Yuri threw this out there and I think it's an interesting and challenging topic:

If SS was to offer exclusivity (full exclusivity in the micro RF market, NO image exclusivity) who would put all their eggs in SS's basket?

I can't and I won't (at this point...)

Here is Yuri's forecast:

... I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?

no, not even if they pay 2$/sale and 1$/upload

No.  I toyed with the idea of exclusivity.  Was glad I held back at the time, and I don't see anything that would persuade me to be exclusive anywhere at this point.  

FWIW, I don't think anyone, including Yuri, really expects SS to go that route.  He's just opened his own personal agency, so clearly he is not considering putting his eggs exclusively in anyone else's basket.  

Please re-read my first post. Sorry for the confusion.

I would love image exclusivity but not total exclusivity!

It's not going to happen so pointless asking. SS's IPO will not change it's business model. They're not going to take the actions that have made other agencies less successful __ even if 'Yuri' thinks they might.

I think Yuri is right on this one.  SS has said they want to compete with IS on premium images, how else will they get those.  If the images are offered at every other site I don't think they can call them premium or price them accordingly.  Also I'm not so sure IS is less successful now, they most likely paid out 3x more than SS in 2011 while lowering royalties, my guess is they are doing pretty well.

Image exclusivity,  for sure.

You say contributor exclusivity, but what Yuri and others talked about sounds more like image exclusivity.

I doubt they would be willing to offer what it would take for me to go exclusive. I could see a few images being exclusive, and if those work well I could see more.

I wonder how radically this would change the search algorithm too, I hope it doesn�t turn into a catastrophe, like gostwyck said its quite pointless to do this exercise

They very well may go with image exclusivity.  The other thread quoting Jon Oringer seems to suggest that it is being considered.  

If they decide to go that route, I am confident they will do it in a more measured way, hopefully avoiding the pitfalls of other sites that have tried it (old or inferior content, inconsistent reviews, similars in main collection, search engine rigging, etc. ).  

However it is still risky.  They will potentially be sacrificing the biggest draw they have, IMO - the simplicity of their site and their system.  

Post Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:24 pm        

Why going exclusive with another agency is a bad idea:

1) You will be just another exclusive among hundreds vying for the same resources from one company. You can't go to another company to complain- you are stuck with a single channel.

2) Competition is good for the industry and YOU! Let's say you don't like the way they are treating a certain rule/idea/etc. You have nowhere to go! At least you can use your vote by concentrating your efforts on another agency until the other one gets back in line. Why give up your voting power? In fact, these other agencies don't even let you talk about other stock agencies on their forums. You give up a lot to go exclusive.

3) Why sell your photos in one place for just a 10% increase at that one agency? Tons of photographers are telling me every day that they make more with ShutterStock than anywhere else! Why not make cash here, AND everywhere else?

4) Staying with ShutterStock means being part of something new and changing. We consider all of your suggestions - and implement them back into the system as quickly as we can. What happened when we weren't processing photos fast enough? We hired a night reviewer who worked on Christmas Eve! What other agency will review your photos on a major holiday?

5) I don't like exclusivity -- and i don�t plan to lock anybody into ShutterStock. I think you guys should sell your photos everywhere and make as much money as possible! Besides - the model we have here is just one model... Your photos may do well here some parts of the year, and better in other places other parts of the year.

6) Other places may try to convince you that going exclusive is a good business idea. It is exactly the opposite! If you aren't convinced of that, go back to (1) and do not proceed until you agree.

7) Our traffic is increasing. Sales are increasing. If you don�t believe me, check out our Alexa Graph. If that doesn�t convince you to stay here � what will?

7) Finally, I would hate to see any of you go!

Would welcome any feedback you guys have.

Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO
ShutterStock, Inc.

Last edited by shutterstock on Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:41 pm; edited 2 times in total  

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1828&highlight=exclusivity#1828

It may be old but.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 22, 2012, 11:39

It's not going to happen so pointless asking. SS's IPO will not change it's business model. They're not going to take the actions that have made other agencies less successful __ even if 'Yuri' thinks they might.

I think Yuri is right on this one.  SS has said they want to compete with IS on premium images, how else will they get those.  If the images are offered at every other site I don't think they can call them premium or price them accordingly.  Also I'm not so sure IS is less successful now, they most likely paid out 3x more than SS in 2011 while lowering royalties, my guess is they are doing pretty well.

They will get premium images and it has nothing to do with exclusivity . You will see ...

I'd consider images being exclusively on SS as long as there was an option to remove them (with a wait, if need be), but as far as exclusive artists, been there, done that and wouldn't even consider it at this point. Especially as there's an IPO coming and thus the possibility that the SS we've known in the past is going to change - it would be prudent, IMO, to see how that shakes out before deciding.

I do hope SS doesn't buy rights to some aging rubbish from a trad agency (what FT did with their Infinitely Unremarkable collection) and offer it at a higher price. They pitch simplicity of pricing as one of their key buyer selling points - but does andresr know something we don't?

I'm beginning to wonder if this is what Bigstock will come to be used for.  That way SS could continue to function 'as is' and Bigstock could become their premium outlet.

It would be interesting if they had image exclusivity, nominated by the reviewers, allowing us to opt out or in if an image is nominated.  That would keep it highly selected and targeted but still give contributors the option of whether they want to be included.  I would certainly consider specific image exclusivity at SS or BS but am very leery of total exclusivity.

speaking of the devil- I just got an email from CREStock telling me I had a sale (.25 cents) thus no way I am going exclusive to SS...

I'm beginning to wonder if this is what Bigstock will come to be used for.  That way SS could continue to function 'as is' and Bigstock could become their premium outlet.

The certainly weren't thinking that way six months back when they introduced the "bridge to bigstock" that just copies everything on an SS member's account into BS.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is what Bigstock will come to be used for.  That way SS could continue to function 'as is' and Bigstock could become their premium outlet.

Hahahahaha....they better shut down my account at BigStock then  

I upload the same micro portfolio to all the micros.  Shutterstock has less than 1/3 the portfolio of what Bigstock and DT have.


Coincidentally, I found an agency that offers image exclusivity, 50% royalties, and an agency "profit sharing plan" where your portfolio size determines what percentage of the net profit you get at the end of the year from all sales.  It's similar to a co-op.  It's a macro/traditional agency and one of it's photographers was featured pretty heavily in February when one of his images went viral.  They have image editors, they keyword your images, and (surprisingly), they communicate with you very well.  I'm not telling which agency it is...appears to be a jewell in the rough.

Same old story about independents and dependants.

If the customers want exclusively so badly, they can buy the rights.
Exclusivity is only in the interest  of the agency, not the costumers and certainly not the contributors.

Same old story about independents and dependants.

If the customers want exclusively so badly, they can buy the rights.
Exclusivity is only in the interest  of the agency, not the costumers and certainly not the contributors.

"buying rights" is an absurd dreamstime invention.

It would be interesting if they had image exclusivity, nominated by the reviewers

SS Reviewers choosing which ones they like? No thanks. They are currently "nominating" potential bestsellers with rejections.

Quote from: Tabimura on May 23, 2012, 07:35

Quote from: JPSDK on May 23, 2012, 07:14

Same old story about independents and dependants.

If the customers want exclusively so badly, they can buy the rights.
Exclusivity is only in the interest  of the agency, not the costumers and certainly not the contributors.

"buying rights" is an absurd dreamstime invention.

Well maybe the wording is dreamstimish, but not the concept.
But it is heard of that a microstocker has sold the rights and has taken the picture offline for a period of time.
Anyway, exclusivity and microstock conflicts heavily by the nature of both concepts.
Microstock is about selling masses of pop images.
The customer must search elsewhere to find a unique picture.

Compare it to books or music. People want copies of the same picture, book and music, so that it is the same. If they want unica, they buy Mona Lisa or Gutenbergs bible.

Buying rights means exactly what it sounds like - you sell the rights, relinquish the copyright, the image is not yours anymore, basta.
I don't have knowledge of any agency besides dreamstime, macro or micro to practice this license mambo-jambo.
You're probably confusing selling rights with limited time exclusivity, which is available in RM license.

I must be misunderstanding "Exclusive Image."  I think this thread is about an image being exclusive to an Agency.  That doesn't make it Exclusive to a  buyer;  wouldn't it take an RM license for an image to be exclusive to the buyer?  Isn't Exclusive Right restricted to ... say a region, country, continent ... for a stated period of time?

The only advantage I see to Exclusive Image is to the agency.  Am I missing the point?

im not getting things confused.

They say that...if you are selling your images exclusively, you get more per image.

That sounds good enough.
Sounds like an advantage.
Sounds like you earn more.
But do you?

Think again, why would they want to let you earn more. Because they get something much more valualbe in return.
And that is a trapped photographer getting 16% shares who cannot say no.

Its a honey trap. Its dependancy.

Exclusivity has to do with convincing the customer that they have to pay more for something because they cannot get it at other places.
Exclusivity has a lot to do with customers and wallets.
Problem is, that on microstock exclusivity is not needed or possible. Its a fake beakon.

Quote from: JPSDK on May 23, 2012, 11:32

Exclusivity has to do with convincing the customer that they have to pay more for something because they cannot get it at other places.
Exclusivity has a lot to do with customers and wallets.
Problem is, that on microstock exclusivity is not needed or possible. Its a fake beakon.

Yes, however, your earlier quote concerned "buy the rights" which has nothing to do with an image being available at one agency, but instead, being only available (not really) for one buyer.

Actually, it isn't a fake beacon.  If you control the availability of the item, you can control the price.  Unlike the iPad, for example, which is the same price everywhere because Apple sets the price, we cannot set the price, so putting the same content everywhere only enables the buyer to pay the lowest price they can find.

One of the reasons I never turned exclusive ( although thought about it many times), is just your statement " control the availability",  Im afraid with gazillions of similars, today thats an impossibillity.  Yes, an image might be exclusive but just down the road the buyer will find a 99% similar image, non exclusive and for a pitten of the so called exclusive image.
Unfortunately this is what micro has come to.
Buyers, thanks to forums, bad press, the internet, are very much aware of this and its beginning to take its toll.
I am sure one of the reasons my RM sales are about 100% up, is that the serious buyer knows full well that any real time exclusivity can only be bought at a higher price and not in the micro world.