If Shutterstock offered exclusivity (along with new single image plan currently in Pilot phase), it is my opinion that they could take a serious chunk of iStock/Thinkstock market share because now, Thinkstock would no longer automatically have the same content as Shutterstock (Since independent iSTock contributors are now all automatically cloned on TS).

SS and exclusivity!  that would be something, wouldnt it?  I bet they would reign supreme.

How could SS offer exclusive content without charging customers more? It's not transparent, but from the way they raised royalties in the past, they always put prices up first, waited a month or so to see how things shook out, and then raised our royalty. They needed to see how download patterns were in practice given the new prices - I assume the worry is that if you put up prices then buyers will be more likely to download their full allowance which would leave you broke.

In the current market, I think SS has been the refuge for buyers who've had it with rising prices elsewhere - they offer stability in the form of a known monthly spend on images. Unless all the other agencies go on a round of price hikes, I can't see how SS could raise prices. And as for some images costing more than one download, DT's already hinted they may modify that as they've had negative buyer feedback.

I don't think there's exclusivity, even for images, in SS's future

Is no one learning anything from istock? Exclusivity at SS would be a terrible idea, and they know it.

It'll never happen, and we should all be thankful for that.

I dont get it!  why are some people here talking about low earnings, etc, or maybe they havent bother to find out about SS. A typical day for me is: 50% subs, 40% sos, at 2.85 a piece and maybe one single sale at 5.75.
approx, 3-4, ELs, per week.

Well how low is that, comparing to the others?

That`s not bad. If SS had a program comparable to Vetta and Agency with fair royalties an per image exclusivity, they could easily siphon customers away from not only iStock but Getty as well.

Is no one learning anything from istock? Exclusivity at SS would be a terrible idea, and they know it.

It'll never happen, and we should all be thankful for that.

Amen to that!  Last thing we need is the clubby, haves and have-nots, us-vs-them BS from Istock to come along and ruin SS.  SS works perfectly as-is.  

Quote from: helix7 on November 30, 2011, 10:46

Is no one learning anything from istock? Exclusivity at SS would be a terrible idea, and they know it.

It'll never happen, and we should all be thankful for that.

Amen to that!  Last thing we need is the clubby, haves and have-nots, us-vs-them BS from Istock to come along and ruin SS.  SS works perfectly as-is.  

Agree!  why should John change a perfectly working formula?  no need.

Exclusivity at Shutterstock? Please, don't even think about it.
Simplicity of Shutterstock model is the key to their success.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say.

First off...the concept of Photographer exclusivity is nothing anyone should accept. It had been introduced by istock and now leads obviously to trouble for many people bound to it. Beyond that, you put yourself into the situation that you invest all your creativity to fit one companies profile. If you want to offer material with a different profile (more creative, rare, etc.) you are blocked. To me this is a form contract binding slavery...so first we would have to specifiy of which form of exclusivity we talk about. MATERIAL exclusivity or PHOTOGRAPHER exclusivity.

Then there are some arguments:
- I do not think that a photographer would sell more exclusive material on SS than unexclusive material since I do not believe that shutterstocks buyer care about that. The concept of subscription is different. Designers want to get their work done. Fast, cheap and without any unnecessary s++t inbetween. This is a key to SS`s success.
- Photogs would earn more due to a higher percentage, but I doubt it can make up the loss of other agencies. Currently, shutterstock is my nr. 2 and makes about 30 % of my monthly earnings of stock (micro and macro). I doubt they offer a triple royalty. Shutterstock is oftenly overestimated. For many it is the biggest earner, but not for all.
- My main concern when it comes to exclusivity is trust. I do not trust shutterstock. People perceive it as a positive company but but things like removing phone numbers and telephone contributor support and locking down accounts without questioning and properly investigating is not a trustworthy behaviour. The perception of the company seems to be more based on emotion than on a business POV for many. It is a profit driven company, not your friend.
- As a buyer, I have accounts on most micro agencies and opened accounts for different companies I work with on different agencies, but NEVER on shutterstock since I have no need of a subscription plan. I only have demand for credit based accounts. I know that SS offers that too, but I think there are better options speaking as a buyer.

When I posted the original post, I was thinking more from a Shutterstock perspective, not a contributor perspective. SS is now going to be face to face with TS with the exact same content. The only differentiator will be price and TS is lower. They will need to do something to protect their market share. If not offering exclusivity then what ? (By offering exclusitivty, they would be puliing content away from iStock, Thinkstock and Getty all at the same time).

That may be true for you but I don`t think it holds true for the Macro picture. Generally speaking independent contributors upload to both iStock and Shutterstock, why wouldn`t they, these are the top 2 sites. All non-exclusive content now gets copied over to TS from IS. Yes, there are a few insignificant differences between the 2 collections but they are (will be) virtually identical. If both collections are the same, customers will gravitate to least expensive option which today is TS. All I am saying is that SS can`t sit back and do nothing.

.. SS is now going to be face to face with TS with the exact same content. The only differentiator will be price and TS is lower.

Not so. Take a look at any of the big independents and you'll see they have thousands more images on SS than on IS. Start with Yuri. On top of that there are the "rules" of iStok inspection which rule out so many things (and I'm not talking about quality here). SS doesn't follow the same rules.