-45% from OD ,EL and others probably i will go with them....
P.S. i believe the first step ( if they want to implement a contributor exclusivity program) will be some sort of image exclusivity ( to see how the market will respond).
-
One way around the tedious business of removing portfolios for those of us who have them scattered everywhere would be to have exclusivity for RF from the date you sign up. So we could leave our old portfolios that we've invested time uploading on the other sites. We wouldn't have to wait for the lock-in periods to run out with the other sites. If exclusivity isn't working, we wouldn't have to re-upload everything.
If they did that and had a good commission hike, I might be interested.